If there were no symbols, what did this "wondering" consist of? Did it really happen? Is it possible to "wonder" without using symbols? The example does not s

If there were no symbols, what did this "wondering" consist of? Did it really happen? Is it possible to "wonder" without using symbols? The example does not say it out aloud that it assumes you can do "wondering" without symbols. An example like that implies that what it describes as happening actually happened, therefore proves that that is how the world works. I think that is a logical fallacy even though I'm not sure if it has a name or official definition. The fallacy is that because in an imagined situation something is imagined as having happened, it would prove something about the actual world, without us also proving that such an imagined thing can actually happen in the real world.