Why not? Where do you see a flaw in the logic?

Where do you see a flaw in the logic? — Samuel Lacrampe

I guess if I had to pick something, I'd say, "All of the premises and inferences."

The inference is valid from the premises.
Premise 1: God is traditionally defined as 'that which nothing greater can be conceived'. You can look it up; I did not come up with the definition.
Premise 2: No effect can be greater than its cause(s). This is a principal in causality. If you object, you would need to find an exception to this principal.

Premise 1: God is traditionally defined as 'that which nothing greater can be conceived'. You can look it up; I did not come up with the definition.
Premise 2: No effect can be greater than its cause(s). This is a principal in causality. If you object, you would need to find an exception to this principal. — Samuel Lacrampe

Premise 1 is a claim about language use among I don't know what community of speakers, which doesn't seem like it would suit what seems to be a metaphysical argument. There's also something there about this community's imaginative capacity, and I don't know what to do with that that either. I don't know how to verify any of those claims, or what I would have if I did. Even if Premise 1 is true in some specified sense, what good is it?

I don't have the faintest idea what Premise 2 means. I guess that's on me. What does "greater" mean here? That would help. I'm not even sure what kind of statement it's supposed to be. Is it a natural law, or some sort of metaphysical law?

Whatever sort of statement Premise 2 turns out to be, it seems like a different kettle of fish from Premise 1, so I don't see how they're supposed to be linked.

no effect can be greater than its cause(s)' — Samuel Lacrampe

How is the word "greater" even being used there? What is that saying, exactly, about the relationship of causes and effects?

1. In Revelation 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End". God himself says he is the first cause. — Samuel Lacrampe

Begging the question by assuming that there is a God and that the Bible is his words.

God is traditionally defined as 'that which nothing greater can exist'. Combine this with the principle that 'no effect can be greater than its cause(s)', and we deduce that the first cause is that which nothing greater can exist, and therefore the first cause is God. — Samuel Lacrampe

Firstly, what does it mean for an effect to be greater than its cause? Secondly, what justifies the claim that nothing can be greater than its cause? And thirdly, it wouldn't follow that the first cause is that which nothing greater can exist, only that the first cause is that which nothing greater does exist.

@Harry Hindu

You are arguing against this:

...the inherent feature of some thing is that it has four-legs... — Harry Hindu

When the claim that is being made (in accordance with your proposed definition of nature) is

...the an inherent feature of some thing is that it has four-legs... — Harry Hindu

You should revise your arguments accordingly.

The only thing I'm arguing for now, because you seem to have given up on the primary discussion of "supernatural" vs. "natural", is that things have more than one inherent feature. Period. I don't see how that requires a change in any of my positions. You, however, don't seem to be making any more arguments at all. Did my showing of the definitions of angels, hobbits and dogs lacking the terms, "supernatural" and "four-legged" that you said they'd have, stump you?

If "the idea in someone's head that triggered the use of the word is what the word means," how can this be shared? — Srap Tasmaner

Because we share ideas. I can have the same idea in my head as you without you communicating it. Why do you think people congregate into like-minded groups that use the same language as others in different groups? Isn't it because they have different ideas than those in another group, but the same ideas as the group they associate with? Conservatives and Liberals both speak English yet congregate into different groups. How could that be, if we only think in words and not ideas?

Maybe you mean something different by "the idea in someone's head" than I think you do. (I think of that as, more or less, "what comes to mind," when you hear a word.)

By "the idea in someone's head," do you mean an intention of theirs? (The intention to speak, to communicate a thought, to be understood to be attempting to communicate--there are lots of intentions.) — Srap Tasmaner

So, prior to typing something on the screen, you don't have an idea composed of a visual of how things actually are, and then use that idea to come up with words to communicate that idea? Are you seriously saying that the only thing that comes to your mind is words that get typed out on a screen? Are you a computer or a human being? You have an idea AND you have the intention to share that idea. The only way to share it is through language. If you had no intention to share it, you'd still have the idea, and the idea is composed of visual imagery of some state-of-affairs that you intend to communicate, not words.

