Back to the original post.
On language, logic, meaning, thought, truth...
With respect to identity of language with thought and possible independence of logic, consider how many Asian languages, written and learnt in Kanji or katahana, uses a different part of the physical brain when bring processed.
For many years there had been some suggestion that if people of different cultures using different languages actually were discernibly different with respect to God given rights and how theythink, then such a difference would be most manifest between Chinese/Japanese and Western cultures. Yet it's rather amazing that the same rules of inference and deductive logic are intuitively understood by both cultures.
More discernible epistemilogically, would be a difference in religious structures. Western cultures have tended to have been more Judeo-Christian than the Chinese/Japanese and the element of faith is more distinctive between their outlooks. The Japanese, without faith in God, tend to place more emphasis upon trust than upon faith.
Many philosophical foundations of the Sino-culture are trust based rather than faith based as in American culture. Americans tend to place more emphasis on winning but only as long as one plays by the rules or in a fashion whcih ultimately places faith in good. Many Japanese might also engage in agreements with Americans, but frequently theirs is trust-based, willing even to condone insider trading and 'illegal' activity provided they trust both parties in the agreement seek to win. Many Americans may also play along in that game, many Americans don't mind playing 'illegal' games, but those from Judeo-Christian beliefs tend to balk based upon faith. The differences in those cultures are based more upon 'spiritual' aspects than upon physiological and logical aspects.
With respect to identity of language with thought and possible independence of logic, consider how many Asian languages, written and learnt in Kanji or katahana, uses a different part of the physical brain when bring processed.
Yes, consider, eh? If this is true, it would indicate one obvious finding: that activity of the brain is specific to the form of a language. But then what would this indicate? Looks to me it likely tells us that while language is such a strongly regarded function and process of the mind, it is something that the mind treats as other than the substance of the mind and other than a controlling factor of the mind. If language were of the substance of the mind, wouldn't one fully formed language have a "manifold" sameness of brain operations with another language? (If I understand "manifold" relationships from a glance at tortoise's post and A-G's linked article.) And if language were a controlling factor of the mind, wouldn't the meaning and flow of words have this same "manifold sameness?" (Can I use that phrase, tort. and A-G?)
But maybe not, due to differences in things such as syntax, that cause thinking through language to be different from one language to another, so the questions include "How different are the brain patterns, using one language or another? -- How well is this measured and in what context? -- What kinds of persons provide the samples (people who speak only that language, or who speak multiple languages)? and so on.
Non-academic as I am, this is interesting stuff. Do you have further information? Links?
Still, I find Dr. Willard's semantical study to be persuasive enough: Language is not a thing which contains thoughts. But some folks "require a sign," in science or parascience, if that's a word.
For many years there had been some suggestion that if people of different cultures using different languages actually were discernibly different with respect to God given rights and how theythink, then such a difference would be most manifest between Chinese/Japanese and Western cultures. Yet it's rather amazing that the same rules of inference and deductive logic are intuitively understood by both cultures.
Right, and so processes of mind are very similar and seem to be definitively so, no matter the language, eh?
More discernible epistemilogically, would be a difference in religious structures....
Excellent observation, since this is the stuff of bases, or foundations (whether one is religiously theistic, or religiously agnostic, or religiously atheistic)