Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

Can you count without using a "language"?

Try it now: Tap your hand on the desk randomly. Can you recall how many times you did it without "saying" a sequence in your head like "1, 2, 3" or "A, B, C" etc?

If yes, how far can you count? With a language it's effectively infinite. You could theoretically go up to "1 million 5 hundred 43 thousand, 2 hundred and 10" and effortlessly know what comes next.

Interestingly, I feel like I can "feel" small numbers (up to 4 or 5) easier than than thinking about them as objects in a language.

This is highly anecdotal, but when I lift weights, I have an “intuition” about the number of reps I’ve performed without consciously counting them.

An example of this would be when I’m lifting weights with a friend and am lost in the set/focusing on mind-muscle connection, and as a result I forget to count my reps. I am usually quite accurate when I verify with my lifting partner the number of reps done/remaining.

As OP mentioned, many people have no internal speech, otherwise known as anendophasia, yet can still do everything anyone with an internal dialogue can do.

Similarly for me, I can do “mental object rotation” tasks even though I have aphantasia.

> I have an “intuition” about the number of reps I’ve performed without consciously counting them.

This is known as subitising.

I can remember the sequence of sounds and like a delay line repeat that sequence in my head. This becomes easier the more distinguishable the taps are or the more of a cadence variability there is. But if it is a longer sequence I compress it by remembering an analogue like so: doo doo da doo da doo da da doo (reminiscent of morse code, or a kind of auditory binary). Would we consider this language? I think in the colloquial sense no, but it is essentially a machine language equivalent.

For context I have both abstract "multimedia" thought processes and hypervisor-like internal narrative depending on the nature of the experience or task.

By feel, I can without language or counting, play mostly

  X . . X . . X . . . X . X . . .

and every so often switch out for variations, eg:

  X . . X . . X . X . . . X . . .

or

  X . . . X . . . . . X . X . . .

but I'm no good for playing polyrhythms, which many other people can do, and I believe they must also do so more by feel than by counting.

Can you expand on your last sentence? The notion is fascinating to me.

I can. But I do this by visualizing the taps as a group. I don't have to label them with a number. I can see them in my mind, thus recalling the taps. If I tap with any sort of rhythm I can see the rhythm in the way they are laid out in my mind and this helps with recollection.

If I want to translate this knowledge into a number, I need to count the taps I am seeing in my head. At that point I do need to think of the word for the number.

I could even do computations on these items in my mind, imagine dividing them into two groups for instance, without ever having to link them to words until I am ready to do something with the result, such as write down the number of items in each group.

It's a well known phenomenon! I will drop this link here in case you are not familiar with it:

https://www.sciencealert.com/theres-a-big-difference-in-how-...

Practice a few polyrhythms, get used to things like:

  X . X X X . X . X X X .
  A . . A . . A . . A . .
  B . B . B . B . B . B .

and:

  X . . X . X X X . X X . X . X X . . X . X X . . X X . X X . X . . X . X X . . X X . X . . X . . X X X X . . X X X X . . X . . X . X X . . X X . X . . X . X X . X X . . X X . X . . X X . X . X X . X X X . X . .
  A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . . A . . . .
  B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . . B . . . . . .
  C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . . C . .

Learn to do them with one limb (or finger) per line, and also with all the lines on the same limb (or finger). And then suddenly, they'll start to feel intuitive, and you'll be able to do them by feel. (It's a bit like scales.)

Many animals can do some form of counting of small numbers where there's no connection to language possible.

Do you also have some noise for mathematical operations, such as raising a number to a power, and for equals? So doo doo da ugh doo doo feh doo doo da doo da doo da da doo?

...maybe I do this sometimes myself. Remembering the proper names of things is effort.

An important note. If you're hearing your voice in your head doing this, that's subvocalisation and it's basically just saying it out loud, the instruction is still sent to your vocal chords

It's the equivalent of <thinking> tags for LLM output.

I don’t make a sound or word in my mind but I definitely keep track of the number. My thinking is definitely structured and there are things in my thoughts but there is no words or voice. I also can’t see images in my mind either. I’ve no idea what an inner monologue or the minds eye is like. I have however over the years found ways to produce these experiences in a way of my own. I found for instance some rough visualization was helpful in doing multi variate calculus but it’s very difficult and took a lot of practice. I’ve also been able to simulate language in my mind to help me practice difficult conversations but it’s really difficult and not distinct.

I would note though I have a really difficult time with arithmetic and mechanical tasks like counting. Mostly I just lose attention. Perhaps an inner voice would help if it became something that kept a continuity of thought.

I can imagine the numbers as figures (I mean that the shape of the characters 1, 2 etc), or the patterns on a dice in sequence.

This is a parallel stream, because if I count with imagined pictures, then I can speak and listen to someone talking without it disturbing the process. If I do it with subvocalization, then doing other speech/language related things would disturb the counting.

Can you draft a sentence (with all the words precisely determined) in your mind before you say it or you write it down? Can you "rehearse" saying it without moving your tongue or mouth? If yes, that's pretty much an "inner voice".

Wow I've never tried this before, and I feel like this is way easier than using words.

I think this is what language is. It's a sequence rememberance system.

Oh no… That would vindicate the chatbots..

This is So unrelatable lol. Imagine how different alien minds would be!!

One, two, ...many.

But that's like how I memorize sheet music, visual groups and subgroups of notes, and yet sheet music is formally linguistic nevertheless. So in such debates I think a tricky pitfall to avoid is that all data structures are essentially linguistic as well.

> Can you count without using a "language"?

Yes. Seriously, these kind of questions are so surprising. It tells you that everyone's experience is just a little different.

I can count to 10 with fingers.

Not really, I can speak it out loud though which is often what I do. I have over the years been able to do it in my mind but it’s not really a voice or words but some conceptual framing of the words. It’s difficult to explain.