I find it disappointing that the world is set up in such as way as to not allow for a radical - and I think necessary - paradigm shift in philosophy, which would be addressing thought from a more 'global' and non-exclusive perspective. Dominant paradigms - for example Anglo-american analytic philosophy - seem to have as one of their foundational premises the exclusion of 'the other', which comes about when we create systems with assumptive ways of going about things.

One difficulty I suppose is that Eastern thought (prepare for a sweeping generalization!) is so linked to spirituality that is would seem difficult to reconcile this with the more technological and deductively based Western models.

The West needs to be less hooked on logic and reason per se, and the East ought to take these factors more into consideration, in my humble opinion. Perhaps the spiritual crisis in the West will facilitate this required shift in global thought. 

I sit on my chair facing the computer thinking about what to write, and the form of my thoughts is linguistic. I am actually silently speaking in words (although research has shown that the larynx moves, ever so slightly, when we think of/in words).

But can humans think without language? I can appreciate the colours of an impressionist painting, but this is not thought, this is feeling - the same way a dog 'appreciates' a chunky morsel steak! When I start analyzing the painting,  - noticing trees and suchlike - language pops in to the picture (forgive pun); the concept of 'treeness' and subsequently the word 'tree' are employed by the mind. 

Reasoning is a type of thinking, and one can reason mathematically. But then to every number, theory, formula, equation, etc. we ascribe (and understand as) a word or symbol.

Essentially language has given us the ability to think abstractly (it is one of the - if not the -most pronounced differences between humans and non-humans), although I guess a Zen Buddhist could say, "Language is an inaccurate representation of the Truth, you can bypass logic, reasoning and language by various meditational/mindfulness techniques and experience 'direct' thought."

First of all, some psychology (yawn): Is laughter essential to the psychology of humour? If so, then a creature with the facility for humour must have a body. But then the physical symptoms of laughter can occur without amusement (e.g. someone with a mental illness which means they can't stop laughing), so laughter surely can't just be a physical occurence. Aristotle follows this tack by saying that a person is not identical with a body, yet does not exist without  a body (a theory of human nature essentially).

John Wisdom's idea that  humour and it's objects provide pointers to the analysis of the relation between subjective and objective elements in the nature of value. What one person finds 'laughable', another will not. For example, some people will belly-laugh at Monty Python style-humour, whereas others will not react, as they find it silly. (maybe they need to get a sense of humour!).

A lot more needs to be researched on this subject, the resources on it are spartan.

This is a topic that lots of philosophers have addressed, and I thought I'd have a muse over it.

Not all living creatures perceive the world in the same way/with the same quality. For example, varied animals' faculties for vision are different from our own, which is no doubt due to the extensive visual cortex in the human brain. So if there is a qualitative discrepancy in visual perception between humans and, say, dogs, then is it a wild assumption to posit that our visual faculty (and any of the 5 senses for that matter) is limited? and as such, does not necessarily give a true account of the world 'as it is' (Kantian idea of the phenomenal vs noumenal worlds). For example, there could be creatures on another planet in the universe that have access to a greater range of wavelengths of light, and so see more colours (or secondary qualities as Locke would call them) -thus giving a 'truer' account of reality.

-A friend at university with whom I was studying Geology was red-green colour blind, and found it very difficult using a polarizing microscope!

If you're like me, you're always having thoughts about the past, future, events, people flying around your head 'unmoderated', as it were.

Buddhists teach mindfulness and awareness of the moment, and not to dwell on unnecessary stuff that you would often like your brain's version of your 'recycle bin' to empty. From what I know about Buddhist practice, mindfulness is a tool and a way of harnessing your thoughts which gives greater control over them when they arise. I have a different approach to offloading my thoughts, I keep a jotter with me wherever I go, and this helps keep my brain uncluttered. However, that does not solve the problem of valueless thoughts floating around my head, so I keep a journal for that!