Ted Hoffman

My understanding of the word voice is:
The sound produced by the vocal organs of a vertebrate, especially a human.
This is the definition from dictionary.com.
A voice, according to me, MUST have a sonic aspect to it.
Unless, we can agree here to a new meaning of the word voice here, we simply cannot hear with our brains.
As to Hearing voices
Usually the term applies to either one is psychic or mentally ill/ disturbed - or, for those who are believers a religious experience as in the case of Samwel or Paul on his way to Damascus.
The underlying factor when one is "hearing voices" is that one has no control over the voices ie. one hears them whether they like it or not. One is forced to hear them. Because they are not the source of the voices.
But I can decide to stop hearing my thoughts when I want to. That means they are MY VOICE. I create the voice, I stop the voice.
How do we know that the reflection in the mirror is ours and not Gods? Because, when we move, the reflection moves. Same to out shadows, same to our Thoughts. We can channel our thoughts the way we want, we can decide to stop to think and we can decide to verbalise out thoughts.
If we have decided to have our mental objects in the form of verbal objects/ words. They are still thoughts/ mental objects. They are not voices. Because the mechanism of thought is such that we cannot think without mental objects. These objects can be abstract or simple or even physical (ie from the real world). For example, when we say 6*6 = 36. What is 6? 6 is just a symbol(object) that represents 6 units of something. When we say "She is beautiful" there is no voice saying that. We are just converting what we feel to objects (words). And we are in control of what objects to use.

Helen
Feel free to digress.
Amen Moses Thank you.
When we think we are talking to someone else inside us, consider the chess player: he is able to mentally picture your opponents pieces and also picture your own. Then consider the possible repercussions of the next move.
If U hear voices that U think are not yours, its just part of your brain talking to another part. It could be the left brain talking to the right one. Or it coild be the Id talking to the Ego or superego.
This abviously brings us to the question about our conscience. And what people call our-"selves" - the ego.
So we are discussing the mind verses the brain.
Anyone cares to expound?
And Sigmud Freud comes in.

excreationist

I think jaliet misunderstood you - he probably thought you meant a supernatural voice from angels or demons, etc.

They aren't just pure words though - they trigger many related images and concepts, to give the words meaning. That way, the ambiguous words used in puns can be understood from both meanings, etc.

Well you can do experiments on similar phenomenon - e.g. blindfold a person and drop them off in a random part of their house. If they can navigate to the rooms you tell them quite accurately then they would have internal representations of the rooms in their heads. It would be trickier to think up experiments to test for an internal voice though....

<a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/temp/brain.gif" target="_blank">This</a> is my diagram about how I think animal brains basically work. We are only aware of the contents of our short-term memory. We don't have direct access to our senses. This explains how people can hallucinate or see numbers in different colours - they aren't directly sensing reality - their senses were corrupted during the transmission of the perceptual information to the short-term memory. Anyway, when we have experiences, we learn to associate the components of the experiences together. So if we often hear the word "red" when a red object is involved, we would associate the word "red" with the pattern of redness. Or if riding motorbikes makes us happy, even seeing a picture of one could trigger pleasurable feelings. Anyway, when we hear people talking, the sound and linguistic information would be copied into our short-term memory. We'd associate these things with those experiences. We can also recombine different patterns in new "imaginative" ways. Then things might cause us to expect a voice (e.g. we need to think something through - and this is what our parents did in that case) and then this voice appears in our short-term memory. We can usually distinguish it from real outside voices though since it is just coming from recombined memories.

Well I at least can trace my spoken thoughts back to what my goals were and the things I had on my mind at the time. Some people might have very disorganised thinking though, and have trouble relating the voice they heard to their ordinary thoughts - and so believe that the voice isn't "theirs" - it's from the government or from a demon or an angel, etc.

This is an extremely new field in science. I think books such as <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060958332/internetinfidelsA/002-2975563-8716035" target="_blank">Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct"</a> is a good book on the subject. (I've got a copy but I've only half read it)

excreationist

I guess it is true that the words don't usually have a heard voice, but we can hear in our brains - e.g. play back music in our heads. The same could be done with theatrical voices.

