NPC that wakes up

[Anonymous No.9984848]

How do we describe this process scientifically?

Can we develop a program to ensure children become human instead of automatons with no conscious self?

Is it good 75% of people have no inner monologue?

[Anonymous No.9984972]

Yes absolutely. I’ve always thought in words. Do most people not do this?

[Anonymous No.9984979]

>>9984848
>Is it good 75% of people have no inner monologue?
Yes, it's good that 75% are not addicted to one mode of thinking.

>>9984972
Most people can do either and just do whatever's more convenient. Words are good for when you're dealing with systems of known, hard rules that can be manipulated (e.g. mathematics, programming, law). Hardly a perfect choice for all thinking though.

[Anonymous No.9984982]

If everyone were fully self aware, most of the janitors and cab drivers and fast food drones would suicide or go crazy. Be careful what you ask for.

[Anonymous No.9984994]

>>9984848
What exactly is an inner monologue? Is it just talking to yourself in your head?

[Anonymous No.9985015]

>>9984994
Yes, there are many schizos who keep talking to themself 24/7 and they think that's the normal state.

[Anonymous No.9985039]

>>9985015
You're making me paranoid anon. That's not normal? I've never done anything crazy but I talk to myself in my head every moment I'm awake.

[Anonymous No.9985044]

>>9985039
What do you talk about? Can you give some examples?

[Anonymous No.9985052]

>>9984848
Did he never daydream? How is it possible not to daydream?

[Anonymous No.9985074]

>>9985044
Just whatever it is I'm currently doing I always examine it and think about why I'm doing it and then compare it to what I want to be doing, and compare that to what I should be doing, then branch off of those things to figure why I want to do one thing and why I should do something else and why those two points might have a conflict.

[Anonymous No.9985242]

>he limits the speed and nuance of his thoughts to what he can express in natural language
is there a greater sign of a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.9985249]

>>9985242
t. cockroach reacting to stimuli

[Anonymous No.9985253]

>>9984982
>Some cab drivers might enjoy do their job yes?

[Anonymous No.9985286]

>>9985249
>brainlet cannot into concious abstract thought
how quaint

[Anonymous No.9985300]

>>9985286
It's more difficult to detect fallacious reasoning if you don't have a framework for your thoughts.
Thinking "quickly" without introspection just means you'll get a lot of wrong ideas quickly

[Anonymous No.9985311]

>>9985300
>t. verbalizes text of book in head when he reads
Dunning Kruger is strong. Stop making this supremely autistic trash fire of a thread.

[Anonymous No.9985312]

>>9985074
>>9984848
being in a stake of quiet mindfulness about your thoughts is better than some inane chitter chatter to no one about nothing in your head.

Also how can you be aware of what others think if you arent listening? And do you really want others to hear your thoughts?

Jez its like you're all babies.

[Anonymous No.9985322]

>>9984848
>picture
Who can't speak but comes up with his own language?

[Anonymous No.9985331]

>>9985311
Are you serious boy? Studies have been done, there are not people who DON'T sub-vocalize when they read. People who claim they don't sub-vocalize are just still doing it but aren't self aware of the fact

[Anonymous No.9985336]

Hello.

I don't need to think with words in my head. Thinking with a stream of consciousness is faster.

I saw a mudcrab the other day, dreadful creatures.

Goodbye.

[Anonymous No.9985337]

>>9985331
>Studies have been done, there are not people who DON'T sub-vocalize when they read
Completely untrue. Show me these studies. Vocalizing while reading is a sign you are a brainlet and don't read enough.

[Anonymous No.9985342]

>>9984848

[Anonymous No.9985443]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(classical_mythology)

[Anonymous No.9985594]

>>9985342
That's the shit that is about to happen.
If it hasn't already, beacuse I haven't heard about this NPC talk before.

[Anonymous No.9985598]

>>9985594
*because
But I'm more concerned of why were still thinking about the same things over and over.

[Anonymous No.9985603]

>>9985598
*we're

[Anonymous No.9985615]

I warn you though to avoid making a "religion" out of this.

[Anonymous No.9985784]

>>9984979
What are the different methods of thinking? Did the original study ask the people who answered as not having an internal monologue how they think, or what their mind does when in an innate state?

[Anonymous No.9985835]

wait is this a real thing

is this why normie memes are so popular? instead of using language to describe complex thoughts, they just remember a meme by its relation to a stimulus they experienced while committing the meme to memory and then say the meme out loud

is this the secret behind twitch.tv / reddit / most of 4chan / imgur / etc.? they don't think in language, they think in basic stimuli, and memes are a way of converting that mode of thinking to communication (albeit of the lowest level)?

[Anonymous No.9985851]

>>9985835
>wait is this a real thing
No you idiot, the guy who wrote that post is trolling all of you hard.