Are you also saying that you experienced the word, "mother" before you experienced your mother? Didn't you experience your mother, in all her visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile glory, first, and then learned the word, "mama", which was just a sound you repeated that didn't have any meaning for you at the time until you learned to associate the sound with everything else that you know about your mother? Isn't that the process in which that happened and for all the other words like, "ball", "toy", "monster", "cookie", etc. In order to learn a language didn't you first have to be able to see and hear things and then to understand how to associate certain things you see and hear with other things you experience?

The structure AND meaning of the word, "supernatural", shows that it stems from the world, "natural", which means that it is dependent upon the existence of the natural, which means that the natural came first and then the supernatural. — Harry Hindu

I see your point. We just need to differentiate between the epistemological order and metaphysical order of the two words. Epistemologically, we humans first experience the natural world and then may call some things supernatural when these don't behave as per the laws of our natural world. — Samuel Lacrampe

But, as I said before, "supernatural" carries with it the connotation of "divinity". If supernatural was only related to things that haven't yet been explained, then why the connotation of "divinity"? I also asked that if "supernatural" is related to things not being explained and by explaining them they change from "supernatural" to "natural" then is there such a thing as a "supernatural" explanation?

Metaphysically however, the supernatural is the cause of the natural, and thus existed prior to it. Sure, you can switch the labels around if desired, as long as the definitions are clear to everyone. For practical purposes though, I would stick to the conventional definitions. — Samuel Lacrampe

Every religious person would disagree with you. They would insist that God and his domain existed prior to the natural world and that the natural world was an effect of the supernatural world. As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, the meanings are backwards.

The only thing I'm arguing for now, because you seem to have given up on the primary discussion of "supernatural" vs. "natural", is that things have more than one inherent feature. Period — Harry Hindu

You are arguing by yourself, since no one here ever disputed this.

And I didn't say the definitions of angels and hobbits included the word supernatural/natural.

You have to read more carefully.

Ok, great. We are now in agreement that four-leggedness isn't an inherent feature of dogs because it's not in the definition (something you told be to look at when I needed to know the about something (and a definition is something which defines the inherent features or qualities of some thing)).

We are also in agreement that to define something properly, you need to include ALL of it's inherent features or qualities. You can't just say, "This particular thing has four legs. What is it?" and expect someone to know what you are talking about. We are in agreement that an inherent feature of all things is that they possess more than one inherent feature or quality that distinguishes it from some things, and shares with some other things, and it is this unique combination of features and qualities that some thing has that we refer to in our definitions of them.

(Whew!) Now that's over with, what were you saying about "supernatural" again?

We are now in agreement that four-leggedness isn't an inherent feature of dogs because it's not in the definition... — Harry Hindu

I don't agree with that.

We are also in agreement that to define something properly, you need to include ALL of it's inherent features or qualities... — Harry Hindu

Don't agree with that either.

We are in agreement that an inherent feature of all things is that they possess more than one inherent feature or quality that distinguishes it from some things — Harry Hindu

Bordering on tautological, so yes, I could agree with that, but I haven't agreed backthread, and it would be offtopic anyway.

(Whew!) Now that's over with, what were you saying about "supernatural" again? — Harry Hindu

I'll stick with "you have to read more carefully", given your interpretation of what I agree with.

Let's look at a specific example.

Suppose I tell you, "I have to be at work by 2:30 today."

Maybe as I say this, there are various images in my mind--flashes of my workplace, the people there, driving, getting ready for work, saying goodbye to the kids. Maybe all of these and a lot more, maybe only some, maybe interspersed with other images and thoughts--I am conscious at the moment and also thinking about other things, taking in my surroundings and so on.

I want to say, just to start with, that none of this stuff going on in my head is the meaning of the sentence "I have to be at work by 2:30 today." I want to distinguish all that stuff from, as you put it, the idea I intend to communicate to you.