They are still mental objects... but we can also imagine 2 or 3 dimensional objects - in the same way we can just imagine hearing music or a voice, although I guess that usually the voice doesn't have any distinguishing sound - we just understand the words.

HelenM

I would say that most people on this thread are saying they feel comfortable calling their internal thoughts 'a voice' because to them it's sufficiently 'like' an audible voice. Technically, yes, it can't be audible. But somehow there is that perception that makes many people feel comfortable (evidently) saying "I heard this in my head" or whatever.

The point is well made by you and other people here that they have control over their internal dialogue so no-one here is speaking of intrusive thoughts (or 'voices') that they cannot get rid of.

The concept of where you have opposing thoughts and are almost arguing with yourself...again, I can relate; I think most people probably can. Perhaps it's even inherent in the 'reasoning' process.

Jung I think would have said that there is input from that collective 'unconscious', into our eternal dialogues. Who knows. I think it's amazing sometimes the way ideas seem to come from 'nowhere' that turn out to be powerfully helpful. I'm not surprised that some people would say these had to come from outside themselves, attributing them therefore to God.

But in a materialist-only world that's not possible so all thoughts must be self-generated somehow mustn't they?

hi rw

This is such a theist's retort...

It's so general I doubt you'll get anywhere with it. Especially in a place called the Secular Web. Still, nothing ventured, nothing gained...

(Or was the rest of your post the proof, with this being the summary of it?)

love
Helen

excreationist

Well I believe that we live in a material world... I think that our brain is filled with patterns that we learn about how the world works. I think that every single idea we have is a result of associated memories being triggered and refined and recombined to fulfil a goal. (e.g. to generate a sufficiently weird animal or story)
I think Jung just talked about "archetypes" which are ideas that people have in common, such as a fear of snakes or something. Well I agree that some of our thoughts are purely instinctual - e.g. we naturally feel attracted to healthy looking symmetrical people and feel scared of assymetrical "ugly" people. There have been experiments done where young babies are shown pictures of strangers. They seem relaxed looking at "beautiful" faces, but terrified looking at "ugly" faces. Anyway, those things can still be explained without using God.

rainbow walking

Jaliet: My understanding of the word voice is:
The sound produced by the vocal organs of a vertebrate, especially a human.
This is the definition from dictionary.com.
A voice, according to me, MUST have a sonic aspect to it.
Unless, we can agree here to a new meaning of the word voice here, we simply cannot hear with our brains.

Rw: This is true. When the concept VOICE is used we generally think of a specific audible sound. I use this concept to convey the phenomenon because it describes the impression of it as we experience it. I can’t think of a better word, can you?

Jaliet: As to Hearing voices
Usually the term applies to either one is psychic or mentally ill/ disturbed - or, for those who are believers a religious experience as in the case of Samwel or Paul on his way to Damascus.
The underlying factor when one is "hearing voices" is that one has no control over the voices ie. one hears them whether they like it or not. One is forced to hear them. Because they are not the source of the voices.
But I can decide to stop hearing my thoughts when I want to. That means they are MY VOICE. I create the voice, I stop the voice.

Rw: This is true also but it is not the context of what I am trying to convey. On the other hand it does demonstrate that the phenomenon exists though it isn’t provable.

jaliet: How do we know that the reflection in the mirror is ours and not Gods?

Rw: Non sequitur. We can see that a mirror is comprised of physical qualities that enable us to determine the reflection is actual and not contrived in our mind.

Jaliet: Because, when we move, the reflection moves. Same to out shadows, same to our Thoughts. We can channel our thoughts the way we want, we can decide to stop to think and we can decide to verbalise out thoughts.

Rw: This is not accurate. You can empirically verify the phenomenon of reflection and the phenomenon of shadows. The question of one’s thoughts is subjective and depends on our testimony or “say so” alone for verification. You cannot PROVE to me that you can channel your thoughts in any specific way because I cannot verify that you are actually thinking in a specific way. I must depend on you telling me that you are thinking about a specific subject.

jaliet: If we have decided to have our mental objects in the form of verbal objects/ words. They are still thoughts/ mental objects. They are not voices.

