Some people feel that our brains function in much the same manner as computers. They see the human brain as a symbol manipulator. This is how we think and come up with ideas. We use rules (a sort of mental grammar) to manipulate mental 'tokens' or pieces that stand for certain objects or ideas. These rules give us the faculty to conduct relations of many different kinds between these brain tokens.

Human languages are also like this. They have symbols (that started out spoken and then moved to written) that refer to things or objects in the world. They also have sounds and related symbols that refer to a wide variety of relationships. These relationships are defined by rules which tell how a language can be meaningully composed. The rules for human languages are grammar.

Language (in the human sense) appears to be a capacity or faculty that evolved in the human brain. The connection between the two is not entirely known. Questions arise that are extremely difficult to answer, and arguments can be made for both sides. Such as, do we think in the words of our language? In other words, are the tokens and relations of our human language a parallel to the tokens and relations of our brain's symbol manipulation? Is there a brain token that is exactly analagous to the language token of 'apple'? Or are we tricked into thinking this because there is a large amount of overlap between brain tokens and language tokens? Are the language tokens incorporated into the broader and more-difficult-to-define brain tokens that appear to be of the same thing? What is the meaning of any token or idea concerning the token? Is it the actual symbols (be they mental or linguistic) or is their some sort of external meaning?

Too many questions, too little answers. I will tell you as simply as I can, the view that I hold.

The only mental tokens that I think we can speak of are the ones that correspond to the tokens of our human language, so even if there is a difference between brain tokens and language tokens, it is not one we could express. If you feel that this does not do the brain justice, you might be right. There very well could be tokens and relations that the brain has that donŐt correspond to human language, but I would not know how to speak of them, describe them, and probably even recognize them.

When I think something (or say something), I am manipulating tokens (of the brain or of language) according to the relationships that are allowed in the rules of grammar (brain or language). When I think or say the token for 'apple', I bring to mind the relationships that the rules of grammar give for the 'apple' token. Herein, lies the meaning of the brain or language token for 'apple'. The meaning is not some other aspect within my brain or something external to the brain, the meaining is defined by the relations allowed by grammar. I might think that I mean some entity or group of entities, but I only mean that token with which the thought is composed, and all of the relationships that this token brings to mind. Granted, this token and its relationships arise from experience of all types and sorts, including experience with external objects. This adds tokens for those things that bear a relation to the 'apple'. The meaning itself of a thought or something said arises from the interaction of tokens and the rules for their use, which are often times derived from experience. The meaning of a thought or something said is not external to the tokens and their relationships, and certainly cannot be found in experience, although it might appear that way.