Live data from Hacker News

Inner Speech

plato.stanford.edu

31–40 of 141 posts

Re: Inner Speech

#31
> Primarily though, most completely deaf people think in sign language. Similar to how an “inner voice” of a hearing person is experienced in one's own voice, a completely deaf person sees or, more aptly, feels themselves signing in their head as they “talk” in their heads.

The question is: is inner voice just some sort of echo or a necessary part of thought.

Re: Inner Speech

#32

It's a bit odd reading this because I learned just a few months ago, right here, that I am aphantastic (no mental imagery). Shortly after that, while discussing with some coworkers, I also learned I am anauralic (no inner voice). It appears they do sometimes go together: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8551557/ I think for those of us who don't have an inner voice, section "3.2 The Semantic Content View"…

> I am aphantastic

Were you always like this?

I clearly remember as a child/teenager I had exquisite inner imagery, but around 17-18 anxiety set in and the imagery slowly faded away to the point that today I can only conjure faint images for fractions of a second

Re: Inner Speech

#33
post #11
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have an inner voice myself. So I asked myself whether the authors of the Plato post can't imagine that.

But what is the experience of "asking yourself something" like for you if you don't literally hear a question being asked in your head?

In Chinese, if you just put 'big' and 'small' together, you get 'size', and if you just put 'big' and 'not big' together, it means 'Is it big?'. By the same token, juxtaposed memories are questions or suggestions. I think it's the logic before logic.

Re: Inner Speech

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The term "Non-Player Characters" for fellow humans is incredibly condescending. Please acknowledge that every human is a player character. Albeit with a different quest and skilltree than you.

There is also the other point of view, that every other human that is not you IS an NPC, we can only prove that we exist, and even then that is muddy, for all we know everyone else is just a figment of our imagination, we can neither affirm nor deny it, so it is not wrong that since the only one that you can affirm to some extent is a player character is yourself, to call everyone else an NPC, as you have no way to prove they are not an NPC, you can't see what they think, you can only assume that like you, they think and they are.

And yes, I am being pedantic with a philosophy I do not even endorse nor fully understand, just wanted to be a contrarian.

Re: Inner Speech

#35
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have inner voice, it's very hard for me to comprehend how can you think, but it's possible. How I understand it: you just write what you think, without rehearsing it before inside your mind. We all do it to some extent when writing, it's not like I actually need to replay everything before I write. "I asked myself" by a person who has no inner voice sounds like a blind person saying "I see..." when he understands s…

Thinking doesn't need words. Thinking for me is a process of ideas and concepts coming from different directions, colliding, merging, splitting, transforming, and then going into other directions to interact with other thoughts. The translation between these concepts to words or sentences from my mouth or my fingers is effortless by the way. Which I myself find interesting. I think it should take some effort but it d…

This is exactly how I would describe it, as someone without much of an inner eye or an inner voice.

I can have an inner voice. I use it to practice how things sound in my head, or if I want to be very specific about wording, or when trying to parse some complex text, or to work out a sum. That’s how I know that most of the time I don’t use an inner voice to think.

Most of the time it’s like I have thoughts without words, and turning it into words must be handled by some unconscious part of my brain, because it’s automatic and silent.

Re: Inner Speech

#36
post #19

I'm not sure if I have inner voice or not. Do you really "hear" a voice? I can imagine concepts as well as construct whole sentences in my mind but there is no actual voice that I'm hearing. Is this what's called inner voice?

Same here.

This video was interesting to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNQyubd9ARc&t=60s in it you are asked to shout "I like crickets" and then to whisper "I like crickets" again, in your mind and not out loud.

The presenter then claims, "The volume is the same because you can't change the volume of the voice in your head, only the tone and pitch."

My experience of trying this is that I can produce the phrase "I like crickets" in my mind but I have no conception of what it means to "shout" or "whisper" this in my mind and the idea that there is tone or pitch to the representation is meaningless to me.

I can think in words so that I can prepare to write something (like this) but there is no audio. I'd say it's more like a stream of words on a screen except that there is no screen, it feels more like a buffer. The experience is the same as reading to me, no audio, just a stream of words.

My partner says she hears her own voice in her head and it's quite critical, prompting her to action. I feel motivation to do things but there is no voice.

Can someone report on their experience with the crickets experiment above, do you hear a voice, can you change its volume or tone?

Re: Inner Speech

#37
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I ask you to form an image of a song, (or recall it in your mind): the "happy birthday" song. How vivid or clear is it? Do you have no clarity, some, or lots? is it vivid as the actual sound as if you were hearing it in real life? Do you notice the tune as well as the words? Now change this image of happy birthday so that it's now a childrens choir singing it. Now change it so its by a bunch of cynical unix gre…

Wow, these questions are really interesting, I've never thought about it! For my favorite songs, I can recall it perfectly... But I don't hear it at all as if I was hearing it in real life. In fact, I don't know how to describe how vivid it is. Maybe I don't hear it at all? But I can sing these songs (out loud) without a problem. However, I seem to be incapable of changing some elements about it. I can't seem to be a…

I got and adapted the questions from a survey about these issues but I've been trying to get the question right as we tend to use language which presupposes things.

I like this one as it asks to form an image and asks about clarity. The image is about hearing. So it crosses both parts.

Another example would be to form an image of a telemarketer on the telephone. Change the accent. Introduce line distortion.

For me it's in the middle. Happy birthday is clear to visualise and I can follow the tune. it's not very vivid but it's like I'm singing to myself with my mouth shut. I don't have a mental "visual" image of the song by default. When changing it the imagery appears a bit more but the focus is on the sound. I can easily change it to children's voices, the unix greybeards is more difficult as it requires me working out what they would sound like including spatial echoes from the auditorium. I find the resulting image (which is clearer than the children) is amusing.

Re: Inner Speech

#38
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have an inner voice, it's just completely abstract thoughts. I "feel" the interrogation about a subject, just without words.

So if I ask you to form an image of a song, (or recall it in your mind): the "happy birthday" song. How vivid or clear is it? Do you have no clarity, some, or lots? is it vivid as the actual sound as if you were hearing it in real life? Do you notice the tune as well as the words? Now change this image of happy birthday so that it's now a childrens choir singing it. Now change it so its by a bunch of cynical unix gre…

You're referring to thinking proactively. Is your inner narrative proactive or reactive?

Re: Inner Speech

#39
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is inner voice the same thing as inner speech? I’m interpreting “inner voice” to be a kind of pseudo-personality similar to what people mean by conscience, while inner speech is simply the mental version of speech. I can understand someone not having an inner voice, but I can’t see how writing is possible without inner speech. Otherwise, how can you have thoughts prior to writing them down? Also note that the article…

> I can understand someone not having an inner voice, but I can’t see how writing is possible without inner speech. Otherwise, how can you have thoughts prior to writing them down? The conscious experience of inner voice/speece/eye/nose/whatever is not really saying something about how the rest of the brain functions. Almost everything anyone does is indeed not projected in inner mind before being executed. The subje…

I'm talking more about "thinking before you speak." As in, it seems to me that without some form of inner speech, it would be impossible to plan anything before vocalizing it, as you'd need to start talking/writing in order to actually think.

Re: Inner Speech

#40

It's a bit odd reading this because I learned just a few months ago, right here, that I am aphantastic (no mental imagery). Shortly after that, while discussing with some coworkers, I also learned I am anauralic (no inner voice). It appears they do sometimes go together: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8551557/ I think for those of us who don't have an inner voice, section "3.2 The Semantic Content View"…

Weirdly I'm aphantasic but hyperauralic. What I wouldn't give for it to be the other way around.
Post reply on HN