This sounds like language thinker bias, or your definition of language is more abstract (like in Computer Science) than human languages. I can "construct a scene graph" just fine, and while I have to use words to describe the scenes to you, no words played a part in coming up with these examples or thinking about them:
- imagine a rope running through several wooden blocks on a table and pick up various blocks, how do the rest of them behave?
- imagine wooden discs of various sizes with holes, stack them on a pole, does it happen to be a valid solution for Tower of Hanoi?
- imagine a toy car, start lifting one end, at what point does it tip over?
I for sure am not using a human language for that.
> Different languages based on primitives might construct different scene graphs.
This is probably very much true in the same style as your native language biases your perception of color boundaries.
For example: Finnish has just one word for "leg", not separate words for "leg" and "foot", so I view the abstract concept of the whole limb as one thing, not separated into two parts at the ankle. In using language, I may accidentally say in English "I hurt my leg" after kicking my foot into something; they're the same.
For the reverse, Finnish has separate words for the front and back parts of the neck -- and I don't mean just throat, which is just the trachea area, I mean the whole frontal part of it. So, the thought of e.g. dirt on the back of my neck is separate from the though of dirt on the front of my neck. (No, I don't use the words in the thought.)