201–204 of 204 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is getting voted down because people just hate the idea that it's true.
No it's down voted because we didn't stochastic parrot ourselves into landing on the moon and building the internet and modern highways and skyscrapers Dismissing humanity that was is absurd
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm very reluctant to believe people when they say they don't have an internal monologue. Why would you choose internal monologue as the default position and no internal monologue needs to be proved? It seems the natural position for an unknown would be to assume it is not the case unless there is evidence for it.
Because most people I know can read without mouthing the words. At any rate, we can just test both cases if people who claim one or the other are willing. I'm not sure why this seems like a problem, or why you have to criticize my default position, but my own personal views on the matter aren't important here.
I did get relatively good scores in reading speed back in primary/middle school when we took such tests, so maybe there's an explanation. At the same time, writing/speaking is a very resource-intensive task for me so I tend to be silent a lot (and then drop a pile of sentences on the unsuspecting people I'm with)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not sure what you think all these people have to gain from tricking you. Asking for objective evidence of a phenomenon being self-reported by enough people to make the news isn't really about me. I don't know why you're being defensive in a thread that wasn't directed at you, but this is not a good sign.
Weird that you go right to assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is defensive. I think you need to recalibrate your outrage sensors. You said a thing doesn't exist. I pointed out that the thing does, in fact, exist. That's all that happened here.
Your very first response is attacking me, not an argument I've made.
> Weird that you go right to assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is defensive.
Your second response is also attacking me, not an argument I've made.
> I think you need to recalibrate your outrage sensors.
I'm not outraged at all.
> You said a thing doesn't exist.
I'm assuming by "thing" you mean "people with no inner monologue", and I have not claimed they don't exist, I made a statement concerning my disbelief. There is a difference.
> I pointed out that the thing does, in fact, exist.
Your claim that you experience this should be verified before we accept it as a scientific fact. If that were not the case, telepathy would be considered a fact.
These responses from you have made me even more suspicious of the veracity of your claims. Again, not outraged, just wish to verify what is true.
A person who is honest about their experiences, and has reported those as fact, should welcome verification.. you've clearly decided against that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because most people I know can read without mouthing the words. At any rate, we can just test both cases if people who claim one or the other are willing. I'm not sure why this seems like a problem, or why you have to criticize my default position, but my own personal views on the matter aren't important here.
I don't see how reading has anything to do with internal monologue. Do you hear the words you read when reading? If so, it surely has to be slow as hell. I did get relatively good scores in reading speed back in primary/middle school when we took such tests, so maybe there's an explanation. At the same time, writing/speaking is a very resource-intensive task for me so I tend to be silent a lot (and then drop a pile o…