Can we agree on that much?

I'll stick with "you have to read more carefully", given your interpretation of what I agree with. — Mariner

If that is your answer, then I obviously didn't understand your point you were trying to make when I asked you why angels are supernatural and hobbits aren't. You asked me to look at their definitions but neither definition explains why angels are supernatural and hobbits aren't. It's not that I have to read more carefully, it's that you have to do a better job of making your point. So maybe you might care to be less vague.

The origin of Hobbits has not been explained so that makes them supernatural, no?

Wait a second, are you even reading my posts? Are you agreeing at all with what I said about your mother, about typing words on screen, and all those other questions I asked? Do you think that you are the only one that can ask questions and receive answers? If you expect me to answer questions, you need to do the same.

What made you say, "I have to be at work by 2:30 today."? Why are you saying it? Isn't it because there is a state-of-affairs that needs to happen in the future? Isn't it a prediction that you are referring to? After all, there could be an accident on the way to work and you could be late. How is it that you could be wrong about being at work by 2:30 that doesn't have to do with how you used your words?

The origin of Hobbits has not been explained so that makes them supernatural, no? — Harry Hindu

No. Supernatural (according to the dictionary, Merriam-Webster for example) is

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

Hobbits fall into none of these possibilities.

Note that you are operating with a concept of "supernatural" which involves "the origins of", something which is clearly not present in the dictionary definition.

To recap (since my first post in the thread): natural pertains to birth. Supernatural pertains to what is beyond and above the realm of birth. This is the originary meaning of the word.

What matters for our discussion (which has been going round and round): is the supposition that "nothing supernatural exists physically" (i.e., that everything that exists in an observable, physical sense is natural) enough to suggest that we should stop using the word "supernatural"?

Curiously enough, since the word has just been used by you in reference to the unknown origin of hobbits, you have just confirmed the point being made all along -- "supernatural" as a word performs a useful role and hence should be kept, regardless of whether supernatural beings exist physically.

When did people start thinking of divinity as supernatural?

Well, if you are asking about the idea of "supernaturality", then it has been from the beginning associated with divinity, since deities were pretty much defined as being immortal (i.e. beyond the realm of birth -- and death). But if you are asking about the word itself, and about the hierarchical relationship implied in the prefix "super", this is clearly related to the "dedivinization of nature" which took place through the influence of Christianity.

To an ancient Egyptian, it was obvious that the gods were beyond the realm of impermanence; the stories about the birth of the gods took place in the time before time, and their death was a contradiction. But this ancient Egyptian would not have a concept of "nature", bereft of all divinity, to contrast with the gods.

It is obvious once you think of it, there can't be language referring to the supernatural before there has been a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, and this distinction will always take the form of a retreat of the gods, since the original viewpoint of mankind was one in which deities interacted with non-deities constantly.

Wait a second, are you even reading my posts? — Harry Hindu

Yes, of course. It wasn't clear to me what you were saying, so I wanted to focus on one thing at a time, make sure we're talking about the same thing, and then it would be clearer where we agreed and where we disagreed.

Are you agreeing at all with what I said about your mother,

Yes, I believe I experienced my mother before I learned the word "mother." (I don't know why you would think I had claimed otherwise, but no biggie.)

about typing words on screen,

Here I disagree. I'm not aware of having "an idea composed of a visual of how things actually are" before I speak, or write, except when I'm trying to describe something I'm imagining visually.

and all those other questions I asked?

I honestly thought some of them were rhetorical, and I'm still not sure which is which.

Do you think that you are the only one that can ask questions and receive answers? If you expect me to answer questions, you need to do the same.

Fair enough, and in that spirit I have directly answered the questions you mentioned, and I will answer each of the questions in the last paragraph:

What made you say, "I have to be at work by 2:30 today."?

We don't know. There are quite a few possible scenarios. For the record, I would take "what made me say it" as something different from "what I meant by it," which is in turn different from "what the sentence means."

Why are you saying it?

