In my dissertation I claimed that there is a difference between thoughts and language. With Sellars I concurred that human thought and language had negation, while animals could only reject. And again I agreed with Sellars that animals had meta-cognitions. Here are the questions I asked:
Explain the relation of thought and language satisfying the criteria here:
I. DESIDERATA
Any proposed theory of the relation of thought to language must be able to meet the following conditions of adequacy. Give an explanation for the pre-linguistic intelligent behavior of children. That children behave intelligently is commonly taken for granted. This is exemplified by various behaviors: the ability to discriminate and classify objects, the strategies and ‘insights’ used by children to achieve given ends. The use of tools is an obvious example. Even such seeming obvious actions as avoiding bumping into things, not tripping over things, reaching to get something, not falling from heights, must be explained. A specific recommendation would be that any proposed theory should come to grips with the findings and speculations of such child psychologists as Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky.
{1} Give an explanation for the claims of the deaf and blind, or the deaf and mute that they had thoughts prior to learning a language; e.g., the case of Helen Keller and I. Ballard.
{2} Also take into account the data available about children growing up in isolation from language, such as the case of Victor, the “wild boy of Aveyron,” who was found in Southern France in 1799; the Indian girls Kamala and Amala, who were found in Midnapur, India, in 1920; Kaspar Hauser, who was found near Hanover in 1823; and the girl Genie, who was found in 1970.
{3} Give an explanation for the seemingly intelligent behavior of animals as reported by such ethologists as Konrad Lorenz.
{4} Animals manage to move about avoiding obstacles and dangerous situations. They stalk and kill effectively. Sometimes they use tools for certain ends. And some of these tool discoveries seem to be passed from generation to generation. For example, the learned behavior of Japanese macaques of Koshima Island to wash sand from sweet potatoes and grains of wheat before eating them. Explain the communication between animals: e.g., the dance of the bees, chimps and gorillas using a sign “language,”
{5} dolphin communication.
{6} Account for the possibility of humans learning a language. How is it that humans are able to learn a conventional language such as English, while no other animals can — not even the chimps and gorillas (Washoe, Koko). What resources are needed to learn a language? Account for the existence of a distinction in our language between thoughts and language. We do make a distinction between these and describe them as if they were independent. And how do we account for such phenomena as our ability to perceive much more than we have words to express. For example, we can distinguish between various hues of colors for which we have no names. Then there is the phenomenon of not being able to express what we are thinking, or not finding the adequate words which express our thoughts. How is this possible? Distinguish, if possible, a human use of language from an ideal computer’s. Can an ideal computer be said to be intelligent? What criteria must be satisfied? Is the Turing test adequate?
{7} Some claim that the existence of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem makes it theoretically impossible for a computer to think.
{8} Relate the theory of thought and language to the findings of brain research. For example, is the theory consistent with our knowledge of various forms of brain dysfunctions, such as, aphasia, agnosia, etc.?
ChatGPT said:
A comprehensive theory of the relationship between thought and language must satisfy the desiderata listed. Below is an explanation that addresses each point, drawing on interdisciplinary insights.
I. Pre-linguistic Intelligent Behavior in Children
Jean Piaget’s theories of cognitive development provide insight into pre-linguistic thought. Piaget observed that infants exhibit intelligent behaviors—such as object permanence and goal-directed actions—before acquiring language. These behaviors suggest that thought can exist independently of linguistic expression. For instance, a child reaching for a toy demonstrates an understanding of spatial relations and causality. Lev Vygotsky complements this by suggesting that thought and language initially develop separately but later converge, with language enhancing cognitive capabilities rather than originating them.
II. Claims of Deaf, Blind, and Isolated Individuals
The cases of Helen Keller and others like Victor (the “wild boy of Aveyron”) illustrate the possibility of thought without language. Keller described her pre-linguistic experience as a “chaos” of sensations and emotions, implying a form of non-linguistic cognition. Neurological evidence supports the idea that conceptual understanding can precede language acquisition, as non-verbal neural pathways are active in sensory discrimination and problem-solving. For isolated individuals, like Genie, linguistic deprivation often impairs abstract reasoning but does not eliminate basic cognitive abilities, suggesting thought can operate independently of linguistic systems.
