Mind, Language & Cognition: O R Taheri

Omid Reza Taheri [1]

This article focuses on connections among mind, language and cognition. For such connection “intentionality”, “consciousness”, “structure”[2] and concept of “meaning” shall be discussed. The present article also examines the internal and external states of affairs.

Understanding the system of mind and its relation to “intentionality” and “language” has been the matter of debate since the times of ancient Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Going through the theoretical analysis bring us several layers which they may explain mental phenomenon; here, three layers are discussed.

The first layer is called “instinct” which is essential and has universal property. It is tied to intuition. The second is known as “intelligence”, a property which is capable of acquiring knowledge. It acts between intuition and empirical states. The third is referred to as “learning.” This property occurs when human knowledge deals with physical sensation. It is a stage where experience and behavior are formed.

Different states of mind (happiness, sadness, etc.) may have different states of activations. These depend upon time, place and method of activation. A “conscious-being” is adhered to such states of mind, without which consciousness do not occur. Therefore, as human being experiences different states of mind likewise decisions and creative aspects occur in different states of mind. But, these states of mind depend on how different layers of brain are activated. Under the activation of these brain layers lies “consciousness”. Yet, activation needs references[3] to be perceived by mind through both macro-structural and micro-structural cognition.[4]

Language is one of the most important aspects of human nature. It remains a medium for both sides of the cognition: macro-structural and micro-structural levels.[5] Since the works of Russell and Wittgenstein language has become the central study for research in Philosophy of Mind and Language. The analysis of language brought a new movement in 20th century. This movement called Analytic Philosophy which placed the problems of philosophy into logical analysis of language.[6]

There was another movement before the Analytic Philosophy which began by Brentano and Husserl called Phenomenological Movement. This movement also had strong influence on Philosophy of Mind and Language. Both “analytic” and “phenomenological” movements had great impact on Cognitive Science. The main goal of Analytic Movement was to clarify knowledge and ideas especially in metaphysical debates. The analytic philosophers tried to provide logical and scientific bases for human thinking and knowledge.

In both Analytic Philosophy and Cognitive Science researchers are engaged with “presentation of mental representation”. As smoke represents fire or a flag that represents a country, mental states represent “intentionality”. Similarly, perception represents different objects of physical world in the mind. Phenomenologists hold that “intentionality” is related to “meaning”. The intended objects are directed to mean something about the objects. But, some philosophers believe some experiences do not relate to the idea of “object-directedness” such as pain, mood and depression.

It is true that some aspects of human mental states like depression cannot be taken as intentional fact. Nevertheless, when one analyzes similar types of situations, one cannot keep them beyond any reference to the natural world. It is impossible to consider them within our closed system, because we are deeply related to the world.

The mental states, mentioned earlier, directly or indirectly, are taken into the intentional structure of our experiences; mood is a state which directs one toward something.

Russell states that the image in mind constitutes the consciousness of sensation. Such situation coupled with certain beliefs results in thinking. The image then becomes a certain “sign” with reference to something rather than itself. He believes, “Objects can exist without thought, but thought cannot exist without objects.” Contrary to Russell’s view, Meinong believes that there are three elements involved in thought process about an object. The first is “act”, the second is “content”[7] and the third is “object”. The first relates to thinking or the act of thinking. The “content” is a particular event in mind which makes difference between two objects. But, “content” should not be confused with object, because content exists in mind and is connected to the acting process. Put differently, Russell removes the concept of “act” from the mind, but Meinong considers the act of thinking central to the formation of knowledge and decision.

I believe, although Russell did not agree with the notion of “act”, he had not given sufficient reason to convince us. Despite the fact that human beings experience certain pre-biological programs[8], there is a certain property called “self-consciousness” which analyzes the acting process toward certain objects or events. This is the key property which differentiates Science from Philosophy. What science does is within a certain frame or structure. But, what philosophy does is to analyze the change in frame and structure of the basis.

In the early 19th century, Soren Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher, emphasized over the use of language and stated, “philosophy should focus on the role that language plays in cognition.” In the 20th century, language became more central in philosophical thinking. Some philosophers such as Russell and Wittgenstein used “linguistic turn” to describe philosophical issues while emphasizing on language.

The system of mind can be classified into three levels of descriptions: biological, personal and social. Biological level shows how language is related to the external world. It is concerned with the innate or genetic basis of the structure of language. Biological level is not related to the linguistic system (phoneme, morphemes, syntax, semantics and pragmatics). The states of phonological production rely on concrete basis called innate framework or scientifically known as genetic basis. This part at the primary stage of child’s development has much influence in conducting the child’s phonological process within its internal framework. As child grows up and faces new environment, conflict begins between its internal framework[9] and environmental level.

The more forces act on the neural level the more it affects the basis. A change in psychological structure leads to change in the states of phonological production. Thus, there is a close relation between environment and biological system. Both will ultimately affect the behavioral and personal levels. Personal level is involved between biological and social levels. It is the main factor in human mind and language. It is related to both external and internal world. Personal level is the main level in the development of human nature in both aspects of biological and social factors. Change in personal level will bring change in social level. Social level is a stage of interaction among the individuals. The reason behind the activities of the aforesaid levels is flexibility of the neural system through which the interaction and repetition within the same environment and social factors force to change the neural connections for a short span in certain point of time. The continuity of this will affect the fundamental basis of psychological structures. In depth level, it is “learning” and adaptation process that form language or grammatical devices within the nature of human being who does not possess it naturally but has to develop it by gradual perfection [in culture and society].

