- #1
pinestone
- 140
- 3
When one thinks to ones self, ie. trying to resolve an issue or problem alone- what is the origin of our "inner voice"?
How can we hear our "inner voice" without the mechanism of our ear? Are these "sound bytes" stored in our brain, only to be "re-played" by our conscience?hypnagogue said:Can you be more specific? What aspect of inner speech are you trying to understand-- the cognitive component (where the informational content of inner speech comes from), the experiential component (why thinking to one's self should involve an auditory experience), or what?
Ahh, so this is why some people "hear voices." What about like in books or when you imagine a situation, "painting a picture in your mind." Same thing going on there? Hallucinations? You're smart Hypnagogue.the physical mechanism most closely tied to our experience of hearing is not the ears, but rather, certain regions of the brain's temporal cortex. Various kinds of neural activations in various regions of temporal cortex are correlated with various kinds of auditory experiences. The function of the ears is to serve as a sophisticated kind of input device to these regions, not to actually generate the auditory experience itself.
Hey Zoobyshoe, that strikes me as a bit odd. I started wondering about this recently in fact. For the most part, I'm always thinking in words, in fact it's tough to shut them off. If I'm watching TV or being entertained I don't generally have that 'inner voice' going on, but if I'm not being entertained in some way, I'm generally thinking in words - talking to myself so to speak. When I read for example, I'm thinking the words as if I'm saying them to myself. I wonder how common that is.I don't ever "hear" my interior monolog in any auditory way. There is never anything like the experience of "hearing" an externally generated sound involved.
This activity is exactly why I started my thread. I have plenty of "quiet time" while I pour over my notes and experimental data. I just thought it was interesting that I could hear my voice without uttering a sound. We use our voice to communicate with others-could we ever develop our "inner voice" to do the same? Have you ever thought about someone and within an instant, the phone rings- with that person calling? It's especially weird if you haven't talked to that person for a long time...Q_Goest said:Hey Zoobyshoe, that strikes me as a bit odd. I started wondering about this recently in fact. For the most part, I'm always thinking in words, in fact it's tough to shut them off. If I'm watching TV or being entertained I don't generally have that 'inner voice' going on, but if I'm not being entertained in some way, I'm generally thinking in words - talking to myself so to speak. When I read for example, I'm thinking the words as if I'm saying them to myself. I wonder how common that is.
There's some confusion here, I'm sure. I definitely think in words. The experience I'm trying to separate that from is "sound". I "think" the words, but have no experience of "hearing" them as I think. It's all completely non-auditory. The experience of mentally saying something to myself is completely different than saying it out loud, and there is no way I could ever confuse the two, they're too different.Q_Goest said:Hey Zoobyshoe, that strikes me as a bit odd. I started wondering about this recently in fact. For the most part, I'm always thinking in words, in fact it's tough to shut them off. If I'm watching TV or being entertained I don't generally have that 'inner voice' going on, but if I'm not being entertained in some way, I'm generally thinking in words - talking to myself so to speak. When I read for example, I'm thinking the words as if I'm saying them to myself. I wonder how common that is.
Yes, sound is not the correct word here. How about "auditory image". Does anyone know what this phenomenon is really called? Is this our thought process at work? And, I was just kidding about the telepathic stuff. We humans are so pre-occupied with education, entertainment and frustration, I doubt we could ever develop such abilities.zoobyshoe said:There's some confusion here, I'm sure. I definitely think in words. The experience I'm trying to separate that from is "sound"...
Thinking or the interior monolog. Sometimes the interior dialog when you're imagining a conversation with someone else.pinestone said:Yes, sound is not the correct word here. How about "auditory image". Does anyone know what this phenomenon is really called?
zoobyshoe said:brought that up in response to MK's mention of auditory hallucinations, which are a whole different thing. People who experience those say it is indistinguishable from hearning another person talk it's so vivid and apparently connected to the ears, although the location of the source of the voices often appears to be in the head or ears themselves. However, they all maintain there is a distinct and clear difference between such things and their own thoughts or interior monolog.
I've never had it myself, but imagine it would be astounding.selfAdjoint said:Yes, I had this exact experience just once in my life, in 1968. It was an astounding experience.
"auditory: of, relating to, or experienced through, hearing"hypnagogue said:zoob, to say that the experience of inner speech is auditory doesn't imply that it should sound like, or be confused with, an external sound that is detected by the ears.
While the details of the experience you describe fit with what I experience: ephemeral, insubstantial, less vivid, leading me to suppose we experience pretty much the same thing, I can't get to your "unambiguously auditory" conclusion. Again, I'd have to describe my experience of this as a "consciousness" of the thoughts that isn't sense specific. I'm not employing a sense to percieve them.I'd say that my experience of my own inner speech is much more ephemeral and somehow insubstantial, and much less vivid, than my experience of e.g. my own voice when I'm actually speaking. But for me it is still unambiguously auditory; it definitely belongs in the family of "auditory experience," differing from the experience of externally generated sounds only along metrics like intensity and maybe perceived reality and things of that nature.