III. Intelligent Behavior in Animals
Ethological studies reveal that animals exhibit intelligent, non-linguistic behaviors. Konrad Lorenz’s work, along with examples like the potato-washing Japanese macaques or tool-using crows, suggests that animals employ a form of practical reasoning and learning. Communication among animals, such as bee dances or dolphin signals, indicates symbolic or quasi-linguistic systems that serve functional purposes. These findings support the view that thought is not exclusively tied to human language but is a broader cognitive phenomenon.
IV. Human Language Learning
Humans uniquely acquire complex, conventional languages due to specific biological and neurological endowments. Theories like Noam Chomsky’s Universal Grammar propose an innate language acquisition device (LAD) that predisposes humans to develop syntactic systems. Neurological studies of Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas further illustrate the specialized brain regions supporting language. Unlike animals, humans’ prolonged childhood and social structures provide rich environments for language learning.
V. Thought-Language Distinction
The ability to distinguish between thought and language arises from the human capacity to reflect on internal states. For instance, we can experience emotions or visualize scenes for which no precise words exist, illustrating that thoughts can surpass linguistic representation. The phenomenon of struggling to find the “right words” highlights this distinction. These observations suggest that language externalizes thought rather than creating it, although it may shape the complexity and form of our cognitive processes.
VI. Human vs. Computer Use of Language
While computers can mimic linguistic behavior (e.g., passing the Turing test), they lack intrinsic understanding or intentionality. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem underscores the difference: human cognition can operate beyond rigid formal systems, integrating emotions, context, and self-awareness. This suggests that while computers can simulate aspects of thought, they do not embody it in the same way humans do.
VII. Brain Research Findings
Neurological studies support the interdependence of thought and language but also affirm their separability. For instance, aphasia (language impairment) demonstrates that individuals can retain cognitive abilities despite losing linguistic capacities, while agnosia (perceptual disorders) shows the brain’s modular approach to processing information. Brain imaging reveals overlapping yet distinct regions for thought and language, supporting a dual-process model where thought can exist without linguistic expression but is enriched by it.
This theoretical framework suggests that thought is a broader phenomenon than language, existing independently but gaining precision and complexity through linguistic systems. It aligns with findings in developmental psychology, ethology, and neuroscience, offering a comprehensive account of the relationship between thought and language.
You said:
It seems that humans can negate in language; whereas non-linguistic animals can only reject. Is this true? Account for the difference
ChatGPT said:
The distinction between negation in language and rejection in non-linguistic animals is both significant and deeply rooted in cognitive and linguistic capacities. Below is an analysis of this difference and an account for why it exists.
I. Humans: Negation in Language
- Abstract Representation
Negation in human language is a symbolic and abstract act. It allows humans to express:- Non-existence: “There is no milk in the fridge.”
- Counterfactuals: “If I had studied, I would not have failed.”
- Conceptual denial: “This is not a cat.”
- Linguistic Tools for Negation
Human languages universally include mechanisms for negation (e.g., words like “no,” “not,” “never”). This suggests that negation is a fundamental cognitive and communicative tool. Language enables humans to go beyond merely rejecting physical stimuli to expressing abstract, symbolic negations about states of affairs.
II. Non-Linguistic Animals: Rejection
- Immediate Sensory Rejection
Animals can reject stimuli or situations, but their actions are tied to immediate, concrete contexts:- Refusing food they dislike.
- Avoiding predators or dangerous environments.
- Disregarding social overtures from conspecifics (e.g., a dog turning away when not interested).
- Absence of Abstract Negation
Non-linguistic animals lack the ability to represent and manipulate abstract propositions. They cannot mentally consider “this is not food” or “that is not a predator”; instead, they act based on conditioned behaviors or innate drives. This limitation arises because animals lack the symbolic representational system that human language provides.
III. Why the Difference?
- Neurocognitive Complexity
Humans have highly developed prefrontal cortices, enabling:- Abstract reasoning.
- Meta-representation (thinking about thoughts or representations themselves).
- Temporal displacement (considering past or future scenarios).
- Language as a Symbolic System
Language is a unique tool for encoding and expressing negation. It externalizes the abstract process of denying or contradicting. Animals, while capable of some symbolic communication (e.g., chimpanzees using sign language), do not develop or use symbols to represent negation as humans do. - Evolutionary Context
Negation likely evolved in humans as part of complex social and survival needs:- Cooperation and planning required denying certain possibilities (e.g., “The prey is not here”).
- Social communication benefited from the ability to contradict or refute.
IV. Examples Illustrating the Difference
- Human Negation: A child saying, “That’s not my toy” reflects a cognitive grasp of ownership and negation, transcending immediate sensory input.
