Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evolving descriptive text of mental content from human brain activity

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: Evolving descriptive text of mental content from human brain activity

#41

Post by idiotsecant »

throwaway290 wrote: post #33
idiotsecant wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course someone without an internal monologue can have intrusive thoughts! Do you think intrusive thoughts have to come in the form of a monologue? You don't have intrusive 'scenes' in your everyday experience?

> Do you think intrusive thoughts have to come in the form of a monologue? Do you? I'm talking about inner monologue because this thread (I recommend to chill and check it out) was talking about inner monologue when I joined.

Are question marks overly aggressive? Last time I checked this website was for talking about things, don't know who isn't chill.

Re: Evolving descriptive text of mental content from human brain activity

#42

Post by volemo »

Lerc wrote: post #39
volemo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think every verbal person has the ability to “speak” phrases in their mind; people without an internal monologue (as is, I suppose, the case for me) just don’t need / tend to do that with every thought they have.

This is my experience too. I can rehearse words to say or simulate the conversation of others in my head. I just don't use words when I'm not doing wordy things myself. I didn't know the Comic strip Partially Clips was a pun until I told someone about the strip, then as soon as the words came out of my mouth realised the joke. On the other hand I can play back non verbal sounds I have heard in my head, which I think…

> This is my experience too. I can rehearse words to say or simulate the conversation of others in my head. I just don't use words when I'm not doing wordy things myself.

Yep, same here. Most curiously though, I think I had an internal monologue in my childhood and teenage years, but sometime around 16–18 y.o. it went away. Sadly, I don’t remember the exact moment, as I’ve only learned about this topic around 20.

> the Comic strip Partially Clips was a pun

Whoah, took me a while too, even though you’ve explicitly told it’s there. xD

> I can play back non verbal sounds I have heard in my head, which I think not everyone can do

Nope, I can’t. (:

Re: Evolving descriptive text of mental content from human brain activity

#43

Post by volemo »

idiotsecant wrote: post #31
volemo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think every verbal person has the ability to “speak” phrases in their mind; people without an internal monologue (as is, I suppose, the case for me) just don’t need / tend to do that with every thought they have.

While I think this is true, if you're conciously forming phrases they are by definition not intrusive, the subject of the discussion.

Yes, indeed. My argument is the intrusive thoughts wouldn’t be internally verbalised, thus such a device, in my opinion, wouldn’t be able to spell them out.

Re: Evolving descriptive text of mental content from human brain activity

#44

Post by ksaj »

slfnflctd wrote: post #35
ksaj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this would be able to detect the difference between truthful thoughts about actual memories, and intrusive thoughts that could give the entirely wrong impression. Yet, they still do use lie detectors, even though the things they detect can be faked, or triggered out of personal alarm or offense. So it is entirely possible, regardless.

Intrusive thoughts is a big one. Most people report some variation of this phenomenon (myself included), and are often horrified by the thoughts or images their own mind produces, very much wanting them to go away. To be judged by that is unthinkably wrong.

Exactly. I have ADHD. The real kind (not the fantasy kind everyone on X seems to have). I grew up on Ritalin. I think they'd have a hard time sorting out "conversational" streams that run through my head. Even when I'm reading something, there is still an excessive amount of internal chatter. I've heard some people hear silence, and that just freaks me out.

It often is "inspired" by what I'm hearing and reading, but not related to how I actually feel about anything in particular. Sometimes I have to put effort into not getting too extreme in those many based-on-a-theme side stories. I'm quite sure this technology would either paint me as someone I'm not, just because of my brain's way of going through a dozen interpretations of whatever it is I'm thinking about, or burn out by the extreme amounts of the internal chatter that entails.

Needless to say, I grew up on nightmares (a common ADHD thing). I eventually ended up learning lucid dreaming to escape them, but still, even my dream world comes up with s##t I would never think of in my waking reality. Those feel so very real to me that I can't imagine this brain scanner thing could tell the difference either.