[Anonymous No.9985858]

>>9985253
>tfw one cab driver asked to suck my dick
Chad life is not easy as it sounds

[Anonymous No.9985861]

>>9985851
do you have proof?

[Anonymous No.9985862]

I never conceived it was possible to have no inner monologue.

I guess the whole Asians bring mindless insect people has some merit to it after all.

[Anonymous No.9986052]

>>9985861
Do you believe the brain maintains two separate language systems, one for inner speech and one for outer speech? Why would he be able to perform the cognition required to produce language and make it public with mouth noises yet unable to do the same task minus the mouth noises?

[Anonymous No.9986141]

>>9985242
This unironically. Sometimes I will have a very complex thought in an instant, and it will take tens of seconds for my inner voice to 'catch up' and vocalize the thought, even though it's already there. Vocalizing your thoughts is just a waste of time generally speaking.

[Anonymous No.9986179]

>>9985337
Is...is this true?

[Anonymous No.9986205]

>>9985784
i think in pictures or short gif like videos. i only think in words when im dealing with higher concepts that cant be translated into words well.

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9986206]

>>9986179
No, everyone has an inner voice when reading. You can learn to suppress it to read faster by scanning text faster than your inner voice can keep up, that's what speed readers do

[Anonymous No.9986213]

>>9984848
>Can we develop a program to ensure children become human instead of automatons with no conscious self?
Yes since this probably has to do with writing systems.

[Anonymous No.9986217]

>>9986205
Are you Asian? Was English your first language? No /pol/ shit just curious, that might have something to do with it.

[Anonymous No.9986230]

>>9986217
nope im irish american, though i speak Mandarin and Cantonese (cuz i loved jackie chan as a kid). im actually autistic too so thats probably why. i do have inner monologue but i dont use it 24/7 since its not useful unless im trying to solve problems.

[Anonymous No.9986231]

>>9984848
It makes sense that some people don't have an inner monologue since our language had to be invented and learned, so... i believe that some people might still be thinking in the same manner that we did before the invention of spoken language. But 75% is a gross overestimation.

[Anonymous No.9986242]

>>9985337
Mentally though, with yourself?
What you've never experience trauma and think it over with yourself hearing the thoughts in your head before you say them out loud?
How do you speak then?
Do you just not just stop and ponder sometimes?

[Anonymous No.9986247]

I think in images but also have a "strong" inner voice. I think people are getting confused and the guy in the OP is lying/trolling and probably another sperg from /pol/ (seen all the npc threads lately?). also when i actually speak aloud and hear other people talking I see the words/sentences in my minds eye and often right in front of me, like a projection of an image so to speak.

[Anonymous No.9986250]

>>9985312
someone somewhere decided this week to push very hard the idea that people who don't code their thoughts down into a ridiculous tv voice-over style full sentences narrative monologue *all the time* are "NPCs", as in, people not running a commentary of their thoughts for themselves to listen to are "not thinking". I have no idea why they want to push this but I suggest disengaging because it's disingenuous at best

[Anonymous No.9986253]

>>9986247

mind you, i talk to myself a lot anyway. in my mind and aloud.

[Anonymous No.9986702]

[Anonymous No.9986708]

>>9984848
Impossible to actually prove how advantageous this is since people like that can't self reflect or communicate their thoughts.

[Anonymous No.9986780]

Is anyone else capable of replaying music you've heard (or just making your own music) in your head?
And how about creating entire stories inside your head? Not just words, but a real world with people who speak, etc. It causes me to make facial expressions when I'm talking to (or emulating) those figments of my imagination.
It's what I always do when I'm bored, I thought everyone did this.

[Anonymous No.9986803]

>>9985311
t. thinks he's a fast reader and doesn't know he's actually just skimming the book.

[Anonymous No.9986836]

>>9986780
No, anon, you're special.

[Anonymous No.9986908]

>>9986780
I do often replay music in my head and rarely invent original ones, but for me, making up stories in my head is incredibly difficult probably since I'm not a writer.

[Anonymous No.9986959]

I think in a mixture of the two. Inner dialogue paired with a constant image/video like thing that is molded according to the dialogue, or the dialogue explains it.

[Anonymous No.9986966]

>>9984982
Most janitors, cab drivers in Europe earn enough to live in middle class houses and travel every year.

[Anonymous No.9986968]

>>9986908
Interesting. To me its the exact opposite, replaying or "creating" music is hard but making up stories and complicated worlds is like walking. T different

[Anonymous No.9986970]

>>9986966
Are you fucking kidding me? Fuck america.

[Anonymous No.9987007]

>>9986141
we all do, but sometimes that stream is wrong, and vocalizing it in your head shows the errors.

