# [Strange Loop of Being](releases/2025/Strange%20Loop%20of%20Being/Strange%20Loop%20of%20Being.md) # Thinking in Symbols *Abstraction and the Internal World* The capacity to utilize arbitrary, conventional signs, as explored in [Chapter 2: Symbolic Prerequisites](releases/2025/Strange%20Loop%20of%20Being/2%20Symbolic%20Prerequisites.md), represents the foundational prerequisite for the complex symbolic systems that define human culture. However, simply possessing a repertoire of symbols is insufficient. The true power emerges when these symbols become not just tools for external communication but instruments for internal cognition—when they enable and structure **abstract thought**, allowing us to build and navigate a rich **internal world** of concepts, models, and possibilities largely detached from immediate sensory input. This chapter delves into this crucial dimension of the symbolic prerequisite, examining how symbolic abstraction restructures the human mind, the pivotal role of language in this process, and the emergence of nascent cognitive feedback loops where thought itself becomes an object of symbolic manipulation, setting the stage for higher-order reasoning and the eventual formation of complex meaning loops. At its heart, **symbolic abstraction** is the cognitive engine that drives thought beyond the concrete particulars of experience. As established, it involves forming generalized representations—concepts, categories, schemas—that capture essential features while filtering out situational details. This allows us to reason about classes of things (“mammals,” “tools,” “democracies”) rather than just individual instances, enabling generalization, prediction, and efficient knowledge organization. But abstraction does more than just categorize; it allows us to mentally manipulate these representations independent of their real-world referents. We can combine concepts in novel ways (imagining a “flying elephant”), reason about purely hypothetical or counterfactual situations (“If X had happened, then Y...”), contemplate intangible qualities (beauty, justice, truth), and understand complex relationships (causality, logical necessity, social hierarchies) that are not directly perceivable. This detachment from the immediate sensory world, facilitated by symbols acting as mental placeholders, creates a vast internal workspace for reflection, planning, problem-solving, and creativity. **Language** stands as the paramount symbolic system enabling and scaffolding this abstract thought. While the precise relationship remains debated—does language merely express pre-existing abstract thought, or does it actively shape and enable it?—the functional link is undeniable. Words serve as stable, discrete labels for abstract concepts, allowing us to mentally “grasp” and manipulate them with greater ease than vague, non-linguistic impressions. The word “gravity,” for instance, packages a complex set of observations and theoretical relationships into a single symbolic unit that can be readily incorporated into reasoning and communication. Furthermore, the **grammatical structure** of language provides a built-in logic for relating these concepts. Tense and aspect allow us to situate ideas in time; conjunctions and subordinate clauses express causal, conditional, and logical relationships; negation allows us to consider absences and counterfactuals; quantifiers allow reasoning about number and generality. Learning a language isn’t just learning vocabulary; it’s internalizing a complex symbolic system for structuring thought and representing intricate relationships between abstract ideas. The influential work of Russian psychologist **Lev Vygotsky** sheds crucial light on this process through his concept of the **internalization of speech**. Vygotsky observed that children’s cognitive development involves a transition where external, social speech (used for communication and guided by adults) gradually becomes internalized as “inner speech” or verbal thought. Initially, children might talk themselves through problems aloud (egocentric speech); later, this external monologue becomes subvocalized and then fully internalized, forming the primary medium for conscious reasoning, planning, self-regulation, and abstract conceptual manipulation in adults. In this view, language, acquired through social interaction, fundamentally transforms the nature of individual thought, providing the symbolic tools necessary for higher mental functions. Thinking *in symbols*, particularly linguistic ones, becomes the hallmark of mature human cognition. This internalization process highlights a crucial dynamic: the emergence of a nascent cognitive **feedback loop**, a precursor to the more complex strange loops discussed later. Language provides the symbolic tools that enable certain forms of abstract thought. Engaging in abstract thought, using these linguistic tools, allows us to reflect upon our own concepts, identify ambiguities, make new distinctions, and potentially refine or redefine the linguistic symbols themselves. We can use language to talk *about* language, use concepts to