"Non-verbal thought" is fine, but that's not the opposite of what I mean by "thinking". > I have specific non-verbal handles for these thoughts, Right. But y

"Non-verbal thought" is fine, but that's not the opposite of what I mean by "thinking". > I have specific non-verbal handles for these thoughts, Right. But you have handles. Just assume by "words" I mean handles, and we're talking the same language. You may not like my choice of words, but the reason is that as long as we have handles, words are easy to come by. In fact, they're just convenient labels. "I don't label" is no substitute for "I don't think". But "I have nothing to label" is. By "non-verbal" you're not saying you have nothing to label. You just don't bother with names. > just doing it. Right. But that's intended also to mean "without thinking about it" and that's exactly how I was using the word "thinking". I'm assuming you're considering the computation of dancing as a counterpoint to my statements regarding words, but if we are to go that route, I would consider the language dancers use. Different "moves" are clearly abstracted and used to convey various emotions and inferences. At this point we have the language of the dance. And most styles have a dictionary of moves. They then practice so that those moves become second nature, so that they can just do it, without thinking about it. But I would posit that the thinking is done during practice, so that it's all baked into the output which would be the performance. I'm not good at dancing. You're right about that. (I do enjoy it though)