5 ms·

> is there any reason why we simply can't take their word for it? because if we give them a problem to solve in their head and just give us the answer, they wi

> is there any reason why we simply can't take their word for it? because if we give them a problem to solve in their head and just give us the answer, they will. By problem I mean planning a trip, a meal, how to pay the mortgage, etc. It's impossible to plan without an internal monologue. Even if some people claim theirs is 'in images'.

glitchc 2y ago
Perhaps there's confusion in how we are using the word monologue. I took it to mean a conversation, a dialogue where the problem is perhaps solved using a dialectic method, or simply a conversation. Since one can solve a problem by following some memorized steps, no conversation required, this is perhaps not a good test, or we mean different things when we say "monologue."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rprospero 2y ago
> It's impossible to plan without an internal monologue I once had a teacher claim that people who claimed to have aphantasia were lying, because those people have read books and it is impossible to read a book without picture the scene in your mind's eye. Are you citing the same source that she was?
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  I wish I had such a teacher, because I'd learn the term "aphantasia", instead of worrying all my youth that I'm doing reading wrong, as I could never picture anything I was reading in my mind (and as a result, I found scenery descriptions to be mind dumbingly boring).
staticman2 2y ago
>> It's impossible to plan without an internal monologue That's quite the claim.
ElevenLathe 2y ago
> It's impossible to plan without an internal monologue. How can science make this claim if it can't prove (or disprove) the existence of an internal monologue?
- IlliOnato 2y ago
  Well, I remember Richard Feynman came up with an interesting experiment. He found he could not count objects when he read aloud some text at the same time. He had to name the numbers, and it was impossible if he was already engaging his speech. He thought this was universal, but doing this experiment with friends, he discovered a guy who could count while reading aloud. So when Feynman asked him, how he does this, turned out that the guy instead of "pronouncing" numbers was "seeing" colored numbers in his imagination, so his speech was not involved. I supposed this experiment can be modified and generalized, and at least to shed some light on this problem.
photon_lines 2y ago
'It's impossible to plan without an internal monologue.' - Sorry, but I disagree with this. I have no 'internal voice' or monologue - whenever I see a problem, my brain actually and fully models it using images. I believe 25% of the population doesn't have the internal monologue which you're referring to and this has been tested and confirmed. I highly recommend listening to this Lex Friedman podcast episode to get a full grasp on the complexities of modelling language and general modelling present in the human brain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3Jd9GI6XqE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3Jd9GI6XqE
- GeoAtreides 2y ago
  Sure, I do mention thinking in images in my original comment and count it as some type of internal monologue. I personally do not believe it's all images, as that would preclude using highly abstract concepts. But I might be wrong, and it might be 100% images. That being said, it does count as an internal monologue.
- lupire 2y ago
  Can you draw a picture of an example of what you see when you think about something?
  - photon_lines 2y ago
    Sure - with the Alice example, when I saw the problem I came up with a really simple visual example of Alice having 3 sisters and 4 brothers. When I visualized it I saw Alice standing next to 3 other women (her sisters) and her 4 brothers standing close by. When I imagined asking her brother how many sisters he has, I could see that Alice was standing there next to 3 other women and thus came up with the answer of 4. Does this make sense?
    - magicalhippo 2y ago
      This could account for why some people are much better at say geometry than algebra. I'm the opposite. I rarely visualize things I read, be it geometry or poetry. I can read a detailed description of a person or an item in a novel, and I don't really "see" anything. But I have an active inner monologue. I "hear" myself saying the words when reading or writing, I "talk" to myself when solving problems or just thinking about stuff. Especially when programming I'm reasoning by discussing the problem with myself, the only difference being that I usually don't open my mouth and vocalize the discussion. Though sometimes when I'm alone I do just that.
JohnMakin 2y ago
> It's impossible to plan without an internal monologue. Of course it isn't impossible, and this is backed by what we know about paleoanthropology and other instances of cognition in animals - humans were making stone tools millions of years ago, which takes planning in the form of imagining what you want the tool to look like and how you will do it and what it will be used for. It's exceedingly likely we had this ability long before complex speech evolved. Apes also use and make tools, which would require planning, and I don't think they have an internal monologue going on. birds from the corvid family can do some pretty advanced problem solving that requires planning. Cetaceans might be an exception, because they appear to have some form of language, but this is a pretty wild claim not really backed by any kind of science as we understand it today.
- GeoAtreides 2y ago
  Animals can not manipulate abstract concepts nor can they do long-term plans. No crow can plan an international trip spanning a couple of weeks and two change-overs. And some people definitely can't do it start to end, but they can at least plan the first 5-7 steps. Also, maybe inner monologue is not a binary have/have not, but maybe it is on a continuum.
  - glitchc 2y ago
    Not sure. Migratory birds seem to manage this just fine. Not only do they make multiple stops to eat and rest, they also navigate around bad weather and still make it to their intended destination (at least most of the time).
    - GeoAtreides 2y ago
      > Migratory birds seem to manage this just fine Instincts.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    Yes, no one is disputing that animals are not as intelligent and lack the same capacity for planning that humans do, but the post you're replying to is disputing the fact that planning is done solely through internal narrative/monologue, which is easily disprovable by pointing to the examples I did. There are many more in nature.

glitchc 2y ago

Perhaps there's confusion in how we are using the word monologue. I took it to mean a conversation, a dialogue where the problem is perhaps solved using a dialectic method, or simply a conversation. Since one can solve a problem by following some memorized steps, no conversation required, this is perhaps not a good test, or we mean different things when we say "monologue."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rprospero 2y ago

> It's impossible to plan without an internal monologue I once had a teacher claim that people who claimed to have aphantasia were lying, because those people have read books and it is impossible to read a book without picture the scene in your mind's eye. Are you citing the same source that she was?