Also don't know, and now we can add "why I said it" to that list. These things are all different to me.

Isn't it because there is a state-of-affairs that needs to happen in the future?

Maybe? That's an odd way to put it. It's also possible that I was lying when I spoke, which would change "why I said it" but not "what it means."

Isn't it a prediction that you are referring to?

I really hadn't thought of that one. It doesn't sound like a prediction to me. I would have assumed most English speakers would hear "I have to be at work by 2:30 today" as expressing an obligation. (For comparison: "I will be at work today by 2:30" I would hear as a prediction, or more likely an expectation.)

[As an aside, and I sincerely hope you don't take offense here, but may I ask if English is your native language? I only ask because I might mistakenly rely on our hearing things the same way, and if we don't there could be needless misunderstanding.]

After all, there could be an accident on the way to work and you could be late. How is it that you could be wrong about being at work by 2:30 that doesn't have to do with how you used your words?

I really don't hear that sentence as a prediction, but if it were then of course it would be vulnerable to going wrong in the usual ways, as you suggest, which don't have to do with how I use words.

So I've answered your questions as best I could. I hope it helps.

No. Supernatural (according to the dictionary, Merriam-Webster for example) is

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

Hobbits fall into none of these possibilities. — Mariner

Of course they do. Hobbits existence beyond the visible observable universe, don't they? Where have you seen a hobbit, or a devil, for that matter?

Hobbits also transcend the laws of nature, too. Did they evolve like every other organism? How did they come to exist? The same can be asked about devils.

What does "observable universe" entail, anyway? If god created the natural world, then that is an observable effect of a supernatural cause.

Note that you are operating with a concept of "supernatural" which involves "the origins of", something which is clearly not present in the dictionary definition. — Mariner

I'm operating with the concept of "supernatural" which involves how others in this thread have associated "supernatural" with things that haven't been explained, or are unexplainable.

To recap (since my first post in the thread): natural pertains to birth. Supernatural pertains to what is beyond and above the realm of birth. This is the originary meaning of the word. — Mariner

Hypocrisy. Did you not point out that because "supernatural" wasn't part of the definition of "hobbit" then hobbits aren't supernatural? The definition of "supernatural" you provided doesn't include the term, "birth". Whose definitions are we sticking with here, Merriam-Webster, or making up our own?

What matters for our discussion (which has been going round and round): is the supposition that "nothing supernatural exists physically" (i.e., that everything that exists in an observable, physical sense is natural) enough to suggest that we should stop using the word "supernatural"? — Mariner

No, no, no, no. It is you that needs to read more carefully. I have said numerous times and you have simply danced around it, that the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is meaningless when you define them both has having a causal relationship with each other. God, a supernatural thing, after all, is the ultimate cause. Everything that follows would be supernatural as well. So, reality itself is supernatural. The only problem is that we have this term, "natural" which seems to imply that the natural existed prior to the supernatural and the supernatural is dependent upon the existence of the natural. Please stick to this particular point. Either way, one of these words loses it's meaning. Which one do we stop using?

Curiously enough, since the word has just been used by you in reference to the unknown origin of hobbits, you have just confirmed the point being made all along -- "supernatural" as a word performs a useful role and hence should be kept, regardless of whether supernatural beings exist physically. — Mariner

So, then hobbits are supernatural? The discussion going around in circles is the result of your inability to remain consistent. The word, "supernatural" was used in an effort to get an clear-cut definition nailed down - something you have yet to do.

It is obvious once you think of it, there can't be language referring to the supernatural before there has been a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, and this distinction will always take the form of a retreat of the gods, since the original viewpoint of mankind was one in which deities interacted with non-deities constantly. — Mariner

So in all the eternity before the creation of the natural world, the gods, angels, devils and spirits never communicated the idea of the reality in which they live among themselves before the creation of a natural world? How do you know that?

Some people even say that God is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, and everything. So, there was a term used before the creation that referred to all of reality, and that would be "God". But then how does God, a supernatural thing, include the natural world, and that doesn't make the natural world supernatural?

