I hope that my question does not appear too simplistic or too abstract. It is aimed at understanding and thinking about the ways ideas are realised. In particular, it may be involve the difference and interplay of logic and intuition Does intuition come as a starting point for logic and how do numbers, symbols and words come into the primary aspects of thinking?

It's interesting that I have always considered numbers as symbols.
It what way do you separate the two concepts of number and symbol?
From Wiki:
Roman numerals, the Brahmi and Chinese numerals for one through three (一 二 三), and rod numerals were derived from tally marks, as possibly was the ogham script.

Tally marks or representations of 1 have supposedly existed since around 35,000 years ago.
There have been many suggestions regarding what they physically represented, from a tree trunk to a Greco-Roman architectural column. Whatever the truth is, it seems to me that the earliest number system (tally marks) were symbolic and did represent some common object from the environment of early humans.

Yes, numbers do appear as symbols and even the alphabet may be seen as symbolic representations as the basic foundation for language.

Julian Jaynes, in 'The Bicameral Mind' spoke of how language evolved and looked at the role of song, poetry and writing as forms of expression. However, there is also the idea of numbers, as empirical quantification in daily life. However, it may span Kant's idea of the a posteri and a priori of logic. In some senses, mathematics can be seen as a foundation for philosophy. However, without language it may not make much sense at all, even in regard to the basis of logic.

The foundation of numbers was represented in relation to the objects of the environment. Also, it may have come into play in systems of thought, including astronomy, and even the construction of the pyramids.

But what are numbers and words? Are they forms of qualia or simply forms of human expression and understanding? How may numbers, symbols and language be seen as independent 'realities' or as aspects of human consciousness and the attempt to construct pictures or explanations of 'reality'? How do symbols function in the interplay between the numeric aspects of understanding and the hermeneutics arising from linguistics?

Jack, your enquiry covers an enormous amount of philosophical ground. As a starting point, pls google "natural number" and "axioms of arithmetic"!

Arguably, numbers are just abstractions from past subjective experiences, and so metaphorical themselves. This is the line taken by J.S. Mill. Consider the classical example of deduction, "all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, thus Socrates is mortal. Mill thinks deduction is just induction is disguise. He would say that we only know that “all men are mortal,” through experience. Thus, our “deduction” is just extending this empirical knowledge to a new case. Our inference was actually complete when we decided that all men were mortal, an empirical claim.

Likewise, our knowledge of mathematics comes from experience. Axioms are experimental truths; generalizations from observation. But then why should some deductions be so obvious and others so challenging? The problem here is simply one of our deciding whether the particular case we are analyzing falls within the domain of our prior inductive findings. For Mill, deduction can be informative if requires such a complex set of inferences that it is difficult to tell which established findings the case falls under. This isn't that far from the psychological explanation given by Hemple, or even early Wittgenstein's argument that deduction only works by clarifying statements and that an "ideal notation," would make all deduction trivial- i.e. it is the complexity that makes it seem like deduction is non-trivial.

But this to me suggest that numbers are then not that different from words and symbols. They stand for empirical findings.

Obviously, Hemple and Wittgenstein didn't follow Mill on axioms being empirical generalizations. I also don't agree that deduction is induction in disguise, but it's an interesting argument.

I am writing as someone who is more interested in creativity and language, as opposed to numbers and the quantifiable. However, I am aware of the importance of Maths, numbers and the quantifiable.

As regard to 'axioms of arithmetic', what may be important is how these stand as objective aspects for understanding. Here, I am referring to the way in which mathematics comes up with clear definitive examples, as opposed by the subjectivity of understanding of the arts. It may not be absolute though, with imaginary mathematics, but it may be a little different from the fantasy of the arts?

So, my question here may be what are 'axioms' and how do these figure in objective, subjective or intersubjective understanding?

I wonder about the empirical as opposed to rhetorical numbers, and its interplay with meanings may be significant. Are 'axioms' objective, or are they constructions by human beings, They may 'stand for empirical findings'. One important question here may the nature of empirical evidence in itself and it social meaning and politics. It may be possible to construct 'evidence' and methodologies of neutral research. However, the role of the researcher in observation may not be neutral but bound up with values for interpretation.

This means that numbers in themselves, such as statistics may not be separate from values and linguistic meaning. So, it leads to the question as to what extent is the numerically quantifiable coming from a different philosophical slant to be nature of the construction of human experiences, including ontological explanations.

But what are numbers and words? Are they forms of qualia or simply forms of human expression and understanding? How may numbers, symbols and language be seen as independent 'realities' or as aspects of human consciousness and the attempt to construct pictures or explanations of 'reality'? How do symbols function in the interplay between the numeric aspects of understanding and the hermeneutics arising from linguistics? — Jack Cummins

I would go with 'forms of human expression,' as numbers and words are fundamentally, glyphs. Tools humans use to communicate. I do think that such 'tools' would be applicable anywhere in the universe however.
The complexity in the universe does seem to form from simpler constituents over time.
Very large variety in a very large number of combinations will lead to increased complexity.
Would you agree that this is also the case in creativity and the arts. No early human could create something as good or as complex as a Greek sculptured statue or a painting like the Mona Lisa?
Do you think that the creativity of an individual human, starts off quite small, may grow significantly if focussed on and the aptitude is present. Then it reaches a maximum and either stays at that maximum or dilutes. Do you think any scientist or artist can always be better than they were at a point of their life, others looking back on their life, call their 'best period?'
Entropy always disassembles complexity back to its constituent, separate forms.
Would you agree?