Things get messy when people use the same words within different contexts. I personally see philosophy as being one of those fields of interest that plays a large role in sorting out such messes, whilst often also exacerbating them! — I like sushi

This is one of the songs I sing incessantly and off key in my posts - define your terms at the beginning of the discussion. There is a lot of resistance to that idea.

Thinking is not "guided." Guided by whom?
— T Clark

'Goal Directed' would have been a better way of framing it. As in, merely having a sense of the word "gradation" as possessing the taste of "blackberries" is not really teleologically significant. — I like sushi

Maybe that is a good definition of "reason" - goal directed thought. I'd never thought of it in that way. I like it and will use it at least twice a week in my posts from here on.

I just read it several times with intervals of 2 hours and now I understand ;)

You mentioned these two, explained in my own words:

(A) people who only know one cognitive mode, that is, thinking in words.
(B) people who know two modes, cognitive activity with and without words, calling the first one "thinking", and the second one differently.

I belong to (B), and I simply call the second mode non-thinking.

I will add other possible/theoretical variants:

(C) people who do not think in words at all (do they exist? Is it possible?)
(D) people who believe they do not think in words, but they would discover they do, if they practiced a bit of non-thinking (although you say some cannot, which I doubt in fact. Some proper teaching will help, plus of course the wish to learn it)
(E) people who know two modes, and both call them thinking (I am curious as to how they experience thinking without words)

[some edits in the first 16 minutes]

(C) people who do not think in words at all (do they exist? Is it possible?) — Carlo Roosen

100%. There are plenty of cases where people do not possess any language so they obviously cannot think in words if they have none.

(D) people who believe they do not think in words, but they would discover they do, if they practiced a bit of non-thinking (although you say some cannot, which I doubt in fact. Some proper teaching will help, plus of course the wish to learn it) — Carlo Roosen

I think there is likely a scale of ability as there is with practically all human attributes. Maybe for some the ability is so low as to be unworkable? I do not know.

(E) people who know two modes, and both call them thinking (I am curious as to how they experience thinking without words) — Carlo Roosen

You just said you do not call 'thinking without words' by the term 'thinking' but can do this. So, how do you experience this 'other' mode if not with words? Why do you not call it thinking?

You can answer that question yourself. Why are you curious about the answer if you have it?

There are plenty of cases where people do not possess any language so they obviously cannot think in words if they have none — I like sushi

The question becomes, do these people that have no language, do they think? Do they show intelligent behavior? Probably yes. And can that be explained by some form of concepts inside the mind, even while the person cannot speak? Hm, that is not verifyable.

I am interested in the question whether intelligence requires language. Ultimately to see if we need language to build better AI. And also if a richer/faster language could lead to higher intelligence than ours. And the underlying reason, the topic of this discussion, is that we are making a mess of the world. Truely intelligent AI could help us with that.

Intelligence is often defined as the ability to lay a causal connections between two things, in order to reach a goal. With animals the goal used in experiments is: food. The use of tools (when it is not learned behavior and cannot be explained by instinct) is a sign of high intelligence in animals.

For humans, it would be a sign of even higher intelligence, if we could share the available resources on earth such that nobody dies from hunger, without destroying the earth. That kind of thing. Collectively it seems we don't get that simple thing managed.

With language, I have a broader definition. I mean anything that happens in the mind that can explain this intelligence. That seems a silly thing maybe, but for instance we understand very little of what happens inside neural networks of, say, ChatGPT. There are no intermediate "concepts", nothing where we can point at and say: here it makes the causual connection.

These are all very pertinent questions that require multiple approaches.

Articulate your questions carefully. Contemplate the terms used and their meanings in different fields of expertise. For instance, in linguistics those who study animals are quite happy to call what bees do a 'language' but others focused in other areas of linguistics are not. It is an arduous task sifting through the detritus of words and it is necessary to make mistakes.

What I think you may just be beginning to understand (or rather understand more fully) here is that every word you type can mean different things to different people and that this then becomes exponentially more likely once these words are put in sentences, and sentences into paragraphs, and paragraphs into ...

There is a lot to focus on. Pick something and stick with it to the point where it drives you utterly insane, then switch tack and tackle the next one. Often once you have circled back around to the first thing you began to tackle it has crystalised a little and leaves you to further reexamine it AND other related ideas.

If you want to talk about Language then break that up into parts and tackle them on eat a time. If you want to tackle the concept of Intelligence, likewise.

When I asked some days ago what you hoped to get out of philosophy you said "I don't know".

If you are interested in Language I would recommend you read three books written by different people with opposing views in parallel to each other. Do not read second-hand analysis or interpretations, just read the source material -start with the Conclusions (last Chapter/Page/Paragraph) and then read the Intro. Make a comparison between them. Then read them through jumping between one then another. This should prevent you being too taken in by any one particular view over another.

I would hesitate to recommend any books because my knowledge is limited. Perhaps other can suggest THREE and look at what people suggest as three comprehensive and opposing views of this topic.

Off the top of my head I would suggest:

- The Language Instinct, Pinker (as a general introduction only).
- Any introduction to linguistics book (I have one by Anne McCabe which is alright).

Then:

- Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein.
- The Language and Thought of the Child, Piaget.
- Something about Language by Searle and/or Chomsky maybe?

More nuanced stuff:

- Poetics, Aristotle ALONGSIDE The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche. (This might be a bit too much though as it is more obscure in terms of how it relates to Language).

The gist of what I am saying is you seem serious, so do some serious work. Knuckle down rather than distract yourself with what some people online think or say. It is a place for honing a few individual nuggets or for throwing something randomly out hoping to hit something ... other than that the real understanding and progression lies in your own focused personal time and research, not loose discussions.

btw I have nothing of interest to say regarding what 'intelligence' is. You can study some neuroscience if you want and see what they have to say about it if you want. I took a passing look once, but there is nothing there for me really.

That's some serious solid advice, thank you!