Rw: Prove it. There is only one way to CONCEPTUALIZE words and that is with a voice. You contrive an imaginary voice within your mind to do so in order to express your thoughts internally and also when you read to yourself silently you are pronouncing the words even as the concepts they convey unfold into comprehension of the ideas being conveyed by the words you are reading. The only way to PRONOUNCE a word is to SAY it. SAYING it requires a voice. I also don’t think it’s a matter for decision. It appears to be an intricate aspect of our mental nature.

Jaliet: Because the mechanism of thought is such that we cannot think without mental objects. These objects can be abstract or simple or even physical (ie from the real world). For example, when we say 6*6 = 36. What is 6? 6 is just a symbol(object) that represents 6 units of something. When we say "She is beautiful" there is no voice saying that. We are just converting what we feel to objects (words). And we are in control of what objects to use.

Rw: All of the examples you just listed are related to real objects and hence are PERCEPTUAL. The concept conveyed by a mathematical symbol is meaningless unless it is attached to an object. The concept of beautiful is equally meaningless without being attributed to something. In this case the something you used was “she”. But this “voice” we are speaking of here is a conceptualization that is attached only to our internal thoughts. You can’t PROVE it exists and you can’t even explain to me how it is you PERCIEVE it. Most skeptics tend towards the naturalistic meaning they rely on PERCEPTUALIZATIONS to arrive at CONCEPTUALIZATIONS meaning that something must be available to one or more of our senses to be PERCIEVED. Now here we have this VOICE that we clearly PERCIEVE as an EXPERIENCE yet it is just as clearly a phenomenon that cannot be PROVEN.

Now, as I said in my last reply to this OP, where do atheists get off condemning theists for their beliefs when atheists engage in their own form of subjective unprovable indulgences just to think freely.

Also I read your last remarks concerning my decision not to discuss my testimony with you any further. In as much as YOU chose to label it as me throwing in the towel you have further exposed your pride and arrogance was at stake because you expressed it as though we were in a prize fight and you had to define my decision in a way that conveyed you had somehow won something. In reality you LOST the opportunity to further explore the subject.

rainbow walking

Hi Helen,
You are doing a much better job of presenting my thoughts on this subject than I am. It's amazing. You even introduce aspects of it that I hadn't thought of. Thnx.

HelenM

Are you serious? If so then thank you for saying so .

(If not then consider me fooled )

love
Helen

rainbow walking

Rw: I agree. It seems to be an integral aspect of the conceptualization process.

Rw: Exactly

Rw: How did you arrive at the conclusion that we are only aware of our short term memory. In fact, how do we distinguish what is short term as opposed to long term? And why do you say we don’t have access to our senses? How is information conveyed into our minds if there isn’t some avenue of direct access?

Rw: I think we’ve all experienced moments of disorganized thinking. Times of stress or if we come under the influence of mind altering drugs. I think we begin to use an internalized voice to facilitate the organization of our thoughts because of the constant conflict between what we think and what we feel. We are trying to rationalize our feelings into coherent thoughts. But this still doesn’t PROVE that we have this internal voice nor does it explain how we PERCEIVE something outside the range of our senses.

Ted Hoffman

jaliet: Hi RW, glad to know you can still respond to my posts directly. I take full responsibility for the degeneration of what I had earlier started as a debate/ inquisition on your experience. I am sorry it turned out as it did. I have learned what was there for me to learn.

Rw: ...When the concept VOICE is used we generally think of a specific audible sound. I use this concept to convey the phenomenon because it describes the impression of it as we experience it. I can’t think of a better word, can you?

jaliet: what about "ideas"? what about "messages"?whether we lack a better term or not, the word "hearing voices" has a certain "historical" or conventional meaning and if I told someone "Hey, RW hears voices in his head" he/ she will think I am implying you are mentally unstable.
Maybe its time we came up with a word for it if it is, as you claim, a universal phenomena?
jaliet: Which phenomenon? (sorry to ask this, but in retrospect, the word phenomenon could have two meanings considering your theistic position) - God, or the hearing of voices "in our heads"? which do you mean?

jaliet: I think you are intentionally misunderstanding me. What I meant to convey was the idea, that if its something we have control over, then it must be ours. And I think you have misused the word "non sequitur". I believe "false analogy" would be the correct term.

