Sapir-whorf hypothesis

To some extent. Those kinds of theories I believe apply mostly to the social spectrum and to the 'average' statistical data obtained by it. As for all things the extent to which this theory explains person by person is not a flat curve. Language is a tool first and foremost and can shape the way one operates in the same fashion as if you had shovel to dig a grave (ok, failed example but you get the picture). How you dig it is your desicion to make, just that you will have to use the shovel.

So you believe that consciousness does not arise out of language, since it is not completely influenced by language, and that how one uses language is independent of one's free will, since our free will dictates what we do with language, not vice versa. Then what is consciousness, acording to you?

another way to look at intelligence is by seeing it as seeing. you can see thing and not have a name on it. but languages naming on things can make us see things we did not see before.

If we knew what our unthinkable thoughts were, wouldn't that make them thinkable?

The problem is that there are multiple levels of thought. This fact has been considered a key weakness of stream-of-consciousness literary theory and style (as SOC must necessarily only be able to record one level of a person's thought).

Think about how we think. On the most common and banal level we think with words, usually in our mother tongue, but on yet another, we think pictorially, almost a slide-show collection in our minds; on yet another, musically; and so on and so forth until the web of thoughts becomes so connected and intertwined so as to be impossible to disentangle from one another.

Yes, language influences the way we think, but only on the most superficial and rational levels; as you delve deeper into a mind, you will reach sharper, stronger thoughts--emotions--fear, daring, love, hatred, joy, sorrow, etc. And below that the level of instinct that propels our constant desires--the quest for food and health and comfort and progeny--and possibly below that a basement substratum of unquantifiable atavistic urges inherited from when the first collections of molecules emerged from viscous organo-ooze and life emerged.

I want to say that I support the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. If by language we mean any sort of symbology or representation, then thought is the same thing as language. If by consciousness we mean thought + sensation, then language is a part of consciousness. My view is that language/thought is a complex of sensation, so its all a matter of gradation anyway.

Also, all understanding of the world outide the present, all memories or imagination, occur in the realm of language, because that understanding is representative, symbolic. Only in the present could there be consciousness without language, because there alone is pure sensation. Of course, no one that I've ever met can sense but cannot think, so consciousness always entails language even if we can intellectually divide the two as I did above.