TeMPOraL 2y ago
I wish I had such a teacher, because I'd learn the term "aphantasia", instead of worrying all my youth that I'm doing reading wrong, as I could never picture anything I was reading in my mind (and as a result, I found scenery descriptions to be mind dumbingly boring).

staticman2 2y ago

>> It's impossible to plan without an internal monologue That's quite the claim.

ElevenLathe 2y ago

> It's impossible to plan without an internal monologue. How can science make this claim if it can't prove (or disprove) the existence of an internal monologue?

IlliOnato 2y ago
Well, I remember Richard Feynman came up with an interesting experiment. He found he could not count objects when he read aloud some text at the same time. He had to name the numbers, and it was impossible if he was already engaging his speech. He thought this was universal, but doing this experiment with friends, he discovered a guy who could count while reading aloud. So when Feynman asked him, how he does this, turned out that the guy instead of "pronouncing" numbers was "seeing" colored numbers in his imagination, so his speech was not involved. I supposed this experiment can be modified and generalized, and at least to shed some light on this problem.

photon_lines 2y ago

'It's impossible to plan without an internal monologue.' - Sorry, but I disagree with this. I have no 'internal voice' or monologue - whenever I see a problem, my brain actually and fully models it using images. I believe 25% of the population doesn't have the internal monologue which you're referring to and this has been tested and confirmed. I highly recommend listening to this Lex Friedman podcast episode to get a full grasp on the complexities of modelling language and general modelling present in the human brain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3Jd9GI6XqE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3Jd9GI6XqE

GeoAtreides 2y ago
Sure, I do mention thinking in images in my original comment and count it as some type of internal monologue. I personally do not believe it's all images, as that would preclude using highly abstract concepts. But I might be wrong, and it might be 100% images. That being said, it does count as an internal monologue.
lupire 2y ago
Can you draw a picture of an example of what you see when you think about something?
- photon_lines 2y ago
  Sure - with the Alice example, when I saw the problem I came up with a really simple visual example of Alice having 3 sisters and 4 brothers. When I visualized it I saw Alice standing next to 3 other women (her sisters) and her 4 brothers standing close by. When I imagined asking her brother how many sisters he has, I could see that Alice was standing there next to 3 other women and thus came up with the answer of 4. Does this make sense?
  - magicalhippo 2y ago
    This could account for why some people are much better at say geometry than algebra. I'm the opposite. I rarely visualize things I read, be it geometry or poetry. I can read a detailed description of a person or an item in a novel, and I don't really "see" anything. But I have an active inner monologue. I "hear" myself saying the words when reading or writing, I "talk" to myself when solving problems or just thinking about stuff. Especially when programming I'm reasoning by discussing the problem with myself, the only difference being that I usually don't open my mouth and vocalize the discussion. Though sometimes when I'm alone I do just that.

JohnMakin 2y ago

> It's impossible to plan without an internal monologue. Of course it isn't impossible, and this is backed by what we know about paleoanthropology and other instances of cognition in animals - humans were making stone tools millions of years ago, which takes planning in the form of imagining what you want the tool to look like and how you will do it and what it will be used for. It's exceedingly likely we had this ability long before complex speech evolved. Apes also use and make tools, which would require planning, and I don't think they have an internal monologue going on. birds from the corvid family can do some pretty advanced problem solving that requires planning. Cetaceans might be an exception, because they appear to have some form of language, but this is a pretty wild claim not really backed by any kind of science as we understand it today.

GeoAtreides 2y ago
Animals can not manipulate abstract concepts nor can they do long-term plans. No crow can plan an international trip spanning a couple of weeks and two change-overs. And some people definitely can't do it start to end, but they can at least plan the first 5-7 steps. Also, maybe inner monologue is not a binary have/have not, but maybe it is on a continuum.
- glitchc 2y ago
  Not sure. Migratory birds seem to manage this just fine. Not only do they make multiple stops to eat and rest, they also navigate around bad weather and still make it to their intended destination (at least most of the time).
  - GeoAtreides 2y ago
    > Migratory birds seem to manage this just fine Instincts.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  Yes, no one is disputing that animals are not as intelligent and lack the same capacity for planning that humans do, but the post you're replying to is disputing the fact that planning is done solely through internal narrative/monologue, which is easily disprovable by pointing to the examples I did. There are many more in nature.