[Anonymous No.9987014]

>>9986247
I think in sensations and feeling, but I always vocalize everything right after that. For me, visualizing is tertiary and inner monologue is the part were I articulate and check for logical fallacies in the original stream. But having no inner monologue seems..wrong and am not really sure how that state could be

[Anonymous No.9987040]

>>9985858
Was she hot?

[Anonymous No.9987049]

>>9984848
>How do we describe this process scientifically?
Articulating one's thoughts.

[Anonymous No.9987087]

>>9985311
*subvocalize
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.9987091]

How do i identify npcs in the world? How can true humans round them up and put a stop to this?

[Anonymous No.9987313]

>>9984972
This is seriously something a bot would reply with, and Ive seen this in almost every NPC thread so far (like a real bot, made of 1's and o's)

[Anonymous No.9987314]

>>9987091
Ask them if consciousness is physical.

:^)

[Anonymous No.9987330]

>>9984848
Seems to be common enough for there to be a number of blogs detailing the experience.

[Anonymous No.9987351]

>>9986780
I listened to a ton of Bach for two days recently and started randomly thinking up music in his pattern including that characteristic little trill he ends things with. There was also a thing I used to do where I'd improv my own music while walking around and suddenly I'd find it overwhelming emotionally and have to stop. And I used to randomly think of something like a cool concept for a movie and spend my nights before sleep branching it out into something bigger, which was a lot of fun. I haven't done those since being depressed though.

[Anonymous No.9987383]

>>9987351
>I am really a musical and artistic genius I am just depressed so I have never actualized anything. Goodbye.

[Anonymous No.9987388]

>>9986242
I do all that, but through meditative techniques I learn to not have as much "chatter" in my head. It's a better way to live, I promise.

[Anonymous No.9987413]

This is a dumb meme that insecure virgins use to boost their egos a bit more.

[Anonymous No.9987435]

>>9986780
Yes, but I try to stop myself because I can get absorbed for hours just pacing around my house. Sometimes I autistically repeat a scenario with minor changes, often just in my cadence, thousands of times. I don't think it's a good habit, meditation helps me alleviate it and actually experience the world. I wish to attain this for my every action and momentary existence, one day:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotelic
Sometimes I get a hint of it when running or pouring a glass of water.

On the other hand, perhaps it is an innate thing or a skill that is actually very powerful. I certainly find it useful and extremely satisfying when spurred by passionate creativity or working on a problem. Or maybe I'm just being too soft, making excuses for a mode of thought that feels like a comforting big titty mummy-tier gf.

[Anonymous No.9987450]

>>9987413
This. Being able to think linguistically is one of the most common abilities in the world. Nothing to brag about.

>i have two working legs whereas a small percentage of people are in wheelchair
Absolutely pathetic.

[Anonymous No.9987454]

>>9985337
Vocalising is the difference between skimming and actually reading, calling up the linguistic packet in your brain. Also, there is always some activity in your nervous system related to vocalising, it is impossible to eliminate short of pretending to read/skim (while not actually).

[Anonymous No.9987456]

>>9987413
dangerous redpill

[Anonymous No.9987520]

>>9985784
for me it's often in wordless concepst and abstracts
on the other side I have problems with thinking in pictures, especially still pictures which just dissolve into nothingness second after I recall/create them

[Anonymous No.9987532]

Wha The fuck? I don't get it, what "think without words" even imply? Does it mean that the majority of people don't "think"? Show some real statistics about it or else is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9987538]

>>9987383
Lol what made you think that, the Bach? There are millions of views for countless recordings of him on youtube. There is no point to these threads other than sharing our pointless idiosyncrasies, is there?

[Anonymous No.9987559]

>>9985784
Pictures and feels for me primarily. I have to consciously think in words, I don't do it on auto unless I'm reading in my head.

[Anonymous No.9987576]

>>9984848
>Is it good 75% of people have no inner monologue?
This seems... Unlikely. Got a link to this study, how was this question phrased?

I mean, there's whole religions centered around just getting that inner monologue to STFU.

[Anonymous No.9987596]

>>9987559
Can you describe what this is like? I can switch to images but never feelings, and images are only used when constructing something or doing something like imagining a meeting, or location.

[Anonymous No.9987610]

I stopped thinking with words during high school because it seemed to be faster to think with images, patterns and concepts. I only talk to myself when I am drunk. This is fine, I would not change this. This troubled my communication skills for a time but I learned how to deal with it.
My inner monologue was shit anyway. I was more paranoid and pessimistic back then.

