[unspun]

Thanks for the ping. I wouldn't minimize your observations.

I "think" though, that the author would distinguish thinking in language from thinking by the use of language. Analogy: to move from room to room, one naturally and even subconsciously walks there. But in fact, there are many other ways to motivate one's body, to get to the next room. It is the "intentional state" of desiring to move, that causes, directs, integrates, and guides the motion.

He is saying that the basic process of thinking is by its nature, not a process of semiotics and tongue -- that thinking has more dimensions than linguistics and is a process of its own at the core.

"I think, therefore I..." use language.

To press the point further, I'm confident he is arguing for the human soul -- and doing a good job of it.

[AndyJackson]

I am a physicist and one of the most abstract and "intuitive" thinkers that I know. Much of what I think, is not verbalized when I think it. But, once I try to express it in language I will apply different throught processes, using language, than I had originally used, and in the process, the content of the thought changes and needs to change because much of what I intuited was actually quit wrong which I discover when I subject it to linguistic reasoning.

Moreover, much of what I think I would not have thought without language. The concepts of the US Constitution are not expressible without words. Judicial reasoning, at least traditionally sound judicial reasoning before left wing whiners took charge, is verbal reasoning.