Re:People who have unusual, or non-existent, inner voices
by rossnordby on Tuesday November 02, 2021 @05:59PM
(#29088007)
Not OP, but: if you're thirsty and there's a cup of water nearby, presumably you don't need to verbalize the full set of motor commands necessary to move your arm, grasp the cup, and so on. It's a pretty complicated motion involving quite a few decisions, but they're decisions that don't involve verbal ability. (Or at least I assume that's the case.)
For me, at least, most thinking feels like a version of that, but generalized. That doesn't mean it's necessarily easy- I can't come up with a fancy new algorithm by just desiring it momentarily- but most things just don't need words to be thought.
If I want to figure out if, say, some geometric modification obeys some property, the content of the thoughts is the spatial reasoning directly. I can go back and explain the thoughts verbally, but the words are just labels for the more 'native' reasoning.
In my case, I can still think things verbally, though it does seem closer to subvocalization than full inner voice as described. No aphantasia for me either.
For me, at least, most thinking feels like a version of that, but generalized. That doesn't mean it's necessarily easy- I can't come up with a fancy new algorithm by just desiring it momentarily- but most things just don't need words to be thought.
If I want to figure out if, say, some geometric modification obeys some property, the content of the thoughts is the spatial reasoning directly. I can go back and explain the thoughts verbally, but the words are just labels for the more 'native' reasoning.
In my case, I can still think things verbally, though it does seem closer to subvocalization than full inner voice as described. No aphantasia for me either.