Yes, I believe I experienced my mother before I learned the word "mother." (I don't know why you would think I had claimed otherwise, but no biggie.) — Srap Tasmaner

Of course it's a biggie because it shows that your words refer to other things, and that is what you mean when you say them. I should just drop the microphone here, but I'll indulge you a bit more.

Here I disagree. I'm not aware of having "an idea composed of a visual of how things actually are" before I speak, or write, except when I'm trying to describe something I'm imagining visually. — Srap Tasmaner

Then what are you talking about when you say or write anything about some state-of-affairs that exists?

I honestly thought some of them were rhetorical, and I'm still not sure which is which. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't ask rhetorical questions. They may seem obvious but some people tend to ignore the obvious, which is why I ask the questions. Some people don't take into account how their ideas have implications on the simplest things.

What made you say, "I have to be at work by 2:30 today."?
We don't know. There are quite a few possible scenarios. For the record, I would take "what made me say it" as something different from "what I meant by it," which is in turn different from "what the sentence means."

Why are you saying it?

Also don't know, and now we can add "why I said it" to that list. These things are all different to me.

Isn't it because there is a state-of-affairs that needs to happen in the future?

Maybe? That's an odd way to put it. It's also possible that I was lying when I spoke, which would change "why I said it" but not "what it means."

Isn't it a prediction that you are referring to?

I really hadn't thought of that one. It doesn't sound like a prediction to me. I would have assumed most English speakers would hear "I have to be at work by 2:30 today" as expressing an obligation. (For comparison: "I will be at work today by 2:30" I would hear as a prediction, or more likely an expectation.)

[As an aside, and I sincerely hope you don't take offense here, but may I ask if English is your native language? I only ask because I might mistakenly rely on our hearing things the same way, and if we don't there could be needless misunderstanding.] — Srap Tasmaner

No offense. English is my native language.

Okay. I understand what you're saying about predictions. I'll restructure my point. "I have to be at work by 2:30 today" refers to a state-of-affairs that exists right now. If it was tomorrow, you wouldn't have said that sentence, or if you had to be at work at 3:30, you wouldn't have said that, if you were already at work and it was 2:35 you wouldn't have said that, and if you didn't have a job, then you wouldn't have said that. If you were not in a state of having to be at work at 2:30 today, would you have said that?

If you didn't intend to lie, then you wouldn't have said that you have to be at work at 2:30 when you have to be there at 2:00. Sure, to the listener, the sentence means you have to be there at 2:30, but when they find out you lied, then they will know what you meant with your words - to deceive them.

What about what I said about translating words from different languages. What are we translating if not the meaning of the words?

Hypocrisy. Did you not point out that because "supernatural" wasn't part of the definition of "hobbit" then hobbits aren't supernatural? — Harry Hindu

No, I didn't.

But enjoy your thread. If you are happy to discard "supernatural" even while you use the word, I won't hold any grudges.

How typical. When you can't find yourself out of your own hole you dug, you simply throw your hands in the air and give up and go on believing the same nonsense you always have. What a shame.

If you are happy to discard "supernatural" even while you use the word, I won't hold any grudges. — Mariner

The only time I used "supernatural" is to ask what it means and to show that it's meaning, as provided by you and others, is inconsistent. If you can't define it clearly, then why use it?

Well, if you are asking about the idea of "supernaturality", then it has been from the beginning associated with divinity, since deities were pretty much defined as being immortal (i.e. beyond the realm of birth -- and death). — Mariner

It's true the Sumerians appear to have been preoccupied with immortality (Gilgamesh searches for it, Adapa is offered immortality, but doesn't realize it and turns it down.) The Gilgamesh epic specifically states that the difference between gods and humans is the matter of immortality. But one of the prime divinities of the Sumerian world was the moon god (father of the sun). It's believed that the dominance of this divinity may have to do with the use of the moon as a time piece, so we might understand it as a fusion of magic, religion, and science. I think if we could convey to an ancient Sumerian what we mean by natural, he would not see divinity as distinct from that concept.

