/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11894324
>“thinking a particular, definite thought without the awareness of that thought's being conveyed in words, images, or any other symbols”

This is just my opinion, but I feel like this is an oxymoron, because most of the time these unsymbolized thoughts do in fact have symbols that are created by and for the subconscious mind. So the conscious doesn't have access to the symbols but they do exist. Even if the symbol is a completely abstract thing, that abstraction becomes the symbol for that thought. The conscious mind not knowing what the symbol is means that in order to access that thought we need to go through the subconscious, which it does so willingly because it is you and has your best interests at heart. If you practice and try REALLY hard, the subconscious may even let you see those symbols, tho they may not make sense. In a way it's like and entirely foreign language. It may be the very 1st language that we ever learn. It gets VERY confusing when the subconscious decides to abstract or generalize an idea so 1 of these subconscious symbols can have multiple meanings, much the same way words can have multiple meanings, tho they're not different meanings. They're multiple meanings that are all the same. I know that doesn't make sense. Like I said it's hard for me to understand it sometimes. If I look REALLY deep inside myself I can see how these Unsymbolized thoughts are actually made of smaller parts. Letters if you will. Tho there's no universal alphabet that all thoughts are made from, rather these very small naturally occurring thoughts build on each other to form larger concepts

>>11894551
>being hungry is not a thought, might be an instinct
I'd argue that there's lots of thought that goes into that. All that thought however gets condensed and packed into a simple to understand message for your conscious mind. That simple condensed message is "I am hungry." The level of detail of thought to create that message goes much much deeper