[Anonymous No.9987611]

>>9987576
A Ph.D gave 30 people beepers that beeped at random intervals so they wouldn't be actively influencing their thought patterns and had them write down the type of thought they were having out of a list of five. Feeling, verbal, visual, unsymbolized, and sensory awareness. Most of the participants only had an inner monologue going 20% of the time, and a few had none whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.9987633]

>>9987611
Well, in addition to being pretty shit methodology - how does this indicate that, "75% of people have no inner monologue"?

[Anonymous No.9987639]

>>9987633
Im gonna trust the Ph.D knew what he was doing better then some basement dweller posting on a Taiwanese cock fighting forum.

[Anonymous No.9987648]

>>9987351
This is not unusual... (Also, there are machines that can do this now.)

I'll often have my dreams orchestrally narrated (which ya think would cue me into lucid more often, but for some reason I rarely pick up on it). Seems my mum has that too, though not my sister.

A few times I've had entirely original Siouxsie and the Banshees songs in my dreams, and have managed to write down the lyrics and some of the music upon waking up. Probably too many goth concerts in my youth.

[Anonymous No.9987651]

>>9987639
Well, the original claim is entirely sourced from a basement dweller posting on a Taiwanese cock fighting forum, as that's not at all what that study, as you described it, would conclude.

[Anonymous No.9987655]

>>9987651
Ah, you're correct. The retards that pervade this board have been consistently misinterpreting the study. Heres the article that started the shitstorm.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/pristine-inner-experience/201111/thinking-without-words

[Anonymous No.9987672]

>>9984848
This is called coming to consciousness. Most people are in fact NOT conscious

[Anonymous No.9987682]

>>9987655
So less "75% of people have on inner monologue" and more, "your inner monologue maybe silent more often than you realize".

[Anonymous No.9987683]

>>9987672
Nope. All people are conscious.

[Anonymous No.9987684]

>>9987682
The original focus was on the ones who had zero inner monologue.

[Anonymous No.9987687]

>>9985851
You should read Hellen Keller’s biography. The way she described her life prior to her intensive education nearly mirros OP pic.
Many people never have an original thought, the light simply isn’t on in there. Language is good at turning it on

[Anonymous No.9987690]

>>9984979
> it's good that 75% are not addicted to one mode of thinking.
Dumb. It's not like thinking with words is mutually exclusive to other ways of thinking.

[Anonymous No.9987694]

>>9985039
It's normal for whites. Other races can't think like this. They lack souls; they're not human.

[Anonymous No.9987703]

>>9987690
Other ways of thinking are inferior. Everyone who admits to it describes a visceral struggle to communicate their thoughts and ideas to the outside world, most things never make it out.

[Anonymous No.9987706]

>>9987694
Makes one wonder why so many of those "soulless" asians belong to a religion where the goal to silence one's inner monologue and ego in order to reach the truth of the universe.

[Anonymous No.9987756]

>>9985015
>>9985039
schizos literally hear voices in auditory hallucinations, perceived externally not internally

[Anonymous No.9987763]

>>9987694
Go back to /pol/ and /x/ with your souls and racism. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9987798]

>>9987703
Weird how Einstein didn’t think with words, then. Almost like you’re lying and don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous No.9987864]

>>9984972
I've come to find that thinking without language is a lot like calculating simple things in your head.
It just happens.
For more complex algorithms and calculations, you most likely need an inner monologue.

[The Lord No.9987872]

>>9984848
You should try to clearly explain it. I think the official language of science is English too, btw.

>no

[The Lord No.9987880]

>>9987872
I don't disagree here with what they call "modern" but I think the more scientific way to describe it is to say, "After polishing Newton's idea for 300 years, we have some more specific language to use to refer to the elements of the idea."

[Anonymous No.9987911]

>>9987763
I am both amused and saddened at the fact that trolling isn't recognized anymore and that everything is taken at face value.

[Anonymous No.9987920]

>>9987763
Suck my jewish dick my dude. I am chosen. You are cattle.

[Anonymous No.9987930]

>>9987920
ur dumb little religion isnt even real you fucking joke.

[Anonymous No.9987954]

>>9987763
>anti-racists are npc

makes you think

[Anonymous No.9987982]

>>9986780
Absolutely. I've got a "jukebox" in my head of songs that I've heard a view times that I can more or less play on demand. I even consciously notice things in the mental versions of the songs that I didn't notice when I listened to them physically.

[Anonymous No.9987995]

Is this a forced meme, lads? I've never seen this NPC talk before and suddenly it's popping up everywhere.

i mean i know 4chan is full of kiddies who like to think themselves as superiors a la notes from the underground, but come on, this doesn't seem like "just a meme" to me. this appeared out of nowhere.

[Anonymous No.9988006]

>>9987995
A few niggas carry over the topic into other boards, it's actually interesting.
It could be one dude that has created that face and posted it into multiple boards.

[Anonymous No.9988008]

>>9987911
You know for a fact there’s people on other boards that would unironically say that.