I called it verbal to make it understood it involved words, grammar, language, and wasn't some kind of sub-lingual or pre-lingual, amorphous experience.To call it "verbal" or something like that I think misses the point, because we can have the same sort of experiences with non-verbal, internally generated/imagined sounds.
All the senses can be modeled in the mind, yes, but I wouldn't call imagining someone's face a visual experience, or imagining the feel of warm sand on the beach a tactile experience. I am not employing those senses to percieve these mental models. It is a radically different kind of perception, and lost for better, all I can say is I'm "conscious" of them.For instance, you can have the same sort of auditory experience you have with inner speech by mentally playing a song in your head. You likely will not experience this 'inner song' as if it's being played on a radio, and you won't confuse it for some external sound source, but it still is pretty clearly auditory.
And of course there is a clear analog to the internal auditory experience with the internal visual experience. I can visualize, say, a familiar face in my head. I won't think I'm actually looking at the person or anything like that, and the experience will seem rather ephemeral and insubstantial in ways that are hard to pin down in words when compared to my experience of actually looking at the person's face. But I think the experience is still pretty clearly visual in the most basic senses; it definitely exists in the sensory modality of vision, having elements of perceived color and form. Likewise for imagined sounds or inner speech, in which the experience clearly has elements of pitch, timbre, etc.
Well, this is the key point: do we perceive mental imagery by means of sensory qualities? I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say that all mental phenomena are perceived exclusively through sensory qualities (there is a largely non-sensory component to experience that I suppose one could lump in under the term "emotion" or some related term, which in addition to typical emotions like anger and sadness would include more fringey experiences like familiarity or the so-called feeling of knowing). But for inner speech, visualization and so on, it seems clear to me that there is a sensory component.zoobyshoe said:All the senses can be modeled in the mind, yes, but I wouldn't call imagining someone's face a visual experience, or imagining the feel of warm sand on the beach a tactile experience. I am not employing those senses to percieve these mental models. It is a radically different kind of perception, and lost for better, all I can say is I'm "conscious" of them.
That's the one. I was hesitant to recommend it. Maybe you could read it in installments over the next couple years or so.CosminaPrisma said:I think I found the thread "What Part of the Brain is Conscious" Its a loooong thread. :)
Although there's an undeniable mental analog to those qualities when we imagine, are those mental analogs properly called "sensory components"?hypnagogue said:it seems clear to me that there is a sensory component.
When I say that there is a sensory component, I just mean that the mental imagery in question is subjectively experienced by means of experiential qualities that characterize the various sensory modalities. In vision, these are qualities like color, hue, saturation and brightness. In audition, these are qualities like pitch, timbre, and loudness.
"Madness" is a non-technical, purely layman's term, that can be applied to everything from isolated irrational behavior to any kind of full blown mental illness.Ian said:Is 'madness' (hearing of voices) permitted during sleep?
Everything I know about Dr. Baddour's experience is contained in the linked report, so, unfortunately, I'm not able to enlighten you in any greater detail.Ian said:zoobyshoe,
If Dr Baddour only saw zoobies, were you always on the zoobies foot?
Sorry, I always read the small print and couldn't resist.
One way to save time, the authors suggest, is to read more quickly. To do that they firstly suggest reading without using your inner voice.
"When we first learned to read we were encouraged to speak the words aloud so that our teacher could check that we'd got each one right before we moved on. As we mature, we internalise that voice, so we still hear it in our heads. But this inner voice is not necessary in our reading; in fact it reduces our reading speed to around talking speed..."
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2006/03/can_you_read_without.html
I've never thought about it before, the connection with the "inner voice" to reading speed. When I read— sometimes I go into overdrive, its funny. I read so fast, that my inner voice does not have time to say it. Sometimes, I find it lagging behind, like its going at 10 mph, while my reading speed is going at 15 mph. Sometimes I read without my inner voice.PIT2 said:Here is a funny thing to try:
...
I tried it but its very hard.
The cause of our inner voice is a complex combination of biological, psychological, and environmental factors.
While our inner voice may sometimes guide our moral decisions, it is not the same as our conscience. Our conscience is a learned sense of right and wrong, while our inner voice is an internal dialogue that can include a range of thoughts and emotions.
Yes, our inner voice can be influenced by external factors such as our upbringing, cultural beliefs, and the people we surround ourselves with. These external influences can shape our thoughts and beliefs, which in turn can influence our inner voice.
No, our inner voice is not always accurate. It is shaped by our biases, past experiences, and emotions, which can sometimes lead to distorted or irrational thoughts. It is important to critically examine our inner voice and seek outside perspectives to ensure our thoughts are based on evidence and reason.
While we may not be able to control our inner voice directly, we can learn to manage it through techniques such as mindfulness, positive self-talk, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. By being aware of our inner voice and actively working to challenge and reframe negative thoughts, we can have more control over our inner dialogue.