Comment by chmod775
2 days ago
"Thought is language" is a folk intuition that has been proven wrong over and over. People with severe global or agrammatic aphasia still can score higher on intelligence tasks than you'd expect - even though this data generally comes from people who suffered a stroke, which generally isn't neatly contained to one's language capability. Also, more importantly, even in people with full brain function, the language network appears remarkably unresponsive under neuroimaging when performing arithmetic, logic puzzles, or theory-of-mind tasks. Also famously music tasks: Vissarion Shebalin lost most of his language capabilities to a stroke and still completed his fifth symphony.
There's correlation, and your language network likely augments your intelligence, but as proven by millions of animals, unfortunate humans and also some less-unfortunate human infants, you really don't need language for intelligence.
Where language helps most strongly is metacognition: evidence suggests that it is severely limited without language, and I suppose that is where the common belief that thought is language comes from: the moment you try to think about your thoughts, you use language!
My theory (and this with literally no evidence) is that we use the language network for metacognition precisely because it is not that involved in primary thought. Important to note that "we" here means humans: animals appear to demonstrate metacognition even without language.
Isn't the folk intuition that "words come after thoughts"?
I agree that a stroke cannot isolate language exactly, it's not an ideal approximation of "languagelessness". I think you will find this report interesting: https://nautil.us/what-my-stroke-taught-me-236544
There is no doubt that many marvelous works and concept can be produced entirely without language. Something as complex as driving a car can be done mostly without "thinking about it", without language, without the inner monologue going over all the decision our mind is making.
What we can't do without language, is making a complex plan over time and space, beyond something like "need to fetch hidden item behind the corner to unlock box right in front of me now". The question is how much exactly does language "augment" our intelligence. Is a baby, a human that has not yet learned language, really smarter than an octopus? Or a crow, remarkably smart but interestingly not a mammal, which indicated that intelligence doesn't have to be strongly tied to some evolutionary biological feature. A human stays as "dumb" as an animal if they don't learn language.
Re: your theory, if true, why? The theory implies (though correct me if I'm wrong and strawmanning), that there is another, hidden, way of encoding these extremely complex "information bundles" for lack of another word, in our brains. Why not use that for metacognition too, then?