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.
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:
911roofer
Current Registered Users: 27,776
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS SITE GUIDE DIRECTORY Emojis & Art | Info Megathreads HOLES PING GROUPSCURRENT EVENTS:
KHive Fortification
Create banners and sidebars, badges and coins abound!Find Rightoid Infighting
500 mbux per post, no limitDrama: any incident, scene, gaffe, rumor, opinion, or disagreement that is blown entirely out of proportion.
Do your part to keep our community healthy by blowing everything out of proportion and making literally everything as dramatic as possible.
Rules:
- Asking to see who saved comments/posts=1 day ban
- You must be 18 or older to view this site.
- NO RIGHTWING AGENDAPOSTING.
- Discord users will be banned on sight.
- Don't post anything illegal.
- No sexualizing minors, even as a joke. This includes cartoons.
- No doxxing.
- Using alts to game dramacoin will get you banned.
- Supporting free speech is an immediate ban.
- Absolutely NO anti-CCP sentiment.
- Absolutely NO homophobia, transphobia or furphobia.
- Absolutely NO misgendering.
- Absolutely NO antisemitism.
- Absolutely NO vaccine misinformation.
- You are encouraged to post drama you are involved in.
- You are encouraged to brigade in bad faith.
- You are encouraged to gaslight, to gatekeep, above all else, to girlboss.
- You are encouraged to egg people on to transition or otherwise make drastic life changes.
- This site is a janny playground, participation implies enthusiastic consent to being janny abused by unstable alcoholic bullies who have nothing better to do than banning you for any reason or no reason whatsoever.
Related subreddits:
𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐩 𝐰𝐨𝐳 𝐞𝐫𝐞
Live commit: 6377678
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Meaning of words is enriched through their exchange, at which point your words can take on additional meaning in the mind of another.
Furthermore, thought can also be considered feeling given shape and direction, both of which are very difficult to come by without language. Language cannot fully encapsulate feeling but its formation allows our minds to make sense of our observations.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
no. Language is for personal communication. Mathematicians and artists do not make sense of things with words. What came first - a new concept or the word for it? Often centuries pass between the two. You’re wrong.
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.
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.
... 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.
I've written a program in MIPS. Those register addresses are still names. They are formal abstractions of a set of physical transistors. The binary addresses are names. The binary logic that comprises the control unit of a processor uses binary language at a physical level.
The nomenclature for two bytes, which typically formed the basis of memory storage, is literally "word".
This is unironically just word salad. I'm a software consultant with a degree in Computer Science. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
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.
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.
that isn’t language. that’s the fact that every child practiced counting in school for five years straight. Can you make a flint blade by chipping with a rock? My guess is they do know how to do some form of counting, but are unfamiliar with the way they were prompted ... tribesmen haven’t done word problems or been to school ... and there’s a ... language barrier... they definitely can count baskets and deer
even weak Sapir whorf is commonly contested. Amazon documentaries aren’t actually great sources or usually accurate... you are an adult. You could learn new skills and concepts if you wanted to. Tribesmen can too. This isn’t a “language” thing it’s a “lack of practice” thing. Like go learn to play guitar! It’s hard, you fail at first. Ditto for them. Language isn’t the thing, it’s experience in abstract counting for the purpose of demonstrating knowledges
trans lives matter
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
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 matter
included.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
More options
Context
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.
So you really can't use mental words huh? How sad.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
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.
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.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'm unsure if I agree with you... but @UpmarseyIfYouCope 's phrasing here doesn't seem quite right.
I don't know that I believe that language is necessary for our minds to make sense of our observations, buuut, it is necessary to record complex thoughts to be able to return to them. Is there some meaning that can only be uncovered through multiple sessions of self-reflection? Possibly.
On the other hand the symbolic existed before the symbols developed formal grammar. In fact this is why meaning transcends the words for them. If I make a mark signifying the end product of reflection, and return to that mark, words have not entered the picture.
From the a deindividuated perspective, the concept doesn't exist until there is a word for it.