>>9988006
It’s just a meme.

>>9987954
NPCs don’t exist.

[Anonymous No.9988010]

When will jannies delete these threads on sight?

[Anonymous No.9988030]

>>9985336
kek

[Anonymous No.9988032]

>>9985249
kek

[Anonymous No.9988034]

>>9985835
It's why musical lyrics and stand up comedy is popular. Normies just feel things and then someone goes up and puts into words their feelings and suddenly they can reason why they felt a certain way but never could understand it.

[Anonymous No.9988044]

>>9988008
>t. NPC apologist

[Anonymous No.9988056]

You mean when you are thinking you hear every word in your head? I can do it if I try deliberately but it doesn't normally occur when I think. I don't see any advantage to doing this, it makes thinking slower, same as of you were reading and enunciated every single word.

[Anonymous No.9988061]

>>9988044
NPCs don’t exist. Stop trying to boost your ego.

[Anonymous No.9988073]

>>9984848
There are multiple issues here that should be differentiated:
>1. are there people who don't think linguistically?
>2. are such people aptly described as "soulless"/"mindless"?
>3. are such people aptly described as "NPCs"?
>4. if not, are there nevertheless any people who could be aptly described as "soulless"/"mindless" or as "NPCs," and what other characteristic would make it so?
The answer to (1) is yes, empirically.
The answer to (2) is ambiguous. Clearly many people who don't think linguistically are highly conscious and self-aware, but plausibly many (like OP's pic) are not. This makes sense because describing your thoughts in language can be viewed as an act of self-awareness (awareness of your thoughts).
The answer to (3) is therefore also ambiguous; the latter category of non-linguistic thinkers might be describable as NPCs due to their lower level of self-awareness.
The answer to (4) is yes arguably, and this is the intuition that drives the "some people are NPCs" thought that we in the video game generation have: Some people seem to be part of the "background" or mere functionality of the social world, serving to enable more significant people to live and shine through, and these latter are the people that human history is really about. The distinction between NPCs and real people is therefore ethical, concerning significance or (extra)ordinariness.

[Anonymous No.9988076]

>>9988056
how would you describe your own thinking?

[Anonymous No.9988089]

>>9984848
People are putting way too much mysticism like "NPC" into it. The thing is lots of people especially Asians are simply LED from one event to another, without a care or any agency in the world. They never really have to think. They just replace any thinking time there would be with iPad time.

Ideally an Asian boy or girl would never need to think a single thought until at least age 30.

We made an outline about how to make six figures in America. It involves lots of book learning and reading US News college reports to know the exact degree that pays most ROI. Do that degree then get that job and make money. Eventually, your heart will lead you to a wife or husband and kids so you can then "wake up" just enough to be aware of how to make your kids make six figs.

No room for hopes or dreams until you retire. This is why people live without a conscious self, its just when helicopter parents become obsessed with success.

[Anonymous No.9988096]

>>9987920
>talking to his cattle

[Anonymous No.9988098]

>>9987920
Have fun with your split penis and genetic predisposition to defects and dementia

[Anonymous No.9988099]

>>9988089
>Ideally an Asian boy or girl would never need to think a single thought until at least age 30.
But you don't really believe that means these people literally don't think any thoughts, right?

[Anonymous No.9988103]

>>9988089
Wrong. All humans have a conscious self.

[Anonymous No.9988117]

>>9984848
>Can we develop a program to ensure children become human instead of automatons with no conscious self?
Right now? No
Potentially? Yes

>Is it good 75% of people have no inner monologue?
I didn't even knew it was a thing. I only have inner monologue when I'm having bad trip on some psychodelics/weed.

However I have inner dialogues. I imagine a psychologist, teacher, people I know etc and talk to them to see if I can defend my position or simply to practice rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.9988121]

>>9988099
Nah, sorry I went too far with the racist stuff in that post I apologize. I noticed the OP from Reddit was Asian and kind of teed off on that. But it speaks to that Tiger Mom thing where your mother just pushes you into soccer, chess, AP Bio, AP chem, astronomy club, then homework type cliche.

Also I guess what does it mean by thoughts? I thought this thread was about people who never had thoughts in their head linguistically? Do geniuses think in shapes and colors or some shit? Thinking in words is too slow? If someone could teach us how to stop thinking in words I would love to hear it because honestly I am tired of thinking so much.

Usually an example of my thinking is as a day trader I think of two stocks in my head, I say well, this one has a chart pattern like this but this has a big earnings coming up... yadda yadda. It sounded like OP has never really thought of anything analytically? Just fed facts and statistics and learned how to academically dominate by recall.