analyze *other concepts*. Consider the process of philosophical inquiry or scientific theory development: existing symbolic frameworks (language, mathematical notation) are used to model phenomena, inconsistencies or explanatory gaps are identified through abstract reasoning facilitated by these symbols, leading to the refinement of concepts or the deliberate invention of new terms or symbols (like “phlogiston” being replaced by “oxygen,” or the development of calculus notation) to create a more adequate representation. The symbolic system used for thinking becomes, itself, an object of thought and modification. This recursive capacity—where the tools of representation can be turned back upon themselves—is fundamental. It allows for the iterative refinement of knowledge, the bootstrapping of increasingly complex conceptual systems, and the potential for self-awareness within the cognitive system. The consequence of this powerful capacity for symbolic abstraction, fueled and structured by language and operating through these internal feedback loops, is that humans construct and inhabit a rich **internal world**—a “world within”—that significantly mediates their experience of the external physical world. This internal landscape is populated by a rich array of symbolic constructs. These include **concepts and categories**, which are abstract representations grouping objects, events, or ideas based on shared properties. We also navigate using **schemas and scripts**, generalized knowledge structures representing typical sequences of events or social situations, such as the schema for “eating at a restaurant.” Furthermore, our internal world contains **mental models**, which are internal representations of how systems work, like a mental model of the solar system or how a car engine functions. **Narratives** play a crucial role, as stories we tell ourselves and others to make sense of events, our personal histories, and our identities. This landscape is also shaped by our **beliefs and values**—abstract propositions held to be true and principles guiding judgment and behavior—and our capacity for **hypothetical simulations**, imagined scenarios used for planning, prediction, or exploring possibilities. We constantly interpret incoming sensory information through the lens of this internal symbolic world, filtering, categorizing, and making inferences based on our existing concepts and models. Our emotional responses are often triggered not just by raw stimuli, but by our symbolic *interpretation* of those stimuli. Our actions are frequently guided by abstract plans, goals, and values formulated within this internal space. While this internal world allows for foresight, complex reasoning, and flexible behavior far beyond stimulus-response mechanisms, it also means our experience is inherently **mediated**. We rarely encounter the world “as it is” but rather experience it *as represented* by our internal symbolic constructs, shaped by our language, culture, and personal history. This internal symbolic processing, this “thinking in symbols,” forms a crucial bridge between the basic symbolic prerequisite (Level 1 of our model) and the emergence of shared belief systems (Level 2). The capacity for individual abstract thought allows humans to grasp the general concepts, rules, and narratives proposed within their culture. The internalization of language provides the common code necessary for these beliefs and narratives to be transmitted and understood intersubjectively. While the *shared* aspect of Level 2 requires social interaction and agreement (explored in later chapters), the *individual cognitive capacity* to operate with abstract symbols, construct internal models, and engage in self-reflection is the necessary foundation upon which shared symbolic realities can be built. Without minds capable of abstract thought, collective fictions like money, nations, or laws could gain no purchase. In summary, the symbolic prerequisite for the strange loops of shared reality involves more than just the ability to use arbitrary signs. It requires the profound cognitive leap towards **symbolic abstraction**, enabling the formation of general concepts detached from concrete instances. **Language** serves as the primary toolkit for this abstraction, becoming internalized as the medium for higher-order thought and facilitating a nascent cognitive **feedback loop** where thought reflects upon itself. This allows humans to construct and inhabit a rich **internal world** of concepts, models, and narratives that mediates their experience. This capacity for abstract internal symbolic manipulation is the essential cognitive ground upon which shared beliefs (Level 2) can be established and understood, ultimately enabling the complex dynamics of the Levels of Meaning loop. Having established the internal cognitive infrastructure enabled by symbols, we now turn to the external systems—writing, formalisms—that stabilize, amplify, and extend this symbolic capacity across society. --- [Chapter 4: Systematizing Symbols](releases/2025/Strange%20Loop%20of%20Being/4%20Systematizing%20Symbols.md)