At 02:16 PM 8/17/2002 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >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. Deffusing neurotransmitters through the soup, as you put it, happens during a lot of activity that cannot be considered "thought" by any reasonable definition. What distinguishes what we call thought from the other brain activity? I contend that it is, in fact, symbol manipulation.