4 ms·

I have inner dialog. Does this qualify as "think in language"?

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
No. That's not your "thought". It's just a little subroutine that evolved so you could rehearse dialogue with other humans... unclever people have it go a little haywire, and they mistake it for their actual thoughts. The hilarious part is that some even end up believing it makes them superior.
- sublinear 3y ago
  > rehearse dialogue with other humans I'm going to make an even bolder claim and say that there's no such thing as a thought completely independent of dialogue with other humans.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Touch grass and you may think of your personal relation with grass.
- haswell 3y ago
  > It's just a little subroutine that evolved so you could rehearse dialogue with other humans That’s an interesting claim to make. What are you basing this on? Framing this as a subroutine also seems a bit of a limited view on our dialogue generation abilities. I can assure you that my internal dialogue rarely stops (meditation is an exception), and most often isn’t worried about talking with other people.
- two_in_one 3y ago
  hmm.. that 'rehearsing' isn't thinking? I know people who thing about every word, the phrase and re-phrase, select the best sounding. Do you think they still don't think in language? They even write their thoughts down and sell as a books.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    No. It's not thinking in any meaningful way. It's practice for when you're in front of that person and getting ready to talk for real. But for those who have no control over it, it just goes apeshit. I've heard self-reported cases of people doing the same but with historical or even fictional people. They try to use it for everything... as if that simulated person they're "talking to" will somehow be capable of solving a problem they themselves aren't capable of. I think I was in grade school when I realized all the rest of you were lunatics. Took a little while longer to understand the nature of the cognitive flaw. > Do you think they still don't think in language? Yes. Because if that's how you "think", then you're not thinking at all. Which means you're also incapable of understanding how thought works. You're asserting that I'm wrong, offering no evidence or even a plausible alternative theory. It's just another one of those absurd "truths" that dumb people assume is true and no one ever calls them on it. I've explained that it is but one mental faculty, I've explained the evolutionary origin of it, and to top it all off, I've explained why you mistake the output of this singular mental faculty to be"thought". I would hope that you'd be able to work through on first principles why I must be correct. You've just said thought is impossible without human (spoken, maybe signed) language, when there is clear counter-evidence in the world that everyone is aware of that contradicts your asinine theory. I would hope that. Except that it's futile.
    - fumblywumbly 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - temporallobe 3y ago
      You come across like someone from r/iamverysmart. Take a step back and understand that nobody can really “know” for certain what thought actually is, because it’s exactly like trying to understand consciousness, which is the biggest mystery of all.
      - bluedays 3y ago
        I think he could use a little more practice rehearsing how to speak with other humans
- anothernewdude 3y ago
  You're making a lot of baseless claims here. Care to base some of them?
JieJie 3y ago
Rather than argue with you, I'll agree with you. As I am a writer, I not only think in language, but I act in language. I would add a link to a conversation with neuroscientist Anil Seth about the nature of consciousness, and a quote from that, which posits maybe this isn't an either/or situation. There is much diversity in what constitutes "thought", even in humans. "You know, some people might see colors differently. Other people might have more vivid mental imagery. We might experience the flow of time to be different from one person to another. Our expectations, our tendency to see faces in clouds, let’s say, that might differ from one person to another too. And very little is known about this hidden landscape of inner diversity." https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-the-nature-of-consciousness-20230531/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-the-nature-of-conscio...

No. That's not your "thought". It's just a little subroutine that evolved so you could rehearse dialogue with other humans... unclever people have it go a little haywire, and they mistake it for their actual thoughts. The hilarious part is that some even end up believing it makes them superior.

sublinear 3y ago
> rehearse dialogue with other humans I'm going to make an even bolder claim and say that there's no such thing as a thought completely independent of dialogue with other humans.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Touch grass and you may think of your personal relation with grass.
haswell 3y ago
> It's just a little subroutine that evolved so you could rehearse dialogue with other humans That’s an interesting claim to make. What are you basing this on? Framing this as a subroutine also seems a bit of a limited view on our dialogue generation abilities. I can assure you that my internal dialogue rarely stops (meditation is an exception), and most often isn’t worried about talking with other people.
two_in_one 3y ago
hmm.. that 'rehearsing' isn't thinking? I know people who thing about every word, the phrase and re-phrase, select the best sounding. Do you think they still don't think in language? They even write their thoughts down and sell as a books.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  No. It's not thinking in any meaningful way. It's practice for when you're in front of that person and getting ready to talk for real. But for those who have no control over it, it just goes apeshit. I've heard self-reported cases of people doing the same but with historical or even fictional people. They try to use it for everything... as if that simulated person they're "talking to" will somehow be capable of solving a problem they themselves aren't capable of. I think I was in grade school when I realized all the rest of you were lunatics. Took a little while longer to understand the nature of the cognitive flaw. > Do you think they still don't think in language? Yes. Because if that's how you "think", then you're not thinking at all. Which means you're also incapable of understanding how thought works. You're asserting that I'm wrong, offering no evidence or even a plausible alternative theory. It's just another one of those absurd "truths" that dumb people assume is true and no one ever calls them on it. I've explained that it is but one mental faculty, I've explained the evolutionary origin of it, and to top it all off, I've explained why you mistake the output of this singular mental faculty to be"thought". I would hope that you'd be able to work through on first principles why I must be correct. You've just said thought is impossible without human (spoken, maybe signed) language, when there is clear counter-evidence in the world that everyone is aware of that contradicts your asinine theory. I would hope that. Except that it's futile.
  - fumblywumbly 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - temporallobe 3y ago
    You come across like someone from r/iamverysmart. Take a step back and understand that nobody can really “know” for certain what thought actually is, because it’s exactly like trying to understand consciousness, which is the biggest mystery of all.
    - bluedays 3y ago
      I think he could use a little more practice rehearsing how to speak with other humans
anothernewdude 3y ago
You're making a lot of baseless claims here. Care to base some of them?

JieJie 3y ago

Rather than argue with you, I'll agree with you. As I am a writer, I not only think in language, but I act in language. I would add a link to a conversation with neuroscientist Anil Seth about the nature of consciousness, and a quote from that, which posits maybe this isn't an either/or situation. There is much diversity in what constitutes "thought", even in humans. "You know, some people might see colors differently. Other people might have more vivid mental imagery. We might experience the flow of time to be different from one person to another. Our expectations, our tendency to see faces in clouds, let’s say, that might differ from one person to another too. And very little is known about this hidden landscape of inner diversity." https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-the-nature-of-consciousness-20230531/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-the-nature-of-conscio...