>>9988103
I guess I was thinking the OP meant someone having creative or original thoughts. I cannot believe there are people who seriously go through life like blank headed until their mom says "eat. ice cream. what flavor?" then they think "chocolate sounds good" and then literally stop thinking for hours or even days.

[Anonymous No.9988130]

>>9988117
Yeah I totally have dialogues and talk to myself out loud sometimes about what I want to do although its not to any character I invented in my head or some illusory 'other person' its just literally like talking to my own brain.

I could think on things like "man I think Trump should tariff China but he should probably act like he might but seriously wait until January" and I think all those as words and think about what could happen if he doesn't wait. I don't think that is retarded is it?

Then there is muscle memory maybe people are getting confused by that. Yes to catch a ball in mid air you can't think you want to do that you just do it. There are plenty of things you never want to ponder first like avoiding a pedestrian in a car. I can't see just never thinking words in your head.

[Anonymous No.9988134]

>>9984848
>Is it good 75% of people have no inner monologue?
The study says 75% of the time people are not using inner speech, not that 75% of people cannot use inner speech. The study only found 17% of subjects that did not record any samples involving inner speech, and this still does not conclusively mean they are incapable of it. Moreover, the study you are referencing is highly flawed, one of their methods of recording data was to literally duplicate results from the first day onto the third day of their study because some of their subjects couldn't complete their samples.

[Anonymous No.9988599]

>>9984848
>Is it good 75% of people have no inner monologue?
Can someone point to the study

[Anonymous No.9988621]

>>9988103
They might be self aware but that doesnt mean theyre reflective, because theres a level beyond being simply aware of the self and thats the basis of the NPC meme. Its not common knowledge however so we dont have a linguistic term for it. but I think we all kind of "know" theres a difference.

[Anonymous No.9988634]

>that feel when literally everyone has a totally different way of thinking

[Anonymous No.9988638]

>>9988634
The last paragraph there is why I'm studying linguistics myself. When I think about what language is doing, I realize that I mustn't be thinking in English, but labeling some deeper conceptual structure. Presumably everybody here has experience tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon, or maybe more than that, has experienced the problem where you don't even know where to start putting words to what you're thinking.

Well what could that mean? I imagine it means there is an underlying conceptual structure which determines the sentences and words we choose to use to describe it. Is speech the surface form of a deep conceptual structure? I want to know.

[Anonymous No.9988650]

Your subconscious does all of the process long before your "inner monologue" does anything. Your consciousness is an illusion. Thousands of studies confirm this.

[Anonymous No.9988701]

>>9988650
>thousands of studies
Im gonna need you to post at least 900 of these thousands for me to believe you

[Anonymous No.9988750]

>>9984848
I don't agree with the whole NPC thing because it is simply mislabeling the mental state. the state is based on the individual's capability for processing, not awareness. a better metaphor for the state would be an unactualized sentient AI. I'm on the bad end of a sugar high right now (well over 150g) so I can't really explain past that
>>9987450
yeah, but can you roll your tongue by moving it alone? this is the true test of sentience imo

[Anonymous No.9988753]

>>9984848
I don't think in language, and I'm an autist with a wide range of unlikely hobbies and interests that have no connection to my environment.

What I do is rehearse speeches. Or explanations. I never perceive these as "my thoughts," because they are throwaway. I say one thing on minute, rephrase it the next, take the opposite position, etc. but I never perceieve myself as "changing my mind." I'm just rehearsing dfferent speeches.

Actual decisions are based on eyeballing, quick mental analogies, sizing up, all non-verbal. In fact, it's more visual than anything.

>>9985300
What does wrong mean? Doing something for the wrong reasons?
I solve this by deciding in a completely selfish way and leaving the right and wrong of it to the "stage rehearsal" part of my mind. This obviates the need for a selfless perspective, which would require the dissociative state of self-talk you people are describing.

>>9985331
How do people recognise complex mathematics if they're reading it like a sentence?

[Anonymous No.9988821]

>>9986230
>im actually autistic too so thats probably why

[Anonymous No.9988822]

>>9988599
As others have said, that's not at all what the study says. (RTFT)

[Anonymous No.9988827]

>>9988621
You just keep telling yourself that. Whatever lets you sleep at night.

(Nothing worse than a sheep that thinks everyone else is sheep.)

[Anonymous No.9988858]

>>9988827
>being this much of a butthurt NPC
And I can tell you're only 15-17 by the way you talk. I doubt you've even given a single thought to how strange reality is, or pondered about the way things manifest. Why they manifest. You're too caught up in childish things, like popularity and materialism, to give it a second thought.

[Anonymous No.9988879]

>>9988858
>And I can tell you're only 15-17 by the way you talk

>I doubt you've even given a single thought to how strange reality is, or pondered about the way things manifest. Why they manifest. You're too caught up in childish things, like popularity and materialism, to give it a second thought.

