Do you have an inner monologue? Why some people don't

[C C]

https://youtu.be/DRLkDafQbP8

INTRO: Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising that writers give so many superheroes, alien beings, and magical creatures the power of telepathy. Just imagine what you could learn about a person if you could hear their thoughts. Well, actually, I’ve just made a bit of an assumption there: that there’d be something to hear. Because not everyone has that kind of internal monologue—or, what psychologists often refer to as inner speech. And even people who do hear their thoughts don’t necessarily talk in their heads 24/7. It turns out that inner speech could tell us a lot about how our brains work, how they develop, and how we speak. But… research on all this is really just getting started...

Do You Have an Inner Monologue? Why Some People Don't

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/DRLkDafQbP8

[Magical Realist]

I must have some sort of inner monologue underneath my daily love chatter with my 3 voices. A deeper more impactful soliloquy that expresses the constant shuffling of moods and images on ' some unconscious dreamlike level. Sometimes I feel stupid and lazy. Other times I feel spontaneous and delightful. Who tells me these stories? It all bubbles up from the babbling brook of my restless glimmering soul.

"The 'self-image' is the key to human personality and human behavior. Change the self image and you change the personality and the behavior."---Maxwell Maltz

[stryder]

https://youtu.be/DRLkDafQbP8

INTRO: Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising that writers give so many superheroes, alien beings, and magical creatures the power of telepathy. Just imagine what you could learn about a person if you could hear their thoughts. Well, actually, I’ve just made a bit of an assumption there: that there’d be something to hear. Because not everyone has that kind of internal monologue—or, what psychologists often refer to as inner speech. And even people who do hear their thoughts don’t necessarily talk in their heads 24/7. It turns out that inner speech could tell us a lot about how our brains work, how they develop, and how we speak. But… research on all this is really just getting started...

Do You Have an Inner Monologue? Why Some People Don't

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/DRLkDafQbP8

I'd be in the belief that naturally none of us would have an internal monologue and that it's actually an artificial construct.

The reason for that hypothesis is in regards to a model for how the universe was created. In that model, the result of it's preliminary state is a universe built with a inanimate composition (namely the model concluded there would be no life). Thus it implied that life actually likely had an artificial start, requiring the training of inanimate composition to take on animated form.

Training inanimate compositions wouldn't just be about creating intelligence but also self-replication, and it would be done as part of an overall goal, a "Singularity".

A simplified analogy to this is the Sliders/UFO's in Conways "[/i]Game of Life[/i]" as it takes on replicative animated pattern.

As for why a Monologue would exist now unfortunately thats down to Authoritarian control especially in regards to Capitalism, afterall how many times might you consider one brand over another with the voice in your head? Market research at it's worst!

[Yazata]

I don't typically talk to myself in my head. I rarely do when I'm watching TV, looking at the internet or even making posts. I'm perfectly able to speak and write without sub-vocalizing before or during. The words just flow. I know (more or less) what I want to say before I say it.

Though sometimes I can't produce a desired word or remember a name or something. It's like I know what I want to say but don't have the word. I'm told that aphasia after a stroke can be like that, except with the whole vocabulary, not just single words. Must be tremendously frustrating.

When I do speak to myself in my head, it's usually when I am trying to structure my thoughts. I'm currently reading a book about late 18th century biological ideas. So sometimes I act like my own professor in my head, trying to explain or at least repeat the ideas I just read in my own words. I find that trying to explain what I read helps me locate places where I'm confused and ideas that I don't understand. Sometimes explaining it to myself like I'm a student makes me realize that parts of it don't make sense. And sometimes as I continue reading, I discover the author addressing precisely those issues. Then I find myself explaining it to myself all over again.

Like every teacher knows, you don't really know something until you can explain it to somebody else. Even if that's me. And sub-vocalizing complex ideas helps me remember them, another bonus.

[C C]

Most of the time I have the audio form of language transpiring in my head. I do, and respond, to plenty of things without having to be aware of them in that way. But usually parallel to that habitual behavior I'm reflecting about other matters.

Take away the manifestation of such as sounds (a voice), images, etc -- and I'd have no evidence that I was thinking. I don't see how anyone could with that kind of limitation unless they constantly spoke their thoughts out loud, wrote them down, or something. (Granting that the sensory information route at least presented appearances and feelings to them -- that they weren't a total philosophical zombie.)

Still, even a wholly "invisible" brain narrative would be contributing to some body behavior and actions. Similar to the idea of the supernatural, just because it's normally hidden or exists/occurs in the non-conscious dark doesn't mean physical stuff isn't interacting in its nothingness.

But at some point those invisible processes have to give rise to phenomenal impressions just for -- again, there to be evidence of their existence. (Actually, the addition of memory-based cognition is necessary to arrange multiple manifestations into a reciprocal verification of themselves, too. An _X_ simply "being present" isn't in itself conceptual apprehension that it is present appearing/displaying.)

Most people are naive realists or direct realists. They uncritically project the representations in their head upon the external world -- so that colors are out there, the sounds, odors, the discriminations of objects, and so forth. But that seems to entail the "manifestation" aspect of consciousness, too. What's the point of claiming that the mentally experienced version "red" is out there on the apple if the red is not actually appearing?

So I think naive realism is actually an obscured version of panpsychism -- a heavy distinction between the two merely being result of not fully pursuing what the former view implies or what falls out of it.

In practice (what they do rather than what they claim) I believe most materialists are also subliminal panpsychists rather than strict materialists. Nobody can do anything with a world of non-conscious nothingness, so just like the naive realists, materialists project both their sensory-related experiences and select scientific realism affairs out there upon the non-mental "emptiness" of their physical world.

This explains why some physicalists never seem to grasp the significance of the hard problem of consciousness -- since they don't really adhere to their own espoused strict physicalism. If the matter outside their heads is actually existing phenomenally (naive realism or panpsychism) rather than being blank, then off course it would be baffling why there is a hard problem. Verbally or preaching-wise, they still proclaim matter has no phenomenal properties, but in practice (and subconsciously) they don't literally conform to that conviction.

[Magical Realist]

We are made of language, down to the very bone. We swirl up from whence we know not, finally alighting upon the words we conjure like raindrops on dead leaves. We are a poem that never ends and that unveils itself in its own whispery depths of saying.