4 ms·

I understood it to be less like schizophrenia and more like early peoples who were not aware of their internal monologue. Their own thoughts were perceived as t

I understood it to be less like schizophrenia and more like early peoples who were not aware of their internal monologue. Their own thoughts were perceived as the command or voice of Gods because how else would they be able to, "hear" words that were not said by another around them?

whatshisface 8y ago
It's beyond me how you could ever show evidence for that, beyond reading between the lines of ancient text (which we know is one of the least reliable forms of historical evidence ever invented).
- nitrogen 8y ago
  This isn't evidence, but I used to be religious and there was a certain religious mindset in which the internal monologue became more like an internal dialogue. Given this, and that IIRC there is a part of the brain that has been associated with religious experience, the bicameral mind seems at least plausible, though maybe not exactly as originally posited.
  - photojosh 8y ago
    I posted a similar comment above on how religious approaches give bicameral theory some plausibility: people genuinely do think God talks to them, even today. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19567926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19567926
ionised 8y ago
But they would have evolved with that inner monologue. It's not like it would be this strange thing to them. I was born with the inner monologue. I wasn't told by others what it was, I figured it out for myself. It's me. I'm not my body, I am the voice inside my head, looking out through the eyes of a body that is nothing but a vessel for a genetic code.
- dllthomas 8y ago
  > I was born with the inner monologue. Are you sure? It seems very unlikely that it would predate language acquisition by much, at least in the form I experience.
  - ionised 8y ago
    I wouldn't say my inner monologue is speaking to me in my native language. That's just how my conscious mind tries to interpret it. I can 'think' without speaking to myself internally. My 'inner monologue' doesn't always express itself in words. I think people are reading too much into the 'monologue' part and ascribing too many actual conversational qualities to it.
    - Taylor_OD 8y ago
      > I think people are reading too much into the 'monologue' part and ascribing too many actual conversational qualities to it. You're also making assessments of how other peoples minds work without having any perspective outside how your own works. My monologue is fairly conversational. I also don't need to be thinking, "out loud" to think. That seems like it would be incredibly slow. Much of my day to day doesn't require active thinking. However, my internal monologue comes in when I've got a meaty problem to work over. It's like talking the idea out with another person.
    - dllthomas 8y ago
      It probably varies between people, both actual experience and interpretation. I find that I have a very verbal "stream of consciousness" which I would label my "inner monologue" but which certainly doesn't constitute all of my thinking.

whatshisface 8y ago

It's beyond me how you could ever show evidence for that, beyond reading between the lines of ancient text (which we know is one of the least reliable forms of historical evidence ever invented).

nitrogen 8y ago
This isn't evidence, but I used to be religious and there was a certain religious mindset in which the internal monologue became more like an internal dialogue. Given this, and that IIRC there is a part of the brain that has been associated with religious experience, the bicameral mind seems at least plausible, though maybe not exactly as originally posited.
- photojosh 8y ago
  I posted a similar comment above on how religious approaches give bicameral theory some plausibility: people genuinely do think God talks to them, even today. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19567926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19567926

ionised 8y ago

But they would have evolved with that inner monologue. It's not like it would be this strange thing to them. I was born with the inner monologue. I wasn't told by others what it was, I figured it out for myself. It's me. I'm not my body, I am the voice inside my head, looking out through the eyes of a body that is nothing but a vessel for a genetic code.

dllthomas 8y ago
> I was born with the inner monologue. Are you sure? It seems very unlikely that it would predate language acquisition by much, at least in the form I experience.
- ionised 8y ago
  I wouldn't say my inner monologue is speaking to me in my native language. That's just how my conscious mind tries to interpret it. I can 'think' without speaking to myself internally. My 'inner monologue' doesn't always express itself in words. I think people are reading too much into the 'monologue' part and ascribing too many actual conversational qualities to it.
  - Taylor_OD 8y ago
    > I think people are reading too much into the 'monologue' part and ascribing too many actual conversational qualities to it. You're also making assessments of how other peoples minds work without having any perspective outside how your own works. My monologue is fairly conversational. I also don't need to be thinking, "out loud" to think. That seems like it would be incredibly slow. Much of my day to day doesn't require active thinking. However, my internal monologue comes in when I've got a meaty problem to work over. It's like talking the idea out with another person.
  - dllthomas 8y ago
    It probably varies between people, both actual experience and interpretation. I find that I have a very verbal "stream of consciousness" which I would label my "inner monologue" but which certainly doesn't constitute all of my thinking.