4 ms·

Not only are they unproven, but are ultimately not provable at all. Some people will say yes, some people will say no. Probably we can take their word for it, b

Not only are they unproven, but are ultimately not provable at all. Some people will say yes, some people will say no. Probably we can take their word for it, but in the simplest case they could just lie (in either direction) and we would have no way to tell. In short, maybe these inner monologues exist and maybe they don't, but science can't comment on that. That said, it is clearly something we are interested in, but it will need to be addressed in some other way (i.e. religion, ideology, etc.).

Terr_ 2y ago
> but are ultimately not provable at all No, they are potentially falsifiable as we get better at scanning, identifying, intervening in brain activity. Just off the top of my head here, suppose we create a table puzzle problem that (in itself) doesn't require language to understand, like ones we make for certain animals. Have human subjects (silently) solve it. Afterwards, quiz the solvers about their internal monologue--or lack thereof--dividing them into two groups and noting the words used. Now change to a second puzzle of similar style and same overall difficult. Stun/anesthetize the language-centers of subjects, to deny access to any of the monologue-words (validating this intervention will involve other research), and then test them on the second problem. * If performance is constant for both groups, that suggests the monologue is illusory or at least not needed for this kind/scope of problem. * If performance drops for both groups, that suggests the no-monologue people might just not be as aware of a linguistic process that's actually happening. * If performance drops for monologue-subjects, that suggests it's a real and important difference in modes of logical thought. * If some other combination happens, you have an mysterious and exciting new line of research.
- ElevenLathe 2y ago
  Sure, there is stuff we can do to tease around the edges (similar problems crop up all the time in psychology and sociology) but we will always have to weaken the claim in order to do experiments relating to it.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
> Probably we can take their word for it, but in the simplest case they could just lie (in either direction) and we would have no way to tell. Individually, no, but in general, for people to consistently lie about this particular thing at scale would be extremely unusual, given that people rarely lie if there's no reason for it. Going by this baseline, you could assume upward of 50% of replies are honest (even if mistaken), otherwise you'd have to explain why do you believe people would suddenly lie about that particular thing.
- hughesjj 2y ago
  I've heard a theory where the inner monolog was emergent, and some of the first people to recognize thr 'voice in their heads' attributed it to god/angels/etc There's conspiratorial lying and lying from ignorance, one is much less credulous.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    That theory is the "bicameral mind"; I think it's even discussed elsewhere in this thread.

Terr_ 2y ago

> but are ultimately not provable at all No, they are potentially falsifiable as we get better at scanning, identifying, intervening in brain activity. Just off the top of my head here, suppose we create a table puzzle problem that (in itself) doesn't require language to understand, like ones we make for certain animals. Have human subjects (silently) solve it. Afterwards, quiz the solvers about their internal monologue--or lack thereof--dividing them into two groups and noting the words used. Now change to a second puzzle of similar style and same overall difficult. Stun/anesthetize the language-centers of subjects, to deny access to any of the monologue-words (validating this intervention will involve other research), and then test them on the second problem. * If performance is constant for both groups, that suggests the monologue is illusory or at least not needed for this kind/scope of problem. * If performance drops for both groups, that suggests the no-monologue people might just not be as aware of a linguistic process that's actually happening. * If performance drops for monologue-subjects, that suggests it's a real and important difference in modes of logical thought. * If some other combination happens, you have an mysterious and exciting new line of research.

ElevenLathe 2y ago
Sure, there is stuff we can do to tease around the edges (similar problems crop up all the time in psychology and sociology) but we will always have to weaken the claim in order to do experiments relating to it.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

> Probably we can take their word for it, but in the simplest case they could just lie (in either direction) and we would have no way to tell. Individually, no, but in general, for people to consistently lie about this particular thing at scale would be extremely unusual, given that people rarely lie if there's no reason for it. Going by this baseline, you could assume upward of 50% of replies are honest (even if mistaken), otherwise you'd have to explain why do you believe people would suddenly lie about that particular thing.

hughesjj 2y ago
I've heard a theory where the inner monolog was emergent, and some of the first people to recognize thr 'voice in their heads' attributed it to god/angels/etc There's conspiratorial lying and lying from ignorance, one is much less credulous.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  That theory is the "bicameral mind"; I think it's even discussed elsewhere in this thread.