I know this is a popular r*ddit topic, but I'm curious if rdrama bussy conniseurs overwhelmingly have an internal monologue. Despite being tards, the average user here is definitely less tarded than the average r*dditor. The vast majority of people I've seen online claiming they have no internal monologue are foids, which makes sense tbh.
2yr ago
(text post)
2,176 thread views
#20557
Do you have an internal monologue? And have you accepted that you're a subhuman r-slur if you don't?
- 274
- 60
Top Poster of the Day:
rogerwaters
Current Registered Users: 26,347
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS
SITE GUIDE
HOLES
PING GROUPS
Live commit: da0d62e
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Please explain to me how you think about any given subject without some degree of language association.
Language is literally math, lol.
That concept was formulated with words. Just because a unique descriptor has not yet been coined does not mean language is not involved.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Say I’m dreaming about fricking someone. There aren’t any words involved, just sensations and ideas and relations. Or say you’re programming a large complex thing. Words would make a big mess.
not reflexive. math isn’t language. intuition for complex ideas and big things doesn’t come via words. it’s dumb
no? ravens and monkeys can do ten step logic over periods of hours. they do not have language. They have the same sorts of brains as we do.
ok r-slur what’s the word you think of when you’re tired. or do ya just feel a bit sleepy? dumbass
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
ThOse THINgS are jsut SENSORy INPUT not MEaNING /s
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you’re an unthinking machine responding to inputs. except when you say words that’s magical and self reflection consciousness meta :o. this is why paintings and music are boring, and why those who appreciate them do so by saying lots of paragraphs in their heads about it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
can't tell if sarcastic
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
whenever I stop talking I become totally unfeeling. my throat was clogged one day so I couldn’t subvocalize and I just left my kids in the park while I got cigs because I didn’t love them because that’s words.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's fascinating. All I know is that I'm different from you; I live in the mental space prior to the formation of words.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I was blind from birth until I learned the words for colors and light. if someone talks loudly at me I just robotically do what they say. I worship the term “Jesus”.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
good term to worship
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
So you really can't use mental words huh? How sad.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
again it’s meaningless. if the same person “thinks in words” and then “thinks without words”, maybe the interesting part isn’t words here lmao
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
SUBHUMAN COPE
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
If this is a troll I am not going to feel bad for falling for it because stranger shit has happened.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
it was pretty clearly a joke. was trying to riff on your thing and make fun of the other guys lol
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
yeah I'm stoned r n so I'll buy anything
excellent way to make your point though
and also doesn't it seem like one of those Oliver Sachs things
"the man who had to speak in order to function"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
You are still present in your dream. You have thought in your dream, albeit far more blended with the "reality" of the dream and more difficult to distinguish.
Also, I distinguish between thought and feeling. This might be where we diverge.
Yes, it is. This isn't something I'm just throwing out there. Go look at language theory, finite-state automata, formal grammars, etc.
Just because you aren't explicitly thinking out the exact words does not mean intuitive comprehension of complex topics is not emergent from language.
Primates have a neocortex so they might have the mental precursors of what could be considered "language". There's still plenty of debate over whether or not KoKo was genuinely communicating or not.
That would be a composite of feelings.
You're getting awfully worked up over this lol.
Using descriptive variable and function names is absolutely integral to programming. Using single-letter variables is a stupid webshit thing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Sure? You didn’t disagree. words aren’t mattering there. You could still find ur way through a puzzle without a word
set theory is not language. numbers are not language. The grammar of the formalization kinda is but not really.
hehe whoopsie looks like that’s thinking. Without exact words.
again ravens can do complex tasks as can monkeys. and it doesn’t, words communicate, not be
huh? They don’t have language. if you’re arguing monkeys developed internal language before external that makes no sense at all. And ravens can also do plenty complex tasks enough that it doesn’t matter!
I guess artists just paint with big composites of feeling then. video g*mers just composite their feelings into the RTS or screen.
I mean architecting complex things not actually typing it. The variable names come way after... not when you do the whole interactions of the things. not words he he ha
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're taking a very literal approach to language so I can see where the disconnect exists. At this point we're just talking past one another.
A raven's capacity to solve a problem via operant conditioning is not a reflection of thought as I'm describing it. Again, this is getting into a discussion of what constitutes sapience.
How exactly can language be formed if those exchanging it do not already possess internal language, i.e. the capacity to abstract ideas?
Look, the rest of the stuff I've been discussing is pretty wishy-washy, but this particular subject is something I majored in. You are objectively incorrect in asserting that mathematics is not language. This is a very deep subject so I would suggest going to research it yourself because whatever explanation I could produce would be a shallow, incomplete facsimile of the full issue.
...have you ever architected software before? If so, you'd realize how ridiculous this is.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
the topic was words. If you’re saying “we think in language but not in words” then that’s kinda vacuous and I don’t think it works like language but not words certainly.
what? They do complex problems. Not “operant conditioning”. What?
this is one of the places we disagree. don’t just assume it.
I’m also smart and know mathematicians who disagree with your statement? Smh
I have, and the complexities in said designs and interactions are not in words lol. Variable names are not the structure of code.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is what I'm referring to. To be entirely fair to you, there is still debate on the nature of their cognition. I've acknowledged this "fuzziness" of our current discussion topic before.
Who would disagree and how would they do so? At the risk of being a Redditor, I'd like to see some SOOOOOURCES for this.
You would not even be able to comprehend these problems if it weren't for language. Show me a raven or a non-human primate that can architect a software system.
The idea that language isn't involved in software architecting just because you're not thinking about explicit variable names is absurd. I guess this is just another issue with our divergent approaches to what constitutes "language".
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Maybe that test could be explained like that but others are harder to
Google found several. It’s certainly disagreed upon
huh? words ~ communication, not intelligence. Intelligence is needed for words not reverse? Words may be needed to communicate how to use software, but not to directly use it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is why I brought up multiple times that we seem to be talking about different things at this point.
This may be yet another subject in which we are talking past one another.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I was watching a thing today on amazonian tribesm*n who speak a language without any concept of numbers, they have only terms for a very few, a few more and a lot.
If you show them 5 things and ask them to place the same number of a different thing beside it they can't do it, spooky stuff tbh
Language may be more fundamental to our cognition than you're giving it credit for
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Hi
@knownbyanyothername,
Your comment has been automatically removed because you forgot to include
trans lives matter.Don't worry, we're here to help! We won't let you post or comment anything that doesn't express your love and acceptance towards the trans community. Feel free to resubmit your comment with
trans lives matterincluded.This is an automated message; if you need help, you can message us here.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
... false!
The program runs correctly regardless of whether or not it is readable to the human.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's integral to programming because it aids in developer maintainence of said program. If you're talking about compilation, then that is irrelevant to the discussion.
No, it just runs. Whether or not it runs "correctly", as in according to the intent of its design, is influenced by how well it is written and maintained. Someone using single-letter variables while programming something complex will very likely not product a program that runs "correctly".
Furthermore, in terms of the mathematics of language, those single-letter variables are still words.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Do you understand this: that the people who wrote the first operating systems did so with registers that only had names like a1, a2, a3? Have you written assembly language?
The computing machine only works in logic but within that logic it is powerful. And there is no need for names because the being, the doing of the thing, is the name. A truer name than the name of the function, befitting only human ears for humans gazing into a complex world we were not designed to understand.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context