Rw: ...You can empirically verify the phenomenon of reflection and the phenomenon of shadows. The question of one’s thoughts is subjective and depends on our testimony or “say so” alone for verification. You cannot PROVE to me that you can channel your thoughts in any specific way because I cannot verify that you are actually thinking in a specific way. I must depend on you telling me that you are thinking about a specific subject.

jaliet: Are you of the position that none uf us here, is in control of what we think? Who channels our thoughts if not us? I say it is ourselves because we choose what to think - we can verify this by simply taking a poll right here at secweb - we neednt go to a lab and fix gadgets to peoples heads for this - unless you are not willing to believe what people here will say. You say "PROVE IT". I ask "what is your reason for believeing it is/ could be anything other than ourselves who is doing the thinking?".

jaliet: Jesus RW, this is unbelievable to me. Can you quote some sources? This is such a strong statement.
Are you saying that those born deaf cannot conceptualize words?

jaliet: We do not have to pronounce every word in order for our thoughts to have meaning to us. When we think of having sex with someone for example. We think of or imagine the events that will take place before the real act and the act and maybe after it. We dont have to "pronounce" how the events will unfold for us to be capable of contemplating the act. You make it sound like we must have a script for every thought.

Rw: All of the examples you just listed are related to real objects and hence are PERCEPTUAL.

jaliet: Define perceptual. It excludes physical objects?

RW: The concept conveyed by a mathematical symbol is meaningless unless it is attached to an object.

jalietWhen we learnt mathematical tables ie 1*1 =1, 1*2=2, 1*3=3...12*12=144. Are you saying you could make sense to them only if we attached eg. apples to the numbers for the figures to have meaning? eg 2 apples * 2 = 4 apples?

What about when we learn differentiation and Intergration? or even the concept of recurring decimals?. Must we still think in terms of apples and pears?
Those are plain numbers sir, and they have meaning. Ask any mathematician. Is there one here btw?
I wonder if Guys who study Pure Maths (as opposed to applied Mathematics) could convince RW that what they learn has any meaning?

rw: ...But this “voice” we are speaking of here is a conceptualization that is attached only to our internal thoughts. You can’t PROVE it exists and you can’t even explain to me how it is you PERCIEVE it. Most skeptics tend towards the naturalistic meaning they rely on PERCEPTUALIZATIONS to arrive at CONCEPTUALIZATIONS meaning that something must be available to one or more of our senses to be PERCIEVED. Now here we have this VOICE that we clearly PERCIEVE as an EXPERIENCE yet it is just as clearly a phenomenon that cannot be PROVEN.

jaliet: So you believe skeptics are incapable of imagining? Fairies haven't been "percieved", but now we can all conceptu8alize them. Skeptics only apply reason to what the mind churns out. Even a skeptic can ask themselves whether God did something for them, then dismiss the "voice" with good reason.

rw: Now, as I said in my last reply to this OP, where do atheists get off condemning theists for their beliefs when atheists engage in their own form of subjective unprovable indulgences just to think freely.

jaliet: subjective unprovable indulgences? You lost me, please explain by what you are referring to when you say "subjective unprovable indulgences"

rw: Also I read your last remarks concerning my decision not to discuss my testimony with you any further. In as much as YOU chose to label it as me throwing in the towel you have further exposed your pride and arrogance was at stake because you expressed it as though we were in a prize fight and you had to define my decision in a way that conveyed you had somehow won something.

jaliet: We were in a debate. You quit the debate, citing my bad manners. Quitting was your way of dealing with my bad manners. So if you are faced with ill-mannered people, you quit. That is your way and you reserve the choice to quit whenever you want. From where I sit, quitting and throwing in the towel are synonymous to me.

RW: In reality you LOST the opportunity to further explore the subject.

jaliet: This is true and I regret it. But it also makes it easier for you to quit discussions with people who dont say what pleases you. So long as you keep thinking that quitting is Ok when the other party doesnt say what you like, you exclude people who dont agree with your idea of what constitutes rudeness, arrogance and so on, from discussing with you. Whether that makes you a better person or not is for you to decide. As for me, next time I will be in another debate, I will "wear gloves" and be less agressive. When all is said and done, it was an experience we went through and we each had a way of dealing with it.

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>