3 ms·

>It is obviously not true. Different people tend to have differing levels of internal monologue. Mine is so constant that nearly all conscious thought filters

>It is obviously not true. Different people tend to have differing levels of internal monologue. Mine is so constant that nearly all conscious thought filters through it, to the point that it would be very easy to mistake the monologue for the totality of consciousness. It's a theory that rings true with people who think like I do, but still assume that everyone else thinks the same way too.

deafpolygon 4y ago
And some people, like myself, have no monologue or internal dialogue. What then? I have no consciousness or intelligence?
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  We call people like you "philosophical zombies". ;D
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Worse than that. Manners of speaking, narration, works of fiction, etc. will - both for convenience and from actual bias - focus strongly on people quite unlike you. So strongly that many people will start to doubt that your kind even exist. Welcome to the short and dirty end of yet another dimension of human cognitive bias.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > And some people, like myself, have no monologue or internal dialogue. What then? I have no consciousness or intelligence? I don't have this either, but I would still say I think in language. It might be concepts that link together in hierarchies or graphs, but those concepts are described in words.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    The concepts are described in words, but you're not describing your thoughts to yourself. You have your own thoughts directly. The words are a side effect, to be called upon when you want to talk to someone else. Saying that you think in words is saying that the computer from GalaxyQuest thinks in words because every time it does something, it reports what it has just done over the loudspeakers. You're confusing the effect with the cause.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      > Saying that you think in words is saying that the computer from GalaxyQuest thinks in words because every time it does something, it reports what it has just done over the loudspeakers. You're confusing the effect with the cause. This seems a bit silly. I'm not saying that speaking words is what constitutes thought. I'm saying concepts generally need names before we can reason about them.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        You're saying that mental instances of words are what constitutes thought. That is incorrect. Mental words are an output of a mental process downstream of thought. > I'm saying concepts generally need names before we can reason about them. This is also false. People adapt to patterns constantly; they rarely bother to name those patterns.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        > This is also false. People adapt to patterns constantly; they rarely bother to name those patterns. I'm trying to maintain an open tone in the face of this, but I might stop soon. To address this particular point: "adapt to patterns" - such as? From context you seem to be saying this is identical to reasoning, but I don't see why that would be.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > "adapt to patterns" - such as? This is difficult to answer in terms other than "everything in the world". People do not have trouble recognizing different types of pain that they experience and seeking different treatment based on the difference in the pain. They do not use words to represent the differences, and if you ask them to describe those differences, they will become frustrated. People don't have trouble recognizing smells. They are generally not able to describe smells. This is why you see frustration among chemical engineers over papers describing the smell of various substances as "characteristic". People routinely recognize behavior without having any name for it. If you choose a strategy for making a presentation to your boss, you are doing this based on a mental model of his behavior. In some cases, people do give names to behavior that they worry about, but in almost all cases, they don't. I recently described the behavior of dancers in a dance video in these terms: "they're being like him". You may notice that there is zero descriptive content in that sentence. But the meaning was clear to both me and my interlocutors. Consider a hypothetical conversation planning out a strategy. (For anything.) Person A describes a plan. Person B responds "What if he does that thing he does?". A and B both understand what is being referred to, but, obviously, B has no name for it. All of these are just examples of a phenomenon that applies to everything. If you've ever observed anyone struggling to put their thoughts into words -- and I know that you have -- you should be able to realize that their thoughts cannot have been embodied in words to begin with.

deafpolygon 4y ago

And some people, like myself, have no monologue or internal dialogue. What then? I have no consciousness or intelligence?

thaumasiotes 4y ago
We call people like you "philosophical zombies". ;D
bell-cot 4y ago
Worse than that. Manners of speaking, narration, works of fiction, etc. will - both for convenience and from actual bias - focus strongly on people quite unlike you. So strongly that many people will start to doubt that your kind even exist. Welcome to the short and dirty end of yet another dimension of human cognitive bias.
robertlagrant 4y ago
> And some people, like myself, have no monologue or internal dialogue. What then? I have no consciousness or intelligence? I don't have this either, but I would still say I think in language. It might be concepts that link together in hierarchies or graphs, but those concepts are described in words.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  The concepts are described in words, but you're not describing your thoughts to yourself. You have your own thoughts directly. The words are a side effect, to be called upon when you want to talk to someone else. Saying that you think in words is saying that the computer from GalaxyQuest thinks in words because every time it does something, it reports what it has just done over the loudspeakers. You're confusing the effect with the cause.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    > Saying that you think in words is saying that the computer from GalaxyQuest thinks in words because every time it does something, it reports what it has just done over the loudspeakers. You're confusing the effect with the cause. This seems a bit silly. I'm not saying that speaking words is what constitutes thought. I'm saying concepts generally need names before we can reason about them.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      You're saying that mental instances of words are what constitutes thought. That is incorrect. Mental words are an output of a mental process downstream of thought. > I'm saying concepts generally need names before we can reason about them. This is also false. People adapt to patterns constantly; they rarely bother to name those patterns.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        > This is also false. People adapt to patterns constantly; they rarely bother to name those patterns. I'm trying to maintain an open tone in the face of this, but I might stop soon. To address this particular point: "adapt to patterns" - such as? From context you seem to be saying this is identical to reasoning, but I don't see why that would be.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > "adapt to patterns" - such as? This is difficult to answer in terms other than "everything in the world". People do not have trouble recognizing different types of pain that they experience and seeking different treatment based on the difference in the pain. They do not use words to represent the differences, and if you ask them to describe those differences, they will become frustrated. People don't have trouble recognizing smells. They are generally not able to describe smells. This is why you see frustration among chemical engineers over papers describing the smell of various substances as "characteristic". People routinely recognize behavior without having any name for it. If you choose a strategy for making a presentation to your boss, you are doing this based on a mental model of his behavior. In some cases, people do give names to behavior that they worry about, but in almost all cases, they don't. I recently described the behavior of dancers in a dance video in these terms: "they're being like him". You may notice that there is zero descriptive content in that sentence. But the meaning was clear to both me and my interlocutors. Consider a hypothetical conversation planning out a strategy. (For anything.) Person A describes a plan. Person B responds "What if he does that thing he does?". A and B both understand what is being referred to, but, obviously, B has no name for it. All of these are just examples of a phenomenon that applies to everything. If you've ever observed anyone struggling to put their thoughts into words -- and I know that you have -- you should be able to realize that their thoughts cannot have been embodied in words to begin with.