excreationist

What about this... let's say I asked you to work backwards and work out the 17th letter of the alphabet.... (not using any external aids like a pen and paper or fingers, etc) would you be thinking something like this?
26 - "zee" - Z shape
25 - "why" - Y or y shape
24 - "double-yoo" - W shape
...

I mean would you imagine the sounds of the numbers, as well as the sounds and shapes of the letters? What exactly would you be imagining? Would you skip some of the steps to work out the answer? Could you explain your thought processes?

Hopefully you don't already know the answer (maybe you memorized which letters map to which numbers).

rainbow walking

You're still missing the point, so let me try it again. If somebody tells you he is happy, do you believe him?


Hi Phanes, Let me say that I really appreciate the effort you’re putting into this. At last I think we’re making some headway here.

If someone tells me they are happy and their body language seems to confirm that statement, (i.e. they are smiling and laughing and displaying some clear physical indications to support their claim), then yes I would conclude they are “FEELING” happy. But, we’re not really comparing apples to apples here with that analogy, are we. Experiencing “FEELINGS” is not the same as experiencing a particular phenomenon of thinking. So, when you tell me that your mind “verbalizes” your thought processes, irrespective of how you perceive that verbalization, I can’t very well ascertain the truth value of your claim by examining your “body language” for evidence, now can I?

What if someone tells you he believes in God?


I would ask him why. The rest of the conversation from that point forward would hinge on his answer to that “why”. But again, we’re not talking apples to apples here, unless you are now arguing that the phenomenon of verbalizing your thoughts is not something you know to be an actual true experience but only something you “believe” to be your minds method of thinking. Are you now saying that your internal “voice” is something that requires you to “believe” it exists or do you actually, mentally experience this internal voice such that, for you, it is part and parcel of the reality of your thinking processes?

How about someone who claims to feel tired?


Same as above. A person who “FEELS” tired will display some physical evidence to corroborate their claim.

What possible proof can any of these people give? Naturally, they can give you reasons they might feel a given way, but that's hardly evidence that they do.

Well, as I’ve articulated above, in the case of “feelings” there are often some clear physical evidences that one would reasonably expect to accompany their claim. So it isn’t entirely subjective experience with no empirical avenue to evidential confirmation.

The only reason I can think of for accepting these claims is that we consider each individual an authority on his own subjective experience. If Bob says he's happy, he's happy. If Troy says he believes in God, he believes in God.


Focusing, for the moment, on Troy, if he says he believes in god I would have no reason to doubt that he believes in god, but this exorcise isn’t about proving that your “beliefs” really exist now is it. Thinking with an internal “voice” is an empirical “experience” that transcends belief. It’s almost a universal experience shared by most healthy humans, yet there seems to be no way to evidentially prove that any of us have ever had this experience.

If Helen says she feels tired, she feels tired. (Again, it's possible they're lying too.)


Well, if Helen says she “feels” tired and continues to do things that require high energy I would conclude that her estimation of feeling tired was different from my own, but I wouldn’t necessarily suspect that she’s lying. On the other hand if Helen said this during an attempt by her husband to seduce her, he might suspect dishonesty.

When it comes to something subjective, the best we can really do is personal testimony. Emotions, beliefs, sensations - the only person who can tell you whether these exist in a given person is that person, precisely because they are subjective. How someone thinks is also a subjective experience. If anyone knows how someone thinks, it is that person.


This would be true iff this method of verbalizing weren’t such a universal experience. If everyone experienced their thought processes in a different way, you might have a valid argument here, but we’re talking about an experience that borders on being axiomatic. Big difference.

What is the difference in validity between "I feel this way" and "I think this way"? Either you have to come up with an explanation for accepting one and not the other (and not something ad hoc), or you have to deny that either one is acceptable evidence. You can't just claim some subjective testimony is okay, but not some other.

Well, as I demonstrated above, there are supporting evidences, body language for instance, to verify claims about feelings. So this isn’t an ad hoc invention just to sidestep the obvious. And we are talking about an experience that everyone shares, theist and atheist alike. But, we can’t allow ourselves to commit the ad populum fallacy and say this is evidence that the experience is true just because everybody does it. So the atheist is still in a conundrum here to justify his disallowance of the theists claim to experience god on evidentiary grounds, while being unable to justify his own experiential sensations, which he can’t deny exist, on evidentiary grounds. See what I mean?

Now, admittedly, this doesn’t prove god exists, but it does go towards establishing that there could be a different reason why so many people claim to experience god. In most cases surrounding these “experiences” of god, upon close examination it is discovered that the theist is merely claiming to have one more voice inside his head than the atheist, a voice that he experiences as distinct from his own recognizable thinking voice. Some of them call it their conscience, others prefer to call it “god” and this, for all practical purposes, represents the intimacy of their relationship with this being. From that point forward they begin to interpret every good thing that happens to them as their gods providential care and further evidence of his reality, and every bad thing that happens to them as their gods instructional guidance and still further evidence of his benevolence and desire to improve their lives or prepare them for heaven.

rainbow walking

Hello old friend!

Koy! I was thinking about you last week-end. My wife and I, and some friends, were in NYC and I was trying to figure out how to find you, but, alas, our time was so limited I had to conclude the effort with a sigh.

I understand what you're getting at, but think you've missed the fact that it can't be gotten. The question is fallacious, which is why theists continue to misconstrue it.

Well, o’kay, let’s play.

If I can't prove I have an internal voice, this has no bearing on whether or not a theist has met their own burden of proof regarding their claim that a god (or gods) exist.

This is true, however, (there’s always a however with me…yes), It’s a bit hypocritical to condemn the theists experiential claim on the basis of evidence, then turn around and claim to experience something for which no evidentiary avenue exists to confirm the truth value of your experience, so the theist is as justified in asking you to prove your internal voice exists as you are to ask the theist to prove his god does. It goes towards showing that experiences do occur for which no evidentiary avenue of verification exists to validate the claim. This, at least, removes some of the sting in the atheists claim that belief in god is irrational. If that were the case then claiming to experience a vocalization of ones thoughts, without evidence to support the claim, is equally irrational. This also weakens the atheists claim that all existential claims should be empirically verifiable when, obviously, some are not.

One unmet burden does not alleviate another.

No, but it does deflect somewhat the ramifications and deflates the consequent claim that the theist is irrational if his claim can’t be empirically verified.

Further, the claims are not similiar, no matter how hard theists try to trap atheists in that misnomer, so to form a similiar question around them (that makes it seem like they are relatable), is, likewise, fallacious.

Oh, I don’t know Koy, the parameters are equal in all respects important to the purpose of this exorcise. I believe the operative term here would be “analogous”.

The theist claim is that a particular being with certain defined (and undefined) characteristics factually exists (i.e., is non-fictional) somewhere "out there."

That is the actual claim, which is then augmented in the manner you are here doing with the twists of phrases that make it seem as if there is a similiarity to the claims; i.e., "you can only feel Jesus in your heart" or "Yahweh can only be perceived by the individual" etc., etc.

Perhaps, but that is not so dis-similar in context as a claim that you think with a voice in here. “In here, out there”, both are claims that should be met with equal skepticism and demand something more than just our “say-so”. In fact, I would posit that your claim of an internal voice bears a greater burden due to its axiomatic status among humans. In a side-by-side poll you would have more people affirming the experience of an internal voice than an existent god, yet neither group having access to any actual proof capable of substantiating their respective claims outside of just saying, “but everybody acknowledges it”. And, when pressed, most theists admit that their experience of this god is just as subjective as your experience of an internal voice. The question being brought to light here isn’t WHERE god exists, but DOES god exist. Conversely, the challenge being presented here isn’t WHERE the acclaimed internal voice originates but does it exist.

See what I'm getting at? The actual claim is that a being exists. When asked for evidence in support of that claim, however, the fuzzy logic and semantics games begin,
Yes, much the way they have begun with such responses as I’ve received thusfar on proving the existence of an internal voice. Curious that. Almost immediately the “voice” proponents began seeking clarifications, appealing to semantics and definitions, re-directing the question towards a straw man. See any similarity there?

and before you know it, you're debating what "exists" means and what "being" means, etc., etc., until you end up in a semantics spiral over what the word "means" means.

Ha! Been there, done that…got a head ache all over my new tee shirt for the effort.

It is, of course, deliberate so that nobody ever gets back to the original (and therefore, only relevant claim) on the table.

Well, as to it being deliberate or not I couldn’t say. I’m more inclined to think it is just inevitable and will ultimately devolve in spite of the best attempts to prevent it from doing so. I would be interested in hearing your defense of the internal “voice” challenge to see if you fair any better.

Abstract concepts are not bound by the same rules and regulations (if you will), or better, conditions of "proof" that claims of supernatural beings factually existing are, so the theist immediately attempts to turn the claim around on itself and make it seem as if all anyone is arguing is in abstractions anyway.

Well, I think this is due entirely to the fact that this god remains an abstract concept himself such that one cannot escape the logic that drives all such discussions into abstractions. This was always one of my stock complaints and why I tried to devise a god concept based on more concrete attributes and concepts, to avoid just this pitfall.
Since the rules are different for abstract concepts, turning their own claim into a faux abstract concept (in their minds) thus alleviates them from their burden of proof.

I don’t think this is a deliberate tactic by the theist, Koy. It’s a built in inevitability due to the language and concepts used to define the god they are claiming exists. They can’t help it. Or, they could, but most of them aren’t even aware that it is they who are shooting themselves in their own foot.

But, of course, it doesn't work that way. If I claim I taste chocolate whenever a dog barks, I am not bound by the same conditions of "proof" (or evidentiary procedure) as I would be if I claimed "A leprechaun made me taste chocolate everytime a dog barks," you see?

Yes, I see, however, (oh gawd, not that again), this particular exorcise is built on an experience that is almost axiomatic in nature and not so individualistically unique as a claim to taste chocolate when subjected to a specific stimuli. So it isn’t just subjective but is also a universally shared experience that makes it a tad bit more meaningful as a challenge to provide evidentiary verification for an acclaimed existing phenomenon.

Those are two entirely different claims that have subsequently different conditions or evidentiary procedures that one would "go through" should either claim be challenged.

Well, again I agree in principle, but I would like to hear how you would defend a challenge to provide evidence of your internal voice. This is, IMO, where the rubber will meet the pavement. Then we should be able to adjudge some of your other attestations about the deliberateness of theistic obfuscation as opposed to the inevitability of such questions tail spinning into outer space of their own volition, simply because they were predestined by the very language used to define them.

It is the equivocation that always trips up the theist, IMO, but they (rarely) take my opinion very seriously .

Well, I do, (take your opinion seriously). But I think we may actually discover some things during this exorcise that may enlighten us all to other “possibilities”. That is, if you’ll participate.

I don’t believe you think with an internal voice. I don’t and neither do three million of my fellows. We think you are…well, shall I say, a bit delusional…and some of you even dangerous. Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to prove to me that your method of thinking is viable and just as valid as mine. But first, prove to me that you don’t think exactly like I do and are not just making up this whole “internal voice” thing to conceal some rather obvious agenda driven desires to rule the world.

I remain, as always, your most astute observer.
rw

Theli

Eh, no. What I was saying is that it isn't an actual voice at all. It has no sound like the ones you hear when you, or anyone else is talking.
Ofcourse, you can "visualize" a voice, but that requires more concentration than articulating thoughts. As articulating, or even speaking thoughts often increase the concentration and makes you more focused.
Just like writing them down in words also makes it easier to remember them.

Boro Nut

Well, as the only alternative would be that it is something else talking to me, this can be disproved by the application of simple probability theory. Whilst the chances of an external being communicating directly with me are (by Mormon calculations) about 5037 to one, the combined probability that there is such a being and that we just happen to be reading the same book are infinitesimal.

Boro Nut

Theli

Rainbow Walking...

I'm guessing that you don't believe that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence? And that the theist makes a claim about the entire world, and not just something in his head. Wich would mean that the theist must also (beyond proving the voice in his head) show the connection between that and a yet onproven god. Isn't that the big difference, even if you believed his claim of hearing a voice that doesn't mean that you should believe it to be more than just a local (his head) phenomenan (hearing voices).
Someone saying that they hear a voice is not sufficient evidence to change your entire worldview on. Atleast I wouldn't.

Not really. If it is to do anything it may show the atheist to be irrational aswell. But no more than that, it doesn't increase the evidencial value of the theist's claim one bit.

Are you saying that we should base our conclutions on Ad Hominem?
Noone in their right mind would argue that the theist's claims are wrong because the theist is "irrational".

BTW, welcome back.

Phanes

rainbow walking,

I still believe you are overestimating the importance you put on external evidence when it comes to subjective reports. Part of this is my fault for being too broad with the examples. At any rate, I think that if someone repeatedly insisted on some feeling he or she had, and you believed that person had the same meanings for words and was not lying, you would believe him or her. If someone insisted he was happy, despite his sober appearance, for instance. The counter-examples you gave are, I think, evidence of some identity problem (relating to the ideas) more than they are evidence that we can't trust self-reports. I would also doubt someone who claimed to be tired but continued to bounce around and do hard work. But I would doubt that they understood the meaning of tired, not that they were feeling some particular way (which they mistakenly think is tiredness).

But the examples I gave may be too prone to confusion, since most of them usually are accompanied by physical signs. So let me try a new example, which I hope is free of any extraneous circumstances.

Let's say you know this guy Bob, and Bob says he believes in God. But... Bob is not just any theist. Bob is actually a fideist; he believes in God on faith alone. And he doesn't believe in the Christian God either; he believes in some type of deist god that made the universe, then hit the road. Bob doesn't believe in heaven, hell, angels, or anything else of that sort; just an absentee Creator. This belief shouldn't have any effect on his behavior.

Now how do you distinguish between Bob and an atheist who believes exactly the same things, minus a God at the start? Let's say Bob thinks the Big Bang was done by God, whereas the atheist thinks it happened on its own; but other than that, they are exactly the same.

I contend that there is no way to know which one is which except by personal testimony. I also contend that if Bob says he believes God created the universe, and he believes this on faith, we believe him. We can't really know whether he has a given faith or belief just by his actions, because neither thought/mindset is related to his actions in this case.

I think this case is essentially analogous to the people-who-don't-think-in-words. Their thoughts would not have any noticeable effect on their actions either. But if we believed they understood the ideas involves, and we believed they were not lying, I think we would be forced to believe them. I think if we are to object at all, we would have to doubt that they understood the ideas involved (and then we could ask questions to try to discover the answer, e.g. Do you think in pictures instead? Don't you even "hear" words when you read? etc.)

In any case, the other posts reminded me that I should point out I don't think the theist could use this example (if correct) as support either. Someone who says he doesn't think in words is only making a claim about himself, in particular his subjective experience. Someone who says God exists is making a claim about something external, outside of himself. I think the simple fact is we do demand a lot less evidence for claims about ourselves than claims about other, objective things.

excreationist

Theli: Please read this post to Phanes.


Phanes:
I also wrote a post to you a bit earlier. Anyway, I think that we can imagine speech that is a bit similar to sound - for me, I think more in short sentence fragments - and sometimes in single words (like swear words). The voice isn't a very distinct one for me. I can imagine voices and sounds that are more distinct though - e.g. I can play music in my head with singers and a band.
Just because we can (usually) tell the difference between our imagination and our senses, it doesn't mean that they are totally different... e.g. in some IQ questions it involves mentally moving and turning objects around in space... that is very similar to the physical world how we'd move the objects physically while looking at them.
It is necessary for us to be able to distinguish between our imagination (about possibilities, etc) and what our senses tell us... that's why we are good at telling the difference. The reason it is necessary is that it helps us deal with the external world better.
I think our imagination is a result of recombined memories that have been triggered... and usually this isn't very intense... while on the other hand, our senses are intense - i.e. we devote more attention to it. I think the amount of attention we are devoting to something is equal to how much space it is occupying in our working memory and how many related associations it is triggering. (I think everything in our working memory is constantly triggering associations, which then can occupy the working memory... and some information is pushed out)
I think imagination is kind of like a "shadow" kind of sensation... I think it doesn't (usually) have the richness of external experiences - I think this richness is caused by us noticing lots of little details. e.g. in the case of real-world sounds, we can notice thousands of different frequencies (if we devote enough attention to listening) but when I'm playing music in my head it sounds really poor quality.

Do you sometimes swear to yourself? If so, do you visualize the swear-word? If so, what does the lettering look like? Is it uppercase or lowercase? What kind of font is it? Is it a hand-written font or a plain font or a courier-typewriter font? Also, what if you were thinking about the words of the Lord's Prayer? Would you naturally always visually the words? Would it all be on a single line, or multiple lines? Would each line start at a new sentence or in the middle of a sentence? Are there paragraphs? Is it in lowercase with the right letters capitalized? Or is it all lowercase or all uppercase? Do you visualize many sentences at once (like a computer screen full) or just a word at once? Do the words just flash one after the other or do you see a couple words which scroll across?

I think linguistic trains of thought are usually about "talking to yourself" and you can't talk to yourself using braille - you could use a braille typewriter though. And while you're imagining typing you could also be visualising the texture of the braille letters.

rainbow walking

Hi Theli,

You said: Theli:
I agree with most of the responses, that the "voice" isn't actually a voice, just yourself talking silently...


My question is, how do you percieve yourself to be "talking" unless you somehow percieve yourself to be listening? Do you mean you somehow percieve your lips going through the motion of talking but you have no perception of what's being said?

Somehow I think you're straining at a knat here to keep from swallowing the camel. Can you prove that you are "talking" SILENTLY without having the sensation of "hearing" what you're saying?

rainbow walking

Hi Boro Nut,
You said:



Well, as the only alternative would be that it is something else talking to me, this can be disproved by the application of simple probability theory. Whilst the chances of an external being communicating directly with me are (by Mormon calculations) about 5037 to one, the combined probability that there is such a being and that we just happen to be reading the same book are infinitesimal.


I probably shouldn't have included that question in this particular exorcise, as this exorcise is not so much about where your "inner voice" originates but about proving you even think in such a pattern. Sorry for the confusion.

Now, I don’t believe you think with an internal voice. I don’t and neither do three million of my fellows. We think you are…well, shall I say, a bit delusional…and some of you even dangerous. Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to prove to me that your method of thinking is viable and just as valid as mine. But first, prove to me that you don’t think exactly like I do and are not just making up this whole “internal voice” thing to conceal some rather obvious agenda driven desires to rule the world.