MATT…One has to tread carefully at times in ‘life’ J there are traps everywhere!



Far from intending to be pedantic, and thank you for your amendment of “non-linguistic human thought”; But as this seems to be a forum for open discussion, let me now ask this of you good folk:



If as defined ‘non-linguistic human thought’ applies to lets say, the ‘average’ human intellect – what variables do we then apply to ‘less than average’ human I.Q? – And this is NOT being discriminatory in any way, or at least that is not my INTENTION, but lets assume a being of ‘low’ intellect does not possess the CAPACITY to think on the same ‘level’ as the ‘average’ human does; WHERE does this situate him or her in the grand scheme of things with regards to the definition of ‘non-linguistic [human] thought’?



Does that person then by definition, not HAVE the same ‘type’ of dreams because they are ‘one of degree of complexity’ [or more] in their thought process?



Having six years of experience in the past, working with all levels of intellectual disability, the question among many of us in that field remains unanswered to the fullest of satisfaction; Does a person with an atypical ‘severe’ intellectual impairment [and I don’t include ‘Acquired Brain Injury’ people in this statement but it does open it up even further for discussion] dream ‘differently’ to the ‘average’ person?  



If they have a medical standard ‘Intelligence Quotient’ of say 20, surely they could not possess the SAME level of language as
an expression of thought?  Nevertheless, they may very well have an equal level of ‘feeling’...True?



PS; No one has yet sought my definition of my theorem ‘Triple helix’ thought.  I shall wait to be invited before defining that…



Steve

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Matt Kundert
  To: moq_focus@moqt...
  Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [MF] A thirty-thousand page menu with no food?


  Steve,

  Steve said:
  This is probably a multi-pathed triple-helix 'thought' on my behalf, but
  'thought', if it's accredited as requiring a language to 'operate', would
  suggest to me that animals lets say, must also need a language in order to
  think.  And if they need a language to define objectivity, then do they not
  ALSO require vocal language in order to define the objects on which they
  think of?

  Matt:
  I should've been more careful.  When I said that I don't know what
  non-linguistic thought is, I should've said I don't know what non-linguistic
  human thought is.  After the creation of language, our thought is
  linguistic.  Or, if we ascribe the simple behaviors of the "lower" animals
  as "thought," then we should say that certain complex behaviors of humans is
  linguistic.  Typically we say that other animals are acting on instinct and
  that we, by contrast, think, but the difference is only one of degree of
  complexity.  Humans' behavioral complexity increased exponentially with the
  creation of language.  And behaving in the way we typically call "conscious
  thought" means linguistic use.

  Matt

  _________________________________________________________________
  Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
  http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

  _______________________________________________
  moq_focus mailing list
  Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
  http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_focus-moqtalk.org
  Archives:
  http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_focus-moqtalk.org/
  http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_focus_archive/
_______________________________________________
moq_focus mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_focus-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/