Language is for interpersonal communication. There is no need to transmit meaning to yourself. (Unless it is, as I said, a series of sessions of self-reflection.)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
eh you can probably remember complex thought without language. so even for that not necessary
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Math is strings of statements and definitions. They're words in their own way.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
mathematical intuition and problem solving simply doesn’t proceed solely through words,
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
All intuition goes through some kind of mathematical symbolism which is just a type of language.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes, but first you get the intuition and then you write it down in mathematical symbols. Bigger concepts can be the result of this process repeated many times with the smaller concepts they are built on.
Considering how often when we do "intuition" part we also do the "formalizing in words" part it makes sense that for some people these 2 processes have become pretty much one.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We do formalize but what we formalize is already at least partially in words before we formalize it usually.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
no it doesn’t. The symbolism is absolutely involved but most of it is not “through or by” symbol. smdh
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I didn't mean literally "by symbol" as in plus, minus, etc. I mean through definitions and stuff. Maybe symbolism is the wrong word but when you're "intuiting" something in math you're thinking of it in terms definitions and chains of implications, which is absolutely making use of mathematical language. Only very basic stuff like simple operations we either do naturally (like counting small numbers or some geometry problem) or memorize (like basic time tables, maybe common derivatives but a derivative is inherently loaded with language already, so it's questionable) are done without some kind of language.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
okay I’m not disputing that symbolism and mathematical formalists are involved, although they may be given too much importance
I’m saying a significant and probably supermajority part of said intuition and mathematical deduction is not conducted solely through words - but through other thought and intuition, which isn’t directly a language.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ok I agree it's not solely through language but it's an important and inseparable component so I still severely disagree with
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
distinction between natural or memorization and artificial thinking is false. There’s no separation there. All a mix and many things. language is neither special, or more important. one can grasp something without word
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I don’t think there’s a difference.
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
The only purpose of a word is to point to a shared understanding. The creation of subculture jargon is where language is in action in a pure, useful form.
I don't think that people without the ability to print words into their conscious demesne are subhuman in any way: they can generally reflect upon their being if prompted by another, or by (for instance) a ritual like a church service where they're told to sit down and think about what it is they want to say to God.
In a liminal space like this one, language lacks the firmament of orthodoxy. It is this firmament of orthodoxy that makes language a complete impediment to understanding. (This much, at least, made it worth knowing zummi directly.)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The poll question is a joke. Everyone has an internal monologue. Language is a necessary component of human thought. Language is the fundamental method of abstraction through which we build a mental model of our observed world.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
the kinesthetic sense would like a word
edit: I don't disagree that the poll question is, eh, well, it demonstrates the failure of language rather directly, doesn't it?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I would consider that would be a feeling, not a thought. Thoughts are necessarily structured abstractions of observed reality, i.e. the structuring of a feeling or a set of feelings. Thought flows from feeling, and in turn can incite more feeling. This is the premise of "mindfulness".
I suppose that's where the disconnect exists between our comments.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
no difference at all
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Says you.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
no categorical difference whatsoever. psychology is fake lmao. what’s the difference?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The difference exists somewhere in this subject.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
but now extend the 'language' of feeling across the logical, the imperative, the contemplative, the symbolic dreamscape, and (I hope) come to understand that these are the true arenas of the life of the mind.
Words are just the social game.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There is no "language of feeling" within the model I'm describing. The act of
This is word fluff.
Spare me your condescension. I'm describing a different school of thought within theory of mind.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
ah, but tres terrible, there is only one reality proper, eh?
A model is self-confessedly of your own creation, da? Models are imitations of the things they are meant to represent.
You decline to introspect? I assure you I meant specific things with each of them. One moment...
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Are you familiar with standpoint theory? I do not consider my approach to be the "correct" one. Is there an objectively correct interpretation of any given piece of art?
Neurology is still in its infancy. Discussions on theory of mind are akin to the pondering of "gentlemen scientists" of the very early modern period.
It seemed like an overlapping, somewhat arbitrary listing of adjectives. What is the definitive distinction between "logical" and "imperative"? Imperative is a description of tonation and intent.
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
Not being able to connect thoughts with words means that you lack self-reflection. You can't think "I just thought that" because there's no way to make the thought you thought do the double duty of being thought and being perceived.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I can see, in my minds eye, an image of myself having the thought which led to this post.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
why can’t you just do a hacking reflectorino without the words
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Why can't you reproduce without having DNA that can be copied and also used as an instruction? Why can't you make a hammer that can be disassembled and used to make another hammer, without a stronger hammer used to disassemble the hammer?
I'm not saying this shit is hard impossible my friend Horatio, but it's unlikely. So unlikely it could be a solution to the Fermi paradox btw.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
ehh so this is what I talk about Lacan's symbolic order for:
you've got two tribal societies in proximity whose feud is ended in a marriage ceremony where an art piece is created and divided into two parts, with both towns taking one part. This is a symbolic recording of a story in which the words are irrelevant, if they exist at all. (This example is based on the use of for instance totem poles in native American treaty-making.)
The chiefs might talk about peace and might talk about the joining of their families but that's all implicit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
DNA isn’t super relevant! because it, and brains, existed for a billion years before homo sapien spoken words did.
you can actually make hammers that can disassemble and duplicate themselves without a stronger hammer. “flint arrowheads” and wood would like a word with you.
thinking is in words in the same way computers compute in their UI. it is not.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Did that sound good in your head? Because no shit bucko.
RNA was the first quine, DNA was a more robust approach, the important thing is that you have something that can be duplicated verbatim and that can also be used as a recipe for building things. So you don't get a "stronger hammer that disassembles this hammer to build a copy" issue.
Sure there are occasions when the laws of the world just so happen to allow you to break out a piece of obsidian with a blunt rock or something. This makes me believe that we are alone in the universe, probably.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
humans can duplicate actions and sensations without words anyway.
how is this fermi related? origin of life rare?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Incorrect! It merely means that an outside observer cannot verify the self-reflection. As I am observing myself, it would be easy to fool myself into thinking the words are the thoughts. This level of meta-introspection is fraught with errors due to the recursive nature. Don't trouble yourself too much about thoughts thinking thoughts and double duty and so on.
In any case I didn't say I couldn't connect thoughts with words. I merely understand that the thoughts come first, and the words come as an artifact of communication.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I believe that all introspection is caused by having thoughts-words looped back through the language center. You can't have basic introspection otherwise. See also https://rdrama.net/post/20557/do-you-have-an-internal-monologue/535169/?context=1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
ok give an example
and why can people think about things without words? When one ponders a discontinuous function, what words represent the gap? Or slope of a line? Or a beautiful woman?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I think that's profoundly, profoundly wrong.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
k
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
has this guy meditated once? how would that even work? What’s the words that makes it all up? What sentence is looped? How is that different from a normal thought or whatever it is? What?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Dude between the three of you, @ArachnoLibrarian, and @UpmarseyIfYouCope I have someone who can't think if not in words all the time and if the ability to make words fails you sorta cease like one of those halloween balloons flopped over, but nevertheless sees reality a lot closer to me than the other two do:
Someone (Arachno) who seems to think that thought only happens in words (whereas you understand that you must keep your words close to retain your call it emotional essence, but that other processes of thought continue)
and someone who thinks language is math (whereas because you understand this part of your process, that you must subvocalize to keep yourself being, understand the limitations of the approach to assuming that because you can describe a grammar with math, you have understood the essence of language instead of merely its outline).
The Internet is madness. I don't know that it's possible to reconcile any of these fragments of reality but they are endlessly fascinating. Truly God is Great. I wish you all well I'm just too old to try and strip the condescension.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Mommy is soooo proud of you, sweaty. Let's put this sperg out up on the fridge with all your other failures.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
the subvocalize and must think in words parts were entirely true. When I stop talking I just instantly die and come back to life when I talk again. totally. serious. entirely.
the other two are unfortunately real. and are way too into language. it doesn’t matter, just leave it be yall, not important, words, meh.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The observer can verify intelligence by other means such as watching ravens understand water displacement or logic games. they do not speak English do they
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Anything that can’t be verified doesn’t exist
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That is a valid school of thought in my book actually
it's just, you know
kinda useless and impractical
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