It is obvious once you think of it, there can't be language referring to the supernatural before there has been a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, and this distinction will always take the form of a retreat of the gods, since the original viewpoint of mankind was one in which deities interacted with non-deities constantly. — Mariner

Exactly. I think naturalists take care to define divinity as supernatural. I don't know who else narrows it down in that way.

Yes, I believe I experienced my mother before I learned the word "mother." (I don't know why you would think I had claimed otherwise, but no biggie.) — Srap Tasmaner

Of course it's a biggie because it shows that your words refer to other things, and that is what you mean when you say them. I should just drop the microphone here, but I'll indulge you a bit more. — Harry Hindu

You seem to be under the impression that I denied words can be used to refer. As I said before, I don't know how you got that impression, but I hold no such view, and do not believe I have expressed such a view here.

(If you could point out to me what I said that gave you that impression, I would be grateful; perhaps I expressed myself poorly. It happens.)

So, prior to typing something on the screen, you don't have an idea composed of a visual of how things actually are, and then use that idea to come up with words to communicate that idea? Are you seriously saying that the only thing that comes to your mind is words that get typed out on a screen? — Harry Hindu

I'm not aware of having "an idea composed of a visual of how things actually are" before I speak, or write, except when I'm trying to describe something I'm imagining visually. — Srap Tasmaner

Then what are you talking about when you say or write anything about some state-of-affairs that exists? — Harry Hindu

I simply do not understand how these are connected. If I talk about something I am visually imagining, that's what I'm talking about. If I talk about something I'm looking at, I'm not talking about something I'm imagining. I can talk about having an obligation, even though I don't know how to visualize an obligation. I talk about music all the time without ever visualizing it.

I just really have no idea why you would think I have to visualize something in order to talk about it. Maybe I've misunderstood you.

What about what I said about translating words from different languages. What are we translating if not the meaning of the words? — Harry Hindu

If you're suggesting that I think words don't have meanings, I'm once again at a loss, as I don't think I've said anything to suggest I think that.

We use the words we do to form novel assertions (questions, commands, etc.) because of the meanings those words have. — Srap Tasmaner

You seem to be under the impression that I denied words can be used to refer. As I said before, I don't know how you got that impression, but I hold no such view, and do not believe I have expressed such a view here.

(If you could point out to me what I said that gave you that impression, I would be grateful; perhaps I expressed myself poorly. It happens.) — Srap Tasmaner

I thought it was your argument that meaning is related to word use. If it isn't then we have no disagreement.

I simply do not understand how these are connected. If I talk about something I am visually imagining, that's what I'm talking about. If I talk about something I'm looking at, I'm not talking about something I'm imagining. I can talk about having an obligation, even though I don't know how to visualize an obligation. I talk about music all the time without ever visualizing it.

I just really have no idea why you would think I have to visualize something in order to talk about it. Maybe I've misunderstood you. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't see how you can say that when you talk about something that you're referring to visual imagery, or a sound, or a feeling, etc. but when it comes to obligations, you aren't? An obligation is one of those things that are composed of many different concepts and sensory impressions - like the feeling you get when you don't uphold your obligations, or the feeling you have when you do, or what that obligation is composed of, like going to work, your co-workers who depend on you, your clients who you've built a nice relationship with, etc. - all of which are composed of visual imagery, etc.

Thinking and imagining are composed of sensory impressions. I'm arguing that you cannot think without your thoughts taking some form. Words are simply other visuals and sounds that we associate with other things. We even associate other things that aren't words with other things, like the taste of a cookie with the visual of a cookie, or maybe even your mother who makes the best cookies - associations that one can establish without even knowing a language.
Here's evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_Without_Words

This man went through most of his life without language because he's deaf and no one took the time to teach him, yet he was still able to feed, dress and take care of himself. He just couldn't communicate or understand what it was that others were doing when moving their mouths at each other. When he finally understood, he wasn't surprised that he could suddenly think, he was surprised to find that there were shared words that he could use to communicate his thoughts.

