3 ms·
Given the amount of people who report not having an internal monologue at all, I don’t think human logic is predicated on using words. They definitely can make
by NineStarPoint 3y ago
Given the amount of people who report not having an internal monologue at all, I don’t think human logic is predicated on using words. They definitely can make complex logic easier, but it’s not a requirement.
The cabbage, wolf, goat problem is also an easy example of a problem that doesn't really need words to solve once you’ve conceptualized it. You can solve it by moving physical figures back and forth, either literally on a table or using the visual imagination part of your mind if you have one.
- timschmidt 3y agoNot being aware of something is different from not having something. If said people still manage to carry on conversation, chances are good it's being generated somewhere internally. Everyone is self-aware to different extents and about different aspects of self.
- bmitc 3y ago> Given the amount of people who report not having an internal monologue at all, What does this mean?
- Filligree 3y agoWhat is an internal monologue, exactly? Certainly I've heard to words a lot, but... what is it? That thing. I don't do that.
- yreg 3y agoIt's thinking in words.
- bongodongobob 3y ago[flagged]
- TeMPOraL 3y agoNo, that's called aphantasia, it's orthogonal to not having an inner monologue (the "voice in your head"), and there are in fact people who effectively hallucinate on demand. Which I suppose explains a lot of phrases that make little sense if they're only taken symbolically. Or why some people like long scenery descriptions in books - they can literally imagine it. Unfortunately, I'm aphantasic, so I can't.
- bongodongobob 3y agoDid you get a CT scan or MRI? Or self-diagnosed?