[Anonymous No.9988885]

>>9988827
>>9988858
idk, you both kinda talk like that :/

[Anonymous No.9988891]

>>9988885
Im pretty drunk at this point, so excuse my slight incoherency. (damn that is kind of cringy lmao)

[Anonymous No.9988913]

>>9986141
>making your thoughts intelligible to others is a waste of time

Quite literally the opposite is true

[Anonymous No.9988946]

>>9988008
>NPCs don’t exist.
This is exactly something an NPC would say.

[Anonymous No.9988948]

>>9984848
I rarely think in language and I can't relate to anything she said. I think in language when I'm thinking of what to say to another person, or when I'm reading obviously, but other than that it rarely happens. I don't feel mindless or like an automaton, it's just usually easier to think about things as images or feelings than it is to say everything in my head as if I were writing a stream of consciousness. I find it especially strange that she didn't seem to understand people or things existed when they weren't in her presence.

[Anonymous No.9988963]

>>9986230
LOL

[Anonymous No.9988971]

>>9988913
this, if your ideas are only abstract they don't exist outside of your mind unless someone else created them.

[Anonymous No.9988982]

>>9988753
based
/thread

[Anonymous No.9988987]

>>9988971
LOL

[Anonymous No.9989022]

>>9984848
Fuck off reddditfag

[Anonymous No.9989026]

>>9984848
This idea is complete bullshit and so is this reddit post

[Anonymous No.9989029]

>>9988858
...or maybe you just haven't gotten to know enough people to realize that everyone, even the retarded, has such thoughts at one point or another, and have remained sober enough to come to the conclusion that they aren't the only ones. Though, I suppose a few capitalize on it, and start religions, while others just delve into drugs until even the most inane false associations become mind shattering revelations.

[Anonymous No.9989036]

>>9986141
>Vocalizing your thoughts is just a waste of time generally speaking.
I experience the same thing (I'm totally unable to effectively put some of my thoughts into words), but I think it's important to be able to vocalize (or at least physically manifest) your thoughts, otherwise they're impossible to communicate to another person. I find not being able to describe what I'm thinking (whether that be through words, images, or something else) very frustrating.

[Anonymous No.9989052]

>>9989036
Well, some things are ultimately uncommunicable, though the most important of them are also part of common experience, so we all get those dreamy, "I know what you mean" moments. Just goes a bit south when people try to make a religion out of it.

[Anonymous No.9989054]

>>9984848
asleep = goyim

woke = jewish

[Anonymous No.9989056]

>>9989052
>though the most important of them are also part of common experience, so we all get those dreamy, "I know what you mean" moments.
Yeah that's a good point I hadn't thought of actually. The frustrating thing about that is that I'll never actually know if they know what I mean.

[Anonymous No.9989068]

>>9989054
This

[Anonymous No.9989117]

>>9987995
technically everybody else except you is an NPC since you can't control them, doesn't make them any less human tho.

[Anonymous No.9989147]

>>9989054
jews are trapped in a dream that they have convinced themselves is reality.

[Anonymous No.9989171]

>>9986780

There Is a stream of music inside my head nearly 100% of the time. I compose music frequently so it’s usually the latest bit I’ve written. The way I write new music is be imagining the latest several bars, and when I reach the end my brain generates the next phrase of notes. I do this a bunch of times until I get a phrase that sounds really good and then I add that. If you’re working on an orchestral piece, you know you have a good phrase when it comes fully orchestrated and realized, as if the music isn’t there and you already head and all you have to do it write it down. Makes me think the insane capabilities Mozart had. For me a musical idea is fleeting unless it really sticks in my head. Not only was he constantly inventing music, as I do, but was able to retain it for a long time and keep adding parts until it’s complete, and he just writes it down on paper like it’s nothing. At least that’s the way he would tell it. Mozart apparently would write symphonies in his head and just write them down when they’re done. Fucking insane.

[Anonymous No.9989173]

Did any of you fuckers find the original study? I read a comment that the sample size was 30 people. You guys know that is far from enough. Apparently there are people like this, but I refuse to believe it's 75%.

[Anonymous No.9989176]

>>9989171
No joke, when I started practicing guitar I used to get random riffs that would pop into my head. It seems anything that I focus on I start generating thoughts about that specific subject. Ive done it with Art, equipment fabrication and memes, all to varying degrees. If you focus enough on one subject your mind starts channeling shit to you about it, in your dreams, and your waking moments. Its strange, but immensely helpful.

[Anonymous No.9989177]

>>9986780
I think everyone does that anon.

