/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12548004
inner monologue is not a superior way of thinking

>>12050903
>thought structures, and pure unsymbolized thought.

This is how I used to think before I started thinking for the first time in actual words and inner dialogue/monologue. Like the thought structures and unsymbolized thoughts have to be NARRATED now by my inner voice and its SO ANNOYING because I'm able to grasp the meaning and intention of my unsymbolized thoughts and images but the habit of narrating them after the fact has creeped in and slowed down my thinking process.

And now there's also just general thinking with words and inner dialogue alone, with the inner dialogue/words comprising the thoughts not trailing them, which is something I never really used to experience back when I was thinking purely in unsymbolized thought and thought structures and occasionally images. And now I can swear I am actually losing the ability to think in pure unsymbolized thought, like it feels like unless I speak with an inner voice I can't "THINK" anymore almost, which is a frightening thought as its the complete opposite of what it used to be back when I was never even aware one could think to themselves by speaking with an inner voice, I never had any use for that.

So can you tell me what exactly you did OP that got you to start thinking in pure unsymbolized thought and thought structures? I was never able to really pin down myself how one can cultivate this method of cognition besides either having it from birth or catching yourself when you are thinking with an inner dialogue and just stopping it, learning to over time break that habit, but any pointers or tips would be appreciated

This all began for me with wondering what it would be like to think with an inner dialogue after learning its a thing, and specifically whether that would enhance my meager visualization ability (it doesn't) so now I want to experience the opposite again but I'm not quite sure how to get there, I don't want to remain in this mix of the two which feels most inefficient.

>>11923116
Electricity isn't just the movement of ions and electrons. It's devil magic and you shouldn't think about these things.

This is quite interesting /sci/. I'm sure by now you are all familiar with unsymbolized thinking- https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00216/full
>“thinking a particular, definite thought without the awareness of that thought's being conveyed in words, images, or any other symbols”

Now see what happens when someone, (who is a philosophy professor even) is unaware of this concept and possibility and comes up with his own theory of consciousness that is based around the ABSENCE of awareness of this modality of thought in the human mind.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/there-is-no-such-thing-as-conscious-thought/
>In ordinary life we are quite content to say things like “Oh, I just had a thought” or “I was thinking to myself.” By this we usually mean instances of inner speech or visual imagery, which are at the center of our stream of consciousness—the train of words and visual contents represented in our minds. I think that these trains are indeed conscious. In neurophilosophy, however, we refer to “thought” in a much more specific sense. In this view, thoughts include only nonsensory mental attitudes, such as judgments, decisions, intentions and goals. These are amodal, abstract events, meaning that they are not sensory experiences and are not tied to sensory experiences. Such thoughts never figure in working memory. They never become conscious. And we only ever know of them by interpreting what does become conscious, such as visual imagery and the words we hear ourselves say in our heads.

Note how the professor has falsely assumed that non-sensory thoughts never become conscious to someone, never appear in working memory- that only their end result do (visual imagery or inner speech) but to someone familiar with unsymbolized thinking this is obviously wrong and we can experience and recognize these thoughts without any accompanying or trailing "sensory" experience (such as visual imagery/kinesthetic feeling or inner speech).

>>11088948

>>10965892
Try thinking about math visually instead of verbally

>>10685111
watching lots of movies

>>10652785
By not thinking in words

>>10636780

I'm literally 100% sure i've lost like 15% of my iq and crativity because i've picked up a dumbass habit of interviewing myself and explaining concepts i've learned in my head.

How do i stop this?

>>10506436
>>10506399
>>10506398
>>10506382
>>10506374
>>10506242
>>10506238
>>10506223
>>10506172
>>10506167
>>10506165
>>10506162
>>10506036
>>10505737
>>10505732
>>10505715
>>10505698
>>10505687
>>10505683
>>10505678
>>10505661
>>10505655
>>10505654
>>10505650
>>10505638
>>10505620
>>10505571
>>10505567
>>10505496
>>10505484
>>10505471

>>10480209
also forgot image

physicists who cant engineer experiments are just paperfags

engineers who are too stupid to understand the physics are just geeks

Embrace both archetypes. Keep learning outside college. Grow your own expertise. Workout the mind and project it into the world with your hands. Set up a lab.

>>10098219

>>10078110
correct

>>10019317
What's the best thinking style for doing linear algebra?

>>10020028
What is the best thinking style for doing calculus and linear algebra?

Debate.

Try visualizing math instead of verbalizing it. The reason why you suck at math might be because you're a wordcuck.

Which thinking style is better for thinking about things scientifically and mathematically? Verbal thinking or visual thinking?