As we go through life and have experiences we are basically establishing connections between our sensory impressions. So, to say anything is to communicate some state-of-affairs. This is why phrases like, "We can never know anything." itself is a claim of knowledge of referring to some state-of-affairs (which is just what is going on in your mind, but your mind is a representation of what is going on in the world. This is why when someone says, "look at that beautiful sunset." we don't go looking in their head for the sunset. We instinctively know that they are talking about something in the world that we all can experience.). It just so happens that this is why the phrase is contradictory because it refers to some state-of-affairs (that we can't know anything) while at the same time saying a different state-of-affairs - that we know something.

I don't see how you can say that when you talk about something that you're referring to visual imagery, or a sound, or a feeling, etc. but when it comes to obligations, you aren't? An obligation is one of those things that are composed of many different concepts and sensory impressions - like the feeling you get when you don't uphold your obligations, or the feeling you have when you do, or what that obligation is composed of, like going to work, your co-workers who depend on you, your clients who you've built a nice relationship with, etc. - all of which are composed of visual imagery, etc. — Harry Hindu

This is my starting point:

• Words (like anything else) have associations for you based on your life history and can be quite complex. Some of these associations can be described--i.e., put into words--but some can't, some you're not even (quite) conscious of, and it is inconceivable that you could share the entirety of your associations with someone else. They are in an obvious way private, taken as a whole, even though they may be similar to another's associations because we are broadly similar to each other living broadly similar lives.
• Words have meanings as sentence-parts. These are public, and shared. It is because "red" means what it does in English that your mother taught you to say "red" in the presence of red things rather than something else.
• In between there are connotations, which are shadings of meaning based usually in the history of a word's use within a language community. The use of a particular word in particular sorts of sentences can itself be a source of associations for people, but these associations are inherently public. (Any given member of a language community may or may not be aware of the connotations, depending on whether they are familiar with the history of the word's use, but that history is public.) Racial epithets are the obvious examples.
• Words can be used to refer to objects, taken broadly, and not excluding words themselves. (It is not clear to me that a word or name "has a reference" in the way it "has a meaning"; whether a word is being used to refer seems dependent on its use in an assertion/question/command/etc.)

The "meaning" and "reference" bits there are the least fleshed out because they're the interesting (i.e., hard) bits. What's certain, though, is that the meaning of a word is not whatever associations you have with that word.

Thinking and imagining are composed of sensory impressions. I'm arguing that you cannot think without your thoughts taking some form. Words are simply other visuals and sounds that we associate with other things. We even associate other things that aren't words with other things, like the taste of a cookie with the visual of a cookie, or maybe even your mother who makes the best cookies - associations that one can establish without even knowing a language. — Harry Hindu

I will not pretend to know how thinking, taken broadly, works, or how language use and thinking go together. Just as, above, we were drifting into linguistics, here we drift into psychology. I'll make just a few "points" that seem to apply to much of our thinking and language processing:

• It is incredibly fast. The vast majority of your language production and consumption happens without any pausing to reflect, puzzling out, deducing, etc. Mostly it just works, and works so far as you're concerned instantly.
• Much of it is involuntary. You do not "decide" whether to understand words you hear in a language you know, you just do. You often do not "decide" which words to use when you speak--the intent to communicate something leads directly to the right words without conscious effort.
• And those two points lead directly to the third, which is that a whole lot of language processing (and thinking) is unconscious, quite likely carried out by specialized structures in your brain.

We tend to be aware of the exceptions, trying to find words to express a thought, puzzling out what someone means, etc. With thinking as well, the exceptions, where the incessant flow is interrupted, seem to be where conscious rationality finds room to work.

But that also means that the sort of empiricist view you express here is missing a whole lot of data. I love Hume too, but linguistics and psychology have moved on.