{
  "id": 19223909,
  "title": "Do We Think in Pictures, Words, or… Code?",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/11/09/do-we-think-in-pictures-words-or-code",
  "topic": "science",
  "section": "Science",
  "published": "2026-11-09T21:30:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Nautilus",
    "slug": "nautilus",
    "url": "https://nautil.us/do-we-think-in-pictures-words-or-code-1286476/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Evelina Fedorenko, an MIT cognitive scientist, has spent decades studying the intersection of thought and language. Using various methods like behavior studies, brain imaging, and computational modeling, she has explored how people understand and produce language, and the overlap between language and thought.\n\nDefining a discrete \"thought\" is challenging, as it depends on how one defines \"thought\" itself. While some thoughts may be discrete with clear boundaries, others might be incomplete or half-formed, making it difficult to recognize them definitively. One potential operational definition is the ability to translate a thought into a symbolic form, such as a sentence or a small piece of computer code.\n\nThe nature of human thoughts is a topic of ongoing research. While it is not clear whether thoughts are composed solely of pictures, words, sounds, or feelings, there is evidence suggesting that much of human (and possibly non-human) thought and reasoning can be understood as pieces of computer code, often referred to as the \"probabilistic language of thought\" or PLOT. This notion contradicts the common belief that we think in language, as strong evidence now indicates that we do not.\n\nThere is evidence to support the idea that language is primarily a tool for communication rather than a tool for thought. Studies of patients with severe brain damage affecting language areas, known as severe aphasia, show that these individuals can still think effectively. They can perform tasks like math, spatial navigation, social judgments, and even solve sudoku puzzles. These findings suggest that their ability to think is not dependent on language, as they lose the ability to translate their thoughts into language but retain the capacity to think.\n\nMoreover, brain imaging studies have shown that the brain areas responsible for understanding and producing language are active during language use but are not engaged during various thinking tasks, such as solving math problems or reasoning about others' minds. Instead, other parts of the brain are active during these tasks. This evidence, combined with the fact that some humans report not experiencing inner speech, suggests that internal monologue or \"inner speech\" may not be critical for complex thought.\n\nCross-linguistic effects, such as the influence of language on perception, attention, and memory, further complicate the relationship between language and thought. For example, the Kuuk Thaayorre, an Aboriginal community, use cardinal directions (north, south, east, west) instead of egocentric terms like \"left\" and \"right.\" This leads them to construct their understanding of space and time relative to their surroundings rather than their own bodies. While some researchers argue that language actively influences these cognitive processes, it is essential to distinguish between language, culture, and thought. Strong cultural effects on cognition are reflected in language, but this does not necessarily mean that language and thought are inextricably linked.",
  "summary": "A conversation with cognitive scientist Evelina Fedorenko about where thought and language overlap The post Do We Think in Pictures, Words, or… Code? appeared first on Nautilus .",
  "key_points": [
    "Thoughts may be discrete with clear boundaries, but often incomplete or half-formed.",
    "Probabilistic Language of Thought (PLOT) suggests much human thought is like computer code."
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}