That seems insane to me. I'm always chattering away up there, I can't imagine it otherwise.

Wow. I had no idea that was a thing. I thought that’s just something they do in movies. But I don’t have a mind’s eye either (aphantasia). So I guess that’s on brand for me.

That doesn’t mean I can’t “talk to myself” in a way or think about stuff. I just have no auditory sensation whatsoever. It’s just abstract/immaterial reasoning. I’d wager if I did an FMRI the audio part would not light up but the speech part would.

You don’t have visual dreams?

If I say “pink elephant,” you don’t one? Or better yet, if i say “Dumbo,” you don’t see the ears?

You don’t hear songs in your head?

If I write “I’ll be back” you don’t hear it now in a thick German accent?

Inconceivable! (As they say)

* * *

I guess i just doubt the complete absence. Maybe people have different expectations of what imaginations would be. When I “see” a pink elephant, it is extremely fragmentary. If it were output directly, it’d be a mess. Also, not all at the same time.

It might also be that there are differences in the amount of attention given to different kinds of imagination.

But the way the brain is structured, everything is firing all the time… or at least, that’s why it is so hard for me to conceive

> If I write “I’ll be back” you don’t hear it now in a thick German accent?

Now you have made me curious. Where would the thick German accent be, when pronouncing those words? I can imagine other sentences (anything with "th", for example) where you would hear a German accent. But with "I'll be back"?

It's a Terminator quote: https://youtu.be/tYc2jQaM8gM?t=34

Maybe "in Arnold Schwarzenegger's voice" would've been more accurate, since I can't detect anything particularly German in the way it's said either.

Arnold is Austrian anyway

I was aware of the origin of the quote, but I was really wondering how one would pronounce it with a thick, German accent.

Not OP, but I'm in the same position, so let me answer.

- I do get visual dreams. That's the only time I have a visual imagination; that, or if I'm on the verge of sleeping.

- If you say "pink elephant", I've got the concepts of elephant, pink and so on in my head. I can 'see' the geometry in a way, but it's totally abstract. Think of it like a pink elephant in a game where the renderer is off, and you won't go far wrong; all the information is there, and I can use it, I just don't see anything. Not as a hallucination, and not 'off to the side' either.

- I absolutely do hear songs in my head. Aphantasia usually only refers to visual imagination.

- If I want to hear it in a German accent, I do. By default, while I read something there's no auditory element at all. If I'm reading a book, I'll usually narrate the spoken sentences to myself and not do so for the other text; it's a matter of choice. Narrating it slows down my reading a lot, to the speed of fast speech.

> By default, while I read something there's no auditory element at all.

I wouldn't characterize how I read -- which as far as I know is normal, but who can tell! -- as narrating to myself. Rather, it involves the sensation of somehow pronouncing words without necessarily hearing them. I can do this much faster than I could narrate the text explicitly.

I can also read without either narrating or pronouncing, but I find that it cuts down comprehension noticeably.

Maybe imagination is poorly understood. I'm confident in my imagination when it comes to technology, but I fail the aphantasia test, because it tests free form artistry and I admittedly lack that one. Maybe it's division between STEM brain and arts brain.

I've gone back and forth on aphantasia. It's true that I generally don't see images in my mind; even when thinking about things that are visual I'll tend to mentally describe them in English. But if I really try I can definitely see things in my mind, after a fashion, although it's very ... blurry, for lack of a better word.

I'm also terrible with faces. I can see someone I've known for years with a different haircut and I'll completely fail to recognize them. If everyone suddenly went bald I'd be helpless to recognize anybody.

Edit: Like, I'm right now trying to conjure up the face of my girlfriend of 23 years (who is on a business trip right now). I just can't do it. It's kind of trippy.

For me it's insane that some people "talk" to themselves in their heads, expressing your ideas as words seems so slow in comparison to "thinking in ideas"

I can think in ideas pure non-verbal ideas, and have on occasion noticed that my inner monologue is just describing the idea I've already had.

When I try to shortcut the monologue on the grounds I already know what I'm thinking about, it feels wrong.

This hasn't been much of a problem recently, possibly because my inner monologue has sped up to match that I watch and listen to YouTube and podcasts and audiobooks in ~ double speed.

Your thinking in ideas is you thinking in your own internal mental vernacular.

What do you do when it comes time to get your point across to others? That's my Achilles heel. If people aren't prepared to really dig in and go through the motions/look things up and vonnect or pick up ideas that I have (that are the sum of many years diving esoteric topics), I might as well just throw my hands up and just do whatever myself. As it's generally a shorter time to materialization than trying to explain it.

I also talk a lot to myself so my inner dialogue becomes an external dialogue when I'm alone doing mindless stuff like cleaning or putting groceries away - I find it just keeps my mind active and in the present without tuning out.

One of the funniest things was when I was working at a bike shop. The owner was a really cool guy and would visit the store from time to time. I was stocking some bike rack stuff on one side of a dual display, talking about an app I was essentially brainstorming over out loud while I was doing this mindless task.

I walked around the display and owner was standing there. He looked at me with a smile and says, "That was quite the discussion you were having with yourself. Sounds like a great idea for an app."

