Steven Brust <skzb at dreamcafe.com> writes: > It may be that my definition of "language" is too broad to be useful. > But it seems to me that it is valid to make the point that thought > occurs by manipulating symbols in our brains. I believe that the > learning of a skill involves (in part) learning the language > associated with that skill. That was my point. Now, at *some* level thought occurs by diffusing neurotransmitters through the soup. If what's in our head *actually* works anything like a "neural network" (the modern technological concept) works, I'd say that "symbol" isn't a very relevent concept to it. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/ New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info