The syntactical structure of phonological formation is not concrete; it changes with respect to new environment or new adaptation. Phonological structure relies on psychological framework. Change in psychological framework changes phonological production or method of articulation. The psychological bases are entirely tied up to social and environmental factors. Both environment and society work as dynamic systems to affect each other. This gives us a proper picture. The connection among the parts of the picture implies the relation among the components. Each of these parts carries certain physical and psychological properties which transit certain states of feelings of psychological states. The psychological states possess certain energy. Such bundles of energy help to comprehend the meaning of certain objects or phenomenon. When we receive a certain picture along with its micro-states and macro-states of affairs, the micro-structural level may not be understandable in terms of macro-structural level of our cognitive system. But, it can be felt through micro-structural level of cognitive system. Every individual sees and feels the world from his/her own perspective, depending on his/her nature. The macro-structural states of affairs are known to all. There are certain things which are obvious only to specific groups of people such as solipsists. There are evidences for certain individuals who carry out thought experiments. Such individuals are aware of the facts that exist in the external world.

What is seen, heard, smelled and touched through eyes, ears, noise, hands or other parts of the body is concerned with macro-structural level of cognition. But, psychological levels (beauty, virtue, etc.) are related to micro-structural levels of cognition. In both cases, the notion of “meaning” is common. In this context, the notion of meaning has two aspects. The first is related to psychological level, i.e., honesty, beauty and virtue which are internal. The other is related to physical aspects: events and objects which are external to our body. To be specific, these internal (psychological) and external (physical) aspects are known as “sense.” The concept of “sense” consists of certain particles of a kind with certain frequencies and speed. Therefore, it can be assumed that the whole concept of language can be reduced to “sense” and sense-particles. Both macro-structural and micro-structural levels of cognition have a unique and common point of analysis which is referred to as sense-particles. The senses move within the realm and frame of experience.

Of course, our analysis of language and its relation to mental states need deeper study to see what can be and what cannot be analyzed. However, here this much is sufficient to note that since mind, language and cognition can be reduced to sense and sense-particles, it can be concluded that there is a fundamental relation and connection among language, behavior, mental states, objective and subjective world and cognition; these cannot be analyzed without one another.

Suggestions for Further Reading

1. B. Russell. History of Western Philosophy. Allen & Unwin. London & Routledge classics, 2004.
2. D. M. Borchert. Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Thomson Gale, 2006.
3. S. Gallagher & D Zahari. Phenomenological Mind: An Introduction to Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Science. Routledge, 2008.
4. S. Sarkar & J Pfeifer. Philosophy of Science. Routledge, 2006.
5. Y. Masih. A Critical History of Western Philosophy: Greek, Medieval and Modern. M Banarsidass Publishers, 2006.
6. A. Miller. Philosophy of Language. Routledge, 2004.
7. A. Stroll. Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy. Columbia University Press, 2000.

8. G. McCulloch. Mind and its World. Routledge, 1995.
9. T. Crone. Mechanical Mind: A Philosophical Introduction to Minds, Machines and Mental Representation. Routledge, 2003.
10. N. Chomsky. Language and Problems of Knowledge. MIT Press, 2001.
11. N. Chomsky. On Nature and Language. Cambridge University, 2002.
12. R. A. Wilson. Philosophy of Psychology. Routledge, 2005.
13. L. Nadel & M. P. Palmarini. What is Cognitive Science. University of Arizona, 2002.
14. L. Perlovsky. Neural Networks & Intellect: Model-Based Concepts. Oxford University, 2001.
15. M. A. Forrester. Psychology of Language: A Critical Introduction. SAGE, 1996.
16. J. R. Searle. The Rediscovery of the Mind. MIT Press, 2002.
17. M. Thomson. Philosophy of Mind. M G Hill Companies, Inc., 2003.
18. S. Schneider. Daniel Dennett on the Nature of Consciousness. University of Pennsylvania, 2007.
19. W. Seager. Theories of Consciousness. Routledge, 1999.

[1] The author is an Assistant Professor in Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Science. He holds a PhD in Philosophy of Cognitive Science and is a member in the following research centers: Institute for Research in Cognitive Science (Iran), Society for Iranian Linguists, and The Mind Network (UK). He can be contacted via email: omidr_taheri@yahoo.com

[2] Structure of mind.

[3] Internal and external objects.

[4] Macro-structural means objects exist in external world and micro-structural refers to the objects exist in the mind.

[5] Macro and micro-structural levels of cognition refer to the observable cognitive system (eyes, ears, etc.) and the non-observable: a way that mind feels certain sensation through the layers of brain.

[6] Logical analysis of language refers to the analysis of concepts which are being used based on their references.

[7] Content refers to the attributes and characteristics of an object.

[8] Pre-biological programs refer to the system of genetics such as DNA.

[9] Internal framework refers to the innate system (genetic basis).