Not in any manner that can have a value assigned to it, no.
Remembering a sensation in the skull and being able to assign value to that sensation are inherently different. Emotions are ambiguous biochemical states; until they are linguistically verified.
Obviously not, but there is no value to the sensation without linguistic verification; i.e. “This sentence pisses me off.” That has value, the sensation is utterly meaningless without expression.
“Imagine every instance of” whatever has no value until it is linguistically assigned. More detail, greater value.
Now that is interesting. Without the signifier “cat” having a direct denotata, do either of them have a value? One becomes random marks on the page, the other some meandering lump of fur, teeth and nails … yes, which one is the definitive “cat” … ?
Uncertain. Phenomenal reality, for the human, is always defined in linguistic parameters/values … ?
Reality, and any interpretations of such, changes with each passing microsecond … differences have to be accounted for … ?
How much does the symbolic description/signifier fully replace the denotata at the point of linguistic reference … ? I honestly don’t know, one is to the other, in the absence of the denotata, the sign is more real, and referential experience only verifies the value of the sign.
Everything we are currently doing is connotative … is this exercise valueless because we are constantly engaged with nothing but signifier?