- Animal Rejection: A dog refusing a toy it doesn’t want involves rejecting a physical object, not abstractly denying ownership or purpose.
Conclusion
Humans can negate because of their capacity for abstract thought, symbolic representation, and meta-representation, all of which are supported by language. Animals, in contrast, reject stimuli reactively, grounded in their immediate sensory and environmental contexts. The key difference lies in the symbolic and propositional nature of negation in humans versus the situational and reactive nature of rejection in animals.
4o
You said:
Can animals have meta-thoughts?
ChatGPT said:
The concept of meta-thoughts—thinking about one’s own thoughts—is closely tied to metacognition, which refers to the ability to monitor, evaluate, and control one’s cognitive processes. Whether animals can have meta-thoughts is a matter of ongoing scientific and philosophical debate, and the answer varies depending on how one defines and measures metacognition. Here’s an exploration of the question:
I. Evidence for Animal Metacognition
Some animal behaviors suggest they possess a form of metacognition, though it may not be as rich or explicit as human meta-thoughts. Key examples include:
- Uncertainty Monitoring
- Experiments with Monkeys and Dolphins: Studies have shown that monkeys and dolphins can indicate uncertainty. For instance, rhesus monkeys in tasks involving memory tests have been observed to choose an “I don’t know” response when they are uncertain, suggesting they are aware of their knowledge or lack thereof.
- Interpretation: This behavior implies that these animals can monitor their cognitive state and act based on that monitoring.
- Decision-Making and Self-Regulation
- Great Apes: Apes in problem-solving tasks sometimes pause, appear to “think,” or seek additional information before acting, suggesting they are reflecting on their strategies or knowledge.
- Crows and Parrots: Corvids and parrots display behaviors, such as planning and strategic tool use, that may involve anticipating the success or failure of their actions.
- Error Recognition
- Some animals, such as rats, show behavior indicative of recognizing and avoiding errors in problem-solving scenarios. For example, they may choose to repeat trials after making mistakes, suggesting an awareness of failure.
II. Limitations of Animal Metacognition
While these behaviors suggest animals might possess a form of metacognition, they are limited in several key ways compared to human meta-thoughts:
- Implicit vs. Explicit Awareness
- Animal metacognition appears to be implicit: they act in ways that suggest self-awareness but lack evidence of explicit reflection on their thoughts or experiences. For example, animals do not seem to form abstract propositions like “I think I am wrong.”
- Humans, on the other hand, can articulate and reason about their mental states (e.g., “I believe I was overconfident in my decision earlier”).
- Lack of Symbolic Representation
- Meta-thoughts in humans often rely on language to encode and express abstract reflections. Animals lack a symbolic system for representing and communicating such thoughts.
- Scope of Awareness
- Animal metacognition is typically tied to specific tasks or survival-related behaviors. It does not appear to generalize to abstract domains like self-identity, morality, or philosophical questions.
III. Theoretical Frameworks
- Higher-Order Thought (HOT) Theory
- This theory suggests that meta-thoughts require a “thought about a thought.” While animals may have first-order thoughts (e.g., “I want food”), it is unclear whether they have higher-order thoughts like “I know I want food.”
- Most evidence of animal metacognition aligns more closely with first-order cognitive processes that simulate metacognition.
- Gradualist Perspective
- Some researchers argue that metacognition exists on a spectrum. Simple forms of metacognition, such as uncertainty monitoring, may be present in animals, while more complex forms, like abstract self-reflection, are unique to humans.
IV. Philosophical Implications
- Animal Consciousness
- If animals can engage in basic forms of metacognition, it strengthens arguments for their consciousness and self-awareness. However, this consciousness is likely limited to specific contexts and lacks the depth of human reflective awareness.
- Moral Considerations
- Evidence of animal metacognition has ethical implications, as it suggests animals are capable of a degree of introspection and subjective experience, which may warrant greater moral consideration.
V. Conclusion
Animals exhibit behaviors that suggest basic forms of metacognition, such as monitoring uncertainty and recognizing errors. However, these behaviors are limited in scope and complexity compared to human meta-thoughts. While animals can likely think about their actions or knowledge in implicit ways, they do not appear to engage in explicit, abstract meta-thoughts like humans do. This distinction underscores the unique role of symbolic language and abstract reasoning in enabling rich meta-cognitive abilities in humans.
4o
O
C