excreationist

What about for that experiment I talked about where you have to recall the Lord's prayer (or the alphabet) and with each bang of a drum you imagine you're up to the next word. So on the first beat you would be imagining "Our", then on the second beat you'd be imagining "father", etc. (Or "A", then "B", etc)
You would have been taught it partly in a spoken way so you would be imagining it, at least in part, in a spoken way (rather than a visual way). By spoken I mean you'd imagine "ow farthur hoo art in heven..." (that's supposed to be phonetic spelling) - or "ay bee see dee..."

Theli

Are you refering to some sort of preperation, where I would "play" the word or the letter phonetically in my head before pronouncing it?
I don't think I could hold a conversation that way. It would be too slow.
If you mean that while thinking, I'm imagining the shape or the sound of the words. I don't think that would be very helpfull either. What I mean is that when we "think" we more or less try to articulate our thoughts, by forming words and sometimes speaking silently.
And, I'm pretty sure you have met someone who makes jestures with his hands while telling a story or making a point. Another way to help, not just you, but himself to get his idea through.
So, I don't know anything that would resemble a voice in our heads, unless we deliberatly try to imagine one.

rainbow walking

Hi Excreationist,
I haven't the foggiest idea how to describe a thinking process other than the one we all incorporate. When you think about activities like reading, memorizing sentences, counting and repeating in our heads what someone just said searching for the best reply all seems to absoltely depend on this "innervoice" experience. I suppose we could imagine something like how a computer operates on a binary system, but that seems too cumbersome. I wonder how many synapses have to fire to produce one syllable?

This topic seems to have captured your imagination. I wonder if there'll ever be a scientific explanation for these type of phenomena? It's certainly reasonable to expect so.

Is the burden of proof somehow different for supporting the claims of such phenomena, than the claims of an existent godlike being? Is the claim of such a being somehow more extraordinary than the claim to think with an inner voice? Or does the claim about experiencing an inner voice seem less extraordinary because everyone just accepts it as part of their subjective thinking processes? Would such a claim seem more extraordinary to an alien visiting earth whose thinking processes functioned in another way? Would a person who's mind didn't function that way and who had never heard of a god, when introduced to both claims within a few minutes of one another find one to be more extraordinary than the other? Is either claim really that extraordinary?

I just like to step outside the box occasionally and explore.

Theli

I've been wondering about this. Why is faith more acceptable in religions than seeking proof?
One idea would be that the members of a religion (those who are not high in the hierarchy), should be subjugated. And faith is a sign of subjugation (taking your superior's word as truth) while asking questions shows a rebelious nature.

Theli

If the standards were equal, no. But as it is now, a person saying that god speaks to him and tells him to do things isn't winning much trust (not from me anyway). Considering all the religious oppurtunists in our history saying that they've been doing the bidding of their god.
And the successrate of science in comparison would make science win more trust. This is a factor that can't be disregarded, especially not in this example where the evidences are so few.
Not considering the source of a claim is not in any way practical, even though in some strange sense it could be considered fair.

diana

Casting out demons, are we, rainbow walking?

Fascinating thread, by the way.

I'm agreeing with K-SR here, as far as proof of my "inner voice" being unrelated to asking a theist to prove his experience of God goes.

If you don't have an inner voice, I can't empirically prove I have one. I'd think this would be like trying to explain color to a person who's been blind from birth (although there have been some interesting attempts thus far on this thread to do so).

I can't prove anything I experience internally. If someone tells me they experienced God in some way, they will be unable to prove to me that they actually experienced it, as opposed to just thought they did. And I don't care.

It's when they start insisting that their experience warrants my belief that, as Koy says, we have a ball game.

d

excreationist

I'm talking about an experiment where a drum is hit slowly, and the person in the experiment has to keep track of where in the Lord's prayer or alphabet they are. And they have to do this silently.

How would you keep a track of where you are in the Lord's Prayer? (Assuming that you have to keep silent, and the drum will be hit many times)

But can they communicate a complex message (e.g. the exact wording of the Lord's prayer) using only basic gestures? (no sign language) Gestures would be used to express emotion and emphasize parts of the message, etc. It's something that the speaker would be aware of in their thoughts, but need to use gestures and/or expressive (non-monotone) speech to convey to others.

What about in those experiments where you need to keep a track of what word/letter you're up to - through many, many drumbeats (word/letter changes)? How would you keep a track of the word/letter - say if you're up to the 19th or 20th drumbeat? (and you can't use external things like your fingers, lips, or voice, etc) I think that you would imagine (say) that word/letter phonetically.
You said:
"when we "think" we more or less try to articulate our thoughts, by forming words and sometimes speaking silently"
What do you mean by "forming words" and "speaking silently"? Isn't that like my belief that we mostly imagine words/phrases in a spoken/phonetic way? (rather than only in a visual/written way) And when I say we imagine things phonetically, it is silent, since it doesn't require sound (loudness/pitch/etc) to be imagined. Maybe it's like imagining the shape of something but not imagining the colour or brightness of it.

Theli

I'm not too familiar to your drumbeat example, do you have it writen down more elaboratly in another thread?
I was more refering to thinking to yourself in general, like when you read.
Maybe, though I wouldn't call this a "voice", as it has no vocal characteristics. It never yells, whispers, it is neither dark or light.
In short, it has no audio. It is more of an understanding of the words. Although I agree that it could be refered to as phonetical. This is what I meant by "forming words", it is more of a first stage of speaking. You don't really speak the words loudly, just form them out of your thoughts.

About jestures, jestures wouldn't be used in your drumexample, as you are reciting already existing words. And so, you usually don't bother of further articulating them.

excreationist

Well it is in this thread - I wrote it to rainbow walking. Basically it involves a long thing that people would have learnt to recite vocally (e.g. the Lord's prayer) and there would be a person who is the subject of the experiment as well as someone conducting the experiment - who would slowly beat a drum. The subject of the experiment would have to keep a track of where in the Lord's prayer they are - while the drum is hit dozens of times. With each beat of the drum, they move onto the next word. And they are only allowed to use their imagination to keep a track of where they are - no writing things down or moving their lips or talking, etc. Also, they would be illiterate, so they wouldn't know how to visualize all of the individual words.

I think your words can be fast or slow though... that's a vocal characteristic... (that's soundless)...
"Voice" can technically be used to talk about things that don't involve sound - e.g. "The distinctive style or manner of expression of an author or of a character in a book" (dictionary.com) It implies sound but I can't think of a better word at the moment. "The little voice in my head" has a clear meaning - but it is misleading. BTW it's spelt "gesture".

rainbow walking

Hi diana,


Casting out demons, are we, rainbow walking?

Right and left...now, let's see...are there any left?

Fascinating thread, by the way.

Thank you.

I'm agreeing with K-SR here,

As am I...in principle.