John Page

This is how you think your mind works. This is how you mentally intertwine thought and language and the interaction of society through language. This is not my view of reality - while language is a powerful communication tool permitting collaboration and an exchange of ideas difficult or impossible by any other means - it is a layer upon or beside other thought processes (see again the paper you provided a link to).

Although you don't state so, I want to avoid the implication that the source of all cultural differences is based in language. To amplify this point, examples of identical twins separated at birth go some way to showing that our interactions with the world are deeply rooted in genetics. Not a very good link but you'll hopefully get the gist . I've not seen anyone try to argue that multiple languages are gentically embedded within us. I'll readily agree that our genes contain the patterns for brain areas that carry out language functions but those genes do not perform language. Our brains think. Language is a type of thought process.

I'm done trying to give you a good definition of what language actually is - care to elaborate on your code book idea?

Cheers, John

phaedrus

Umm..let me just put it politely....get back to the conversation and dont pick it up selectively...catch you around in few days....will be travelling...

John Page

Phaedrus:

It would be helpful if you answered the points put to you in a salient manner. Guess we're both a mite frustrated... you came up with a vague definition of language ("Language => The very means moi is using to convey this thought to you"
) but seem unwilling to define the "very means".

See - just blantant refusal to make a statement as to what you believe is being conveyed by language. The only thing I have from you is "not energy".
The process of language (the means of me conveying this to you) is stimulated by a need for me to convey this. I don't think you read my prior post - the formulation of the thought to be conveyed is prior to its codification ready for physical transmission.
That, said the Water Rat, is what we are trying to establish. Please can you just answer the question?
Language and Communication are different as specified in the examples I've gived. I'm trying to get information from you so I can relate my concepts to yours.
I read this and just see you've substituted "communicate" for "language". Now, do you agree that signs and symbols are what is communicated in order for two processes of language (i.e. in two minds) to pass data, information, thoughts and concepts to each other?
Phaedrus: As should be clear from my other posts, I'm saying a "non-language thought/process" preceedes the "language thought/process" when we are talking about verbalization (as opposed to comprehension).

Safe travels.

Cheers, John

phaedrus

shall pick up this conversation later....jp