3 ms·

Translating thoughts to language does seem like a major bottleneck. But if your goal is to implement thoughts in socially communicable concepts (spoken word or

Translating thoughts to language does seem like a major bottleneck. But if your goal is to implement thoughts in socially communicable concepts (spoken word or text), or in mathematical or programmable concepts (algorithms, software), an internal monologue is a rough draft of the implementation that is continually refined during the reflective process. Further, the internal monologue is just one representation in mind, it does not replace the full (non-verbalized) thought. Both are present and complement each other.

GistNoesis 7y ago
My objection is mostly with sequential languages. It turns people into effective but linear thinking automaton following task-lists. There is this inner monologue orchestrating the actions occasionally listening to intuitions and random thoughts popping in your mind. Whereas the mind in its natural form is highly non-linear, like a multitude of information processing filters, and independent processes. For example you can train your mind to set a mental clock. You can put some things in a corner of your mind to have it being sorted to make sense out of it. You can orchestrate it, but you can also let your mind orchestrate itself. You can let it fly. Some kids have imaginary friends, some people see auras, others have Spyro the dragon roaming their room as they type. Every day now with neural networks we can have a glimpse of how machines thinks and visualize things, and with a little training and imagination, most of these techniques are. Our languages today are bad! They are thought limiting! They are not there to express our thoughts but to communicate effectively between people, and that's the fundamental bottleneck. Don't let a bad language ruin a good mind, have this monologue orchestrate in silence like a good conductor.

3 ms·

Translating thoughts to language does seem like a major bottleneck. But if your goal is to implement thoughts in socially communicable concepts (spoken word or

by tshadley 7y ago

GistNoesis 7y ago
My objection is mostly with sequential languages. It turns people into effective but linear thinking automaton following task-lists. There is this inner monologue orchestrating the actions occasionally listening to intuitions and random thoughts popping in your mind. Whereas the mind in its natural form is highly non-linear, like a multitude of information processing filters, and independent processes. For example you can train your mind to set a mental clock. You can put some things in a corner of your mind to have it being sorted to make sense out of it. You can orchestrate it, but you can also let your mind orchestrate itself. You can let it fly. Some kids have imaginary friends, some people see auras, others have Spyro the dragon roaming their room as they type. Every day now with neural networks we can have a glimpse of how machines thinks and visualize things, and with a little training and imagination, most of these techniques are. Our languages today are bad! They are thought limiting! They are not there to express our thoughts but to communicate effectively between people, and that's the fundamental bottleneck. Don't let a bad language ruin a good mind, have this monologue orchestrate in silence like a good conductor.