[Anonymous No.9989180]

There was a scientific study that I was linked by an anon early last month in a thread about consciousness that had an example of a deaf person learning sign language as an adult and them saying it was as if a light turned on, when they learned a language. I'm trying to find the link, but I'm hoping that anon is around and might bring it back up. it's obvious there are people who are alive who don't think (seemingly) all the time, but whether or not they never have a thought, or that it's 75% seems a bit crazy. But I also believe animals have thoughts

[Anonymous No.9989310]

>>9989173
>You guys know that is far from enough.

That's how the world works. When a study is made with 30 people that indicates something we don't like, then
>30 is too small sample size!1 This doesn't mean anything!1

But if the study indicates something we'd like to believe, then
>Ah, so this is finally proved. Awesome.

[Anonymous No.9989878]

>>9989310
Except the study doesn't say 75% of those 30 people have no inner monolog either. OP just pulled that out of his ass.

[Anonymous No.9989998]

>>9989878
True.

[Anonymous No.9990009]

>>9984848
Can someone explain this NPC meme to me? What do non-player characters have to do with thinking patterns?

[Anonymous No.9990019]

>>9990009
Latest in long series of social engineering efforts built around creating division by dehumanising the "other".

[Anonymous No.9990058]

>>9984848
>Is it good 75% of people have no inner monologue?
Can you link me to a research paper that proves this? I'm legitimately curious, because it sounds like sensationalist bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9990077]

is this the new "Your opinion doesn't matter because you're X" meme?
of course there is.
I'm impressed it took this long to make a new shitty meme.

[Anonymous No.9990078]

>>9989176
Is this supposed to be unusual? That’s just the way I work. If I focus on something an idea will come right away.

[Anonymous No.9990095]

spatial > visual > audio > verbal

[Anonymous No.9990766]

>>9984982
>He doesn't enjoy sweeping floors and polishing glass
lmao enjoy your smudges and dust everywhere

[Anonymous No.9990770]

>>9984994
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2G1wpekTUI

[Anonymous No.9990800]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

[Anonymous No.9990819]

>>9985242
This is actually a good point. A hybridization of visual and linguistic train of thought is probably the most productive. Thinking of everything through words is going to severely limit what you're capable of to what can be expressed in words. Thinking purely visually is going to limit what you're capable of to what you've already seen before and what can be abstracted to pure visual logic.

Personally when I think about Math it's all initally visual. My roomates get concerned because I'll oftentimes pace around the house and pick up random objects while I do that. Then I translate my thoughts into words/symbols, then I review the words in order to correct the analytical grammar, and I can only do that by thinking linguistically and comparing what I've written to what I've read. I've had immense success in math so I'm inclined to think that this is a pretty solid process. But the fact that I can zone out the way I do and hyper-focus on math probably means I'm high functioning ASD.

[Anonymous No.9990902]

>>9984848
>75% of people
In one study reported no inner monologue when beeped at by an experimental doodad.

[Anonymous No.9991264]

When I am studying math alone and get stuck, what I do is to start talking to myself explaining everything from the basic axioms until I manage to understand the concept that was difficult for me to grasp. I envy people in this thread who say that they think in pictures, videos, relations, etc. It makes me feel like a brainlet who has to verbalize everything to understand it.

[Anonymous No.9991352]

The study actually said 50% of people think verbally less than 30% of the time, while 80% think verbally less than 50% of the time.

[Anonymous No.9991356]

>>9987639
>Im gonna trust the Ph.D [in psychology] knew what he was doing
rookie mistake

[Anonymous No.9991379]

>>9987639
there are a lot of phds posting here...because they aren't that special
your judgment of anything academic is obviously way off, though

[Anonymous No.9991410]

>>9987313
>made of 1's and o's
>1's and o's
>o's

Meatbag detected.

[Anonymous No.9991433]

>>9987995
Monster placement in the Boomer meme was forced.

This NPC meme captures the essence of interacting with people too many SD below you. Their actions, responses, behaviors, thought patterns, are entirely predictable. Prod too far off the preset dialogue tree and they fall apart, unable to respond.

[Anonymous No.9991530]

and because 75% of them didnt have verbal thoughts during the experiment they never do?

[Anonymous No.9991589]

>>9991530
Typical NPC response.

[Anonymous No.9991607]

>>9991433
>I'm so much smarter than everyone!

[Anonymous No.9991611]

>>9991607
Every PhD program should mandate six months of stocking shelves at Wal Mart or other interaction with the general public.

You know, exposure to cognitive diversity.

[Anonymous No.9991615]

>>9987639

>Im gonna trust the Ph.D knew what he was doing

Yikes

[Anonymous No.9991618]

I think exclusively by rotating 13-dimensional objects in my head. I don't even give them names.. I just intuit them — if that makes any sense — and I know the names of these shapes without ever vocalizing anything. I went to a psychiatrist to figure out what was up with this