Ken begins the discussion by distinguishing three kinds of thought: belief, desire, and intention. Beliefs (such as, ‘there is a beer in the fridge’) may be true or false. Desires (such as, ‘I want beer’) may be satisfied or unsatisfied. Intentions (such as, ‘I will go get a beer’) are what drive us to action. What these all have in common, though, is that they are built from concepts or ideas (such as ‘beer’). Psychologist Steven Pinker enters the fray, and makes two initial points: concepts with many words (such as the infamous and apocryphal Eskimo ‘snow’) demonstrate our sensitivity to different aspects of things; words with contextual definitions (such as 'I' or 'this') establish perspective and isolate objects. Our guest later points out that difference between words (such as ‘stool’ and ‘shit’) can reflect not ideas, but social attitudes.

The discussion then moves to the possibility of a perfectly logical language, such as hoped for by Frege, Russell, and Quine. Steven thinks this ignores the usability of language – that it must be learnable, speakable, hearable, and thinkable. If language does have a logical kernel, it nonetheless makes many compromises in the name of utility. As a Darwinian, he must see it as having consequences for survival. For this reason, he sees language as primarily existing to facilitate communication and action (contra Chomsky).

史蒂文列举了人类怪异的三个特征。首先，我们与直系亲属群体之外的成员公开交流。第二，我们利用技术来增强我们的自然力量。第三，我们有语言。对史蒂文来说，这三件事都证明了一个重要的事实:对我们人类来说，知识是最高的商品。它(相对)容易交换，以最小的成本提供巨大的利益。然而，语言是“数字的”，因此不能表达任何“模拟的”或多维的东西，比如打领带和跳舞。

The conversation ends with a question from John regarding the theological significance of language. Steven does not have much time to answer, but he comments on the historical conviction of humans that words have the power to change reality (prayer is a good example). One should not forget the first verse in the gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”

• Roving Philosophical Reporter(Seek to 4:35): Angela Kilduff speaks to folks on the street of San Francisco about what they think thought is. Some respond that “they haven’t thought about thought”. Others provide answers similar to the definition given by Ken; others give answers that are truly novel.