3 ms·

But we all know thoughts aren't words, the words come after the thought. The proof is that you can stop your inner words mid-sentence and you still know what yo

But we all know thoughts aren't words, the words come after the thought. The proof is that you can stop your inner words mid-sentence and you still know what you were going to think, because the thought itself takes a few milliseconds, and happens before the words start.

gchamonlive 1y ago
> But we all know thoughts aren't words, the words come after the thought That seems valid at first, but if look at that premise closely, you'll see that even assuming wordless thoughts always come first, doesn't mean that during the process of thinking they don't give way to words. That is to say, thoughts can be a precursor, but words do offer a framework which you can use structure thought. That's specially handy for abstract concepts, like individuality, the split of the self and the world, which are fundamental to thought as we understand it through language. Nothing prevents you from understanding a concept with the help of language and then using the concept by itself, detached from the symbols you used to arrive at it, to think. But that requires a certain effort and intention that maybe is what the article is aiming for.
- chrisweekly 1y ago
  "the split of the self and the world" is something many buddhists and hindus would consider an illusion and fundamental error
  - gchamonlive 1y ago
    Before right or wrong, it's a concept, it defines the boundaries of the body. It might well be an illusion, a source of unnecessary suffering, but it's a concept you can understand and reason about. I'm taking about frameworks of thought that comes before any value judgement.
shakna 1y ago
I think a better way to show this, would be that anendophasia [0] is a thing. Some people have no inner voice, but aren't thoughtless automatons. They can still task-switch the same as everyone else. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38728320/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38728320/
- daxfohl 1y ago
  Or by watching rats solve mazes
  - shakna 1y ago
    I don't think we've attempted to study if rats have internal monolgues all that much, yet. It wouldn't surprise me if they did, or did not. I wouldn't say it is safe to assume they don't. About the only real animal model has shown that some species of monkey probably do. [0] [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166432811001367 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01664...
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  On 4chan and reddit, they actually believe that those without an "inner monologue" have no soul.
  - missingdays 1y ago
    Reddit has roughly 400 million weekly users. You think all of them believe the same thing?
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
      That's what the evidence suggests.
  - shakna 1y ago
    Just to underpin how wrong this comment is, I - the person who posted the medical explanation - have been rather active on both those platforms.
danparsonson 1y ago
Or conversely, that one can be lost for words to describe what one is thinking!

gchamonlive 1y ago

> But we all know thoughts aren't words, the words come after the thought That seems valid at first, but if look at that premise closely, you'll see that even assuming wordless thoughts always come first, doesn't mean that during the process of thinking they don't give way to words. That is to say, thoughts can be a precursor, but words do offer a framework which you can use structure thought. That's specially handy for abstract concepts, like individuality, the split of the self and the world, which are fundamental to thought as we understand it through language. Nothing prevents you from understanding a concept with the help of language and then using the concept by itself, detached from the symbols you used to arrive at it, to think. But that requires a certain effort and intention that maybe is what the article is aiming for.

chrisweekly 1y ago
"the split of the self and the world" is something many buddhists and hindus would consider an illusion and fundamental error
- gchamonlive 1y ago
  Before right or wrong, it's a concept, it defines the boundaries of the body. It might well be an illusion, a source of unnecessary suffering, but it's a concept you can understand and reason about. I'm taking about frameworks of thought that comes before any value judgement.

shakna 1y ago

I think a better way to show this, would be that anendophasia [0] is a thing. Some people have no inner voice, but aren't thoughtless automatons. They can still task-switch the same as everyone else. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38728320/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38728320/

daxfohl 1y ago
Or by watching rats solve mazes
- shakna 1y ago
  I don't think we've attempted to study if rats have internal monolgues all that much, yet. It wouldn't surprise me if they did, or did not. I wouldn't say it is safe to assume they don't. About the only real animal model has shown that some species of monkey probably do. [0] [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166432811001367 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01664...
NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
On 4chan and reddit, they actually believe that those without an "inner monologue" have no soul.
- missingdays 1y ago
  Reddit has roughly 400 million weekly users. You think all of them believe the same thing?
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    That's what the evidence suggests.
- shakna 1y ago
  Just to underpin how wrong this comment is, I - the person who posted the medical explanation - have been rather active on both those platforms.

danparsonson 1y ago

Or conversely, that one can be lost for words to describe what one is thinking!