We both started laughing and I had to explain him why I did this.

I do the same thing, though weirdly enough less than I used to. Sometimes it really helps me work through a problem -- maybe it slows me down to a better pace? Who knows.

Talking to pets also works. They've never been able to offer a very useful response, alas.

I have an inner monologue, but it's just one of many different ways to think and I don't always choose to use it.

What happens when you consider a spatial problem like an IQ test? Do you have to talk your way through it? If you see an art piece, do you only appreciate it through the monologue, or does it feel beautiful in a non-verbal way too?

I do tend to talk through spatial problems, yes, though I'm not so aphantasiac that I can't visualize, say, the image that would match a simple pattern of lines demonstrated in prior images. I can also situate things with relative position in my head without having to visualize them (if that makes sense).

> If you see an art piece, do you only appreciate it through the monologue, or does it feel beautiful in a non-verbal way too?

I appreciate it both ways, yeah. But the visual in that case would mostly be just "this is pretty" or "that's disturbing" etc. Any kind of genuine art critique (such as I am even capable of doing) would be talked through mentally.

How is that an issue?

Inner monologue refers to the experience of perceiving one's thoughts as auditory. People who do not have an inner monologue are still capable of thinking.

CPU savings for the simulation they aren't "real" like the rest of us.

so by your logic, it's the "real" entities which will inevitably experience pain, suffering, and death; meanwhile I will reincarnate eternally as part of the program's grand design, simply because my thoughts are abstract instead of an auditory hallucination? ever consider maybe your "internal dialogue" is actually the instructions the programmers have to keep ramming in your face so you actually complete your quests?

Sweet Jesus, how sensitive are the NPCs today...

HN just isn't really the most receptive crowd when it comes to playfulness. I wouldn't take it personally.

Got a decent citation? I can't even fathom what that would be like. I'd bet my daily inner monologue is 100X what I actually speak out loud.

Random search results from a non-clickbait source:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/inner-monologue-...

One of them was Albert Einstein: "The words of the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought." -- https://www.creativitypost.com/article/aping_einstein#:~:tex...

Your comment seems like a non sequitur.

Wow, it’s a sourced quote too (rare for Einstein on the internet). How do you write a paper without thinking in words? I need to talk to someone who doesn’t think in words, I just can’t believe it otherwise.

Well, I can do math, but I very rarely "think in mathematics." Rather, I approach most math problems linguistically, by essentially making up a little word problem in my head and reasoning through it. However, I know other people who approach math in a completely different way. They seem to have an intuitive "calculating sense," and only use language "after the fact" to record the result or explain it to others.

So in the same sense that I can use math without it being central to my thinking, it doesn't seem hard to believe that others can use language without it being central to their thinking.

For me it’s almost like ‘seeing’ or ‘knowing’ the ‘shape’ of things and the relationships between them. Translating to words is sort of a seperate step at output. It’s difficult for me to describe.

You can draw without thinking in drawings, similarly you can speak without thinking in speech.

Personally I've tried to become less dependent on language for thought, because I noticed I kept getting stuck on how to verbalize some thoughts even when there was no real need to. I think it's had an effect but it's hard to tell if I'm just imagining it or if imagining it is precisely the point (and I still get stuck on how to explain stuff in some imaginary context, but I suppose that's progress?)

My best guess is that an internal monologue may simply be an intermediate step as we internalize speech into our thoughts, so the need to keep verbalizing thought could eventually reduce, but it's hard to notice these kinds of changes in yourself because the skills don't disappear they just become something else.

I had philosophy teachers who thought similar and dismissed my claims outright to the contrary.

I call it mental-ese. To talk i often first have to translate between it and my native language (English). obviously, it's by its very nature hard to express in words exactly what mental-ese consists of, and it might arguably be impossible in the same way we cannot express general qualia using the written language.

but I've heard enough similarities from others trying to express such to be convinced there's something there. surely the phrase "I can't express my thoughts in words" is common and has meaning to you?

The analogies I've heard commonly from myself and others to describe it is that I see/feel the shape of relationship between the concepts or abstract thoughts before I then try to put it into language. just as my other senses do not require written language to first describe (my experience of tasting a strawberry is something qualitatively different experienced/impressed on the mind, not a word).

Another analogy I've used to try to convey my apparent experience to others in contrast to many people is that it appears to me that a common way of experiencing the world is to have relative primacy or weight on "things"(words) and then people have to work towards the relationships between things. whereas I feel my mind works the other way, receiving impressions of relationships between or behind things first, such that they are the primary unit, and the words/things must then be built up from these.

Text generation is conversion of previously prepared idea to text. If you didn't have that idea beforehand, you would have nothing to say. Sure it's a nontrivial process, because ideas don't map to text well, but it's merely text conversion, not really thought. Also text must work around reader's ignorance and prejudice, which is completely irrelevant for idea itself.

The responses to this statement illustrate the point I intended to make: we all process stuff very differently.

FWIW I often throw this random factoid out there when someone presents an overly broad "humans in general" argument/observation. The reaction is usually polarized :P

Because textual thought is abysmally inefficient and inadequate.