Re: Evolving descriptive text of mental content from human brain activity

#45

Post by ksaj »

Lerc wrote: post #37
polytely wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

torture not being that effective has never stopped the US government before

It depends on your classification of effective. If it is to gather accurate information, it is ineffective. If it is to gather the justification for what you were going to do anyway, it can be most effective.

For a fairly recent example: the US' post-911 War on Terror when they were waterboarding people. This definitely didn't get them any real info, and they found out in the worst way that innocent people will confess when they think they are actively dying.

Prior to this, it was already known to produce false feedback and confessions. The US military has a strange way of repeating history to see if it'll turn out differently "this time." It sadly never does.

Re: Evolving descriptive text of mental content from human brain activity

#46

Post by ksaj »

volemo wrote: post #42
Lerc wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my experience too. I can rehearse words to say or simulate the conversation of others in my head. I just don't use words when I'm not doing wordy things myself. I didn't know the Comic strip Partially Clips was a pun until I told someone about the strip, then as soon as the words came out of my mouth realised the joke. On the other hand I can play back non verbal sounds I have heard in my head, which I think…

> This is my experience too. I can rehearse words to say or simulate the conversation of others in my head. I just don't use words when I'm not doing wordy things myself. Yep, same here. Most curiously though, I think I had an internal monologue in my childhood and teenage years, but sometime around 16–18 y.o. it went away. Sadly, I don’t remember the exact moment, as I’ve only learned about this topic around 20. > t…

I'm the opposite of you two. My brain won't stfu. I took Ritalin since grade 3 until I was in my 40's. That never got rid of it, but it did make it easier to focus in spite of all the chatter and other mental distractions.

Now I'm old and lazy, and that seems to have a similar effect. The racing thoughts are still there, but they don't get in my way now that I have far fewer responsibilities to take care of.

Re: Evolving descriptive text of mental content from human brain activity

#47

Post by ksaj »

volemo wrote: post #43
idiotsecant wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I think this is true, if you're conciously forming phrases they are by definition not intrusive, the subject of the discussion.

Yes, indeed. My argument is the intrusive thoughts wouldn’t be internally verbalised, thus such a device, in my opinion, wouldn’t be able to spell them out.

With me, they'd have 10 different things to parse. Some would be spot on. Some would be way the heck out in left field. And occasionally, some are totally obtrusive and definitely not meant to be spoken.

Thoughts are intrusive when they get in the way of what you are trying to get out of a thought process.

Re: Evolving descriptive text of mental content from human brain activity

#48

Post by ksaj »

LoganDark wrote: post #28
volemo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think every verbal person has the ability to “speak” phrases in their mind; people without an internal monologue (as is, I suppose, the case for me) just don’t need / tend to do that with every thought they have.

When I was younger, I could only do it by making the movements with my tongue and sort of "whispering breathlessly"

What do you mean by this? Don't get me wrong... it sounds like you are describing something related, but different enough to need more description.

Re: Evolving descriptive text of mental content from human brain activity

#49

Post by ksaj »

idiotsecant wrote: post #41
throwaway290 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think intrusive thoughts have to come in the form of a monologue? Do you? I'm talking about inner monologue because this thread (I recommend to chill and check it out) was talking about inner monologue when I joined.

Are question marks overly aggressive? Last time I checked this website was for talking about things, don't know who isn't chill.

I think it is fair to say that internal dialog includes whatever mode someone primarily thinks with internally. If it is words, images, or kinesthetic, only the modality is different. I don't see how these modes wouldn't constitute internal dialog if that's how people think internally. These are the primary ways people generally do form their internal world.

There are also olfactory (imagine smelling cinnamon in a slice of apple pie) and gustatory (think of vinegar). These two don't tend to occur in dialog form, but they can enhance or reinforce the other modes. Animals like dogs might not agree with that suggestion.

Re: Evolving descriptive text of mental content from human brain activity

#50

Post by AreShoesFeet000 »

magackame wrote: post #30
AreShoesFeet000 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst: ads.

Noooo. Makes me wonder how much money do you need to buy up all the ad slots in the world and replace them with blanks.

So much money that only running your mega ad operation would allow you to cover the costs.
Post reply on HN