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)
2,193 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:
kaamrev
Current Registered Users: 26,410
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS
SITE GUIDE
HOLES
PING GROUPS
Live commit: e1523fb
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
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. whatβs 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.
feeling vs thought is not about language. both have words for them. animals do both. what
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
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.
yes. a painting of a guy is not a rock. Interpreting it as a rock would be wrong.
βIn its infancyβ no u. I can know things
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
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 canβt 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 isnβt 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. βflint arrowheadsβ 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? Whatβs 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 
@UpvoteIfYouCope 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 doesnβt matter, just leave it be yall, not important, words, meh.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I believe you: it's too, uh, specific to make up.
I mean I worry I'm picking at hurt feelings at some point. People get lost in language, man. The name of the thing becomes the thing itself.
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
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 canβt be verified doesnβt 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