Jobar

So, rainbow, you are saying (for the sake of the intellectual exercise) that you are deaf/mute and you challenge the reality of what others claim are 'voices in their heads', correct?

Mmmmm... I'd have to answer by asking just how *you* experienced your thoughts. Visually, as scrolling words in your mind's eye? (Would a blind/deaf/mute experience words as patterns of pressure on their 'virtual fingertips'?)

Given that you do, in fact, experience words in some way, and given that the world around you clearly indicates that speaking and hearing exists, it would seem to be a reasonable intuitive step to believing that hearing people 'hear' words just as you 'see' words, though there are no written materials in your line of sight.

I don't think this is a valid comparison to the problem of the proof of EoG, because there are perceivable proofs that such things as voices and hearing exist, even to a deaf-mute. A very interesting approach, though!

rainbow walking

Sorry, but I don't think you do. Are you sure you mean to say you "literally" hear a voice, or are you misusing the term? (I've noticed a lot of people do that with "literally"). I can think all sorts of things in my mind - sights, smells, sounds, tastes. I am not literally seeing, smelling, hearing, or tasting any of them.



Whether you communicate your thoughts to yourself as a literal voice that you experience as an audible sound is irrelevent. You've already admitted that you do think aloud to yourself verbally just as everyone else does. Like me and everyone else it's very similar to an audible voice though it doesn't eminate from your vocal cords nor does the perception of it eminate from your ear drums. But it's close enough to the real thing that splitting hairs over its literality is useless. I can duplicate sights and sounds in my mind but not tastes or smells. I've tried but I just can't do it.

Again, thinking is not the same thing as hearing. I can quite easily tell the two apart, and so, I suspect, can you.

As I've said before, this is not about thinking as much as the methodology employed in the process, specifically the habit of talking ones thoughts out to oneself internally. In this respect there is a definite mental sensation of both talking and listening. Whether it's identical to your sense of hearing connected to the auditory nerves in your ears is immaterial to this challenge.

Again, if you are going to allow any experience at all to count, then this explanation should be fine. The only authority on any subjective experience is the person who is having that experience. If I think I am happy, I am happy. If I think I am thinking, I am thinking. There is no more accurate information than that.

And I re-iterate, I am not asking you to prove that you are thinking, nor am I asking you to prove that the thoughts you are thinking are your thoughts. I am asking you to prove that the verbalization method by which you form and concieve those thoughts is real and if so can you prove it. You concieve and percieve your thoughts verbally. This you've already admitted. The sensation is similar to having a conversation with yourself with your mind duplicating both a voice and sound of that conversation as though it were real. No, it isn't identical to having a conversation with another person but it is as close as it gets to that experience, close enough to facilitate your thinking processes unfolding just as a conversation would be expected to. All this hair-splitting has accomplished is to divert us from the subject matter of the challenge.

If you insist that your thought processes do not function this way then we really have nothing further to discuss and I'll concentrate on those responses that demonstrate some comprehension of the real challenge that's being presented.

rainbow walking

This is a very interesting topic and I admit I have to think about this one as it is usually one of those things that we take for granted. But I will agree with Phanes on a few issues because I believe that coming together on a few definitions might help us get closer to an answer on this issue.

O’kay, sounds good to me, (although I never heard you say a thing with my ears but my internal voice pronounced the words for me as I read your reply and my mind perceived that pronunciation as though it were a literal voice speaking them).

I do NOT hear thoughts in my head when thinking, typing, spelling,etc. I do "verbalize" words in my head when I am doing activities like these, but I am not hearing them.

O’kay, maybe “hearing” is a poor choice. Do you experience the internal sensation of a voice “verbalizing” your thoughts and my words? If so, does your internal perception translate that voice into a recognizable sensation similar to “hearing”, though not as an external audible sensation detected by your ears?

It seems to me to have something to do with symbology. We think with language. There are a few ways to demonstrate this that I can think of off the top of my head.

Ever notice when you think the "voice" in your head is always the same volume? You may even make it able to "sound" differently in your own head, but it is still the same volume. (Go ahead try it, you know you want to )

O’kay, I tried it and you’re right. I can yell at myself but the audio remains the same. The point is, you cannot escape the necessity of describing this with concepts like “voice” and “sound” and “volume”. All terms associated with the sense of “hearing”.

Ever been to a concert or similar place where there is constant loud noise? Yet you can still "hear" yourself think can't you? We've all heard the expression "It's so loud I can't hear myself think." It seems to me like that doesn't really happen or you wouldn't be able to formulate the phrase itself.

Ever come into sudden pain? If you put your hand on a hot stove and it burns, you don't think 'remove your hand it burns'. You just do it, and fast. It's automatic (autonomic). You may "hear" the voice in your head immediately afterwards saying "Crap that hurt!" But you removed your hand before you were able to verbalize thoughts in your brain. So it seems we don't verbalize in our heads for everything.

So thusly we can at least prove that the "voice" in our head is NOT tied to physical vibrations of the likes with which we hear with our ears.

And I never said it was. But the sensation of the perception of it is definitely akin to “hearing”.

Now, please remember, this isn't a proof to you of the voices I hear in my head, but I think it helps narrow things down to so we can make further progress.

This reminds me of synthnasia ( I believe it's called.) These people associate color with the symbolism in words. Thus the word 'hello' may sound 'yellow' to a person of this condition. When this condition was first discovered it was thought to be a psychological problem. They have verified it as something else all together now. I think maybe some research into this condition and how they proved it actually exists might help your thought experiment.

Just my thoughts on the matter...

O’kay, I hope we’ve made some progress. Now what if I, and three million others didn’t have this type of thought experience and never had? How would you go about proving that you do?

rainbow walking

So, rainbow, you are saying (for the sake of the intellectual exercise) that you are deaf/mute and you challenge the reality of what others claim are 'voices in their heads', correct?

Uh…no, I’m saying that I experience my thought processes differently in a way that doesn’t preclude an internal “voice”. How I experience my thoughts is really irrelevant anyway. The challenge revolves around how you claim to experience yours.

Mmmmm... I'd have to answer by asking just how *you* experienced your thoughts. Visually, as scrolling words in your mind's eye? (Would a blind/deaf/mute experience words as patterns of pressure on their 'virtual fingertips'?)

Given that you do, in fact, experience words in some way, and given that the world around you clearly indicates that speaking and hearing exists, it would seem to be a reasonable intuitive step to believing that hearing people 'hear' words just as you 'see' words, though there are no written materials in your line of sight.

O’kay, let’s say I experience my thoughts instantaneously. My subconscious mind does all the work and just plops the required response into my awareness in the form of feelings. No audio, vocalization or video involved…and I am having serious doubts about the sanity of someone who claims to operate mentally in any other way.

I don't think this is a valid comparison to the problem of the proof of EoG, because there are perceivable proofs that such things as voices and hearing exist, even to a deaf-mute. A very interesting approach, though!

Sorry Jobar, but the challenge doesn’t revolve around whether voices and hearing exists but whether these faculties are the pervasive method of your thinking processes. You say you have and utilize an internal voice in your thinking processes and I say prove it. Just saying we both know that voices and hearing literally exist doesn’t establish for me that they also exist in your mind as part and parcel of your thinking process. What we both know is that people exist who claim to think this way. We also both know that people exist who claim to hear from god and believe he exists just as surely as you believe that your internal voice is yours and really exists as an integral part of your thinking processes. The burden of proof is on you, the claimant.

Phanes

I don't communicate my thoughts as a literal voice or an audible sound. It isn't at all like hearing as far as I can tell, other than that they both frequently involve words. I really can't see any relation between the two at all, outside of figures of speech. But since this apparently is not your primary question, I'll stop arguing about it for the time being.

You're still missing the point, so let me try it again. If somebody tells you he is happy, do you believe him? What if someone tells you he believes in God? How about someone who claims to feel tired? 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.

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

Koyaanisqatsi

Hello old friend!

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.

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.

One unmet burden does not alleviate another.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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

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. 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.

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?

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

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

Theli

I agree with most of the responses, that the "voice" isn't acually a voice, just yourself talking silently. Sometimes when I try to articulate thoughts I notice how my tounge starts moving as if I was speaking. And sometimes my lips starts moving some too. This explains why some people talks to themselfs, they have just taken a few steps further by turning the words into audio.
But, if the voice is not commanded by you, and seems to have a will of it's own, then it's off to the mental institution.
I trust that isn't the case.

As for it being a case for theism, I don't really see it. It might work to confuse our view of reality, but not to strenghten any beliefs.

Theli

This seems to be a common defense of apologists.
Proving claim X by undermining claim Y. Claim Y being a commonly held belief.
But what does that accomplish, really?
X will still lack credibility.

excreationist

I haven't read all through the thread, but here's my ideas:
I wonder if the person is capable of imagining things in a linguistic way... they would probably be able to at least imagine things in a visual-spatial or tactile way.
You could ask them questions that would cause them to use their imagination for great lengths of time... e.g. you could ask them how many vowels are in the phrase "baa baa black sheep have you any wool?" - and don't show them the phrase in writing - just speak to them.
Then they'll have to store those words in their "working memory" and apply their intelligence (learnt problem solving strategies) to it.
You could ask them to do it twice to make sure they are sure about their answer.
They should take at least a few seconds to work it out. Make sure they don't speak outloud or write anything down or use their fingers to count, etc... they should work it out with their eyes closed and their mouth not moving.

Then you could ask them what was happening while they were working it out - were they aware of anything going on in their mind? e.g. counting, etc? If they weren't, you could ask them if they had any idea how far their work had progressed in the middle of it... did they get any non-linguistic sensation about "it's almost worked out, it's half worked out", etc? Kind of like how people can sense if they are close to sneezing or vomiting, etc?

I think that the voice just narrates or commentates on our thought processes - because when we were younger we learnt to associate certain thoughts with ourselves or others saying "I'm going to do that" "I think that" "I'm hungry"... and then the external speaking becomes suppressed. It can be half inhibited too - people can move their lips while reading, etc.

BTW, I think people who do sign language would probably have that as their internal "voice". It would be a kind of linguistic-visual-spatial-tactile thing (sort of like a ballet dancer visualizing what they're going to do, except with a linguistic component) rather than a linguistic-auditory kind of thing.

I think the voice is something that the brain learns to generate - rather than it being created by a soul called "me".

excreationist

It is your own voice then... unless you don't identify with it and it seems like someone else - like the devil tempting you!
It is more intimate than hearing a distant voice - it directly triggers off relevant memories associated with the words, so that you don't misunderstand the voice. If other people are talking it can take a while to understand what they "mean" (their language could be ambiguous or unfamiliar).