“It consists in the fact that thinking often occurs without the production, manipulation, or perception of sense-perceptible signs, without which there is no use of language. Such occurrences often provoke offers of 'A penny for your thoughts.'”
Note his thesis is to prove that thinking occurs without language, and right out of the gate he simply asserts that it is so –- dishonestly. He is already narrowly defining "language" -- but see below.
He then makes an assertion: “Thinking: Whatever we may decide to call them, and however it is that we are conscious of them, there are intentional states of persons, more or less fixed or fleeting, which do not require for their obtaining that what they are about or of be perceived by, or be impinging causally upon, the person involved’”
What the heck does THAT mean? Typical academic slight of hand. If he can't blind you with his brilliance he will baffle you with his bullshit.
“Such states (t-states) of persons are often called 'thoughts', especially in contrast with 'perceptions', and being in such a state is one of the things more commonly called 'thinking'. One no more needs to be going through a change of such states in order to be thinking, than he needs to be changing his bodily position in order to be sitting or lying or sleeping.”
Another assertion. No effort is made to prove this assertion.
“Usually they flow, at varying rates, intermingled with person states of many sorts, governed by such transitional structures as inference, goal orientation, objective structures given in perception or in other ways, and elemental association of 'ideas', among others. In what follows, we shall use 'thinking' to cover both the single t-state and the flow of such states, without regard to how intermingled with other person states. “
Fuzzy academic prose at it finest. Pay no attention to the fact that he is talking pure nonsense by this point.
“Language: Sense perceptible signs or symbols are an essential constituent of language. It is always false to say that language is present or in use where no signs are present or in use…”
Ah ha. So of course, as soon as I speak of concepts, or metaphors, or any other higher level construct, I am not really using language but something else. And therefore I don’t need language to speak. See, the way this works is first he puts you to sleep with a bunch of nonsense. Then he defines things the way nobody else would define them. Then, using his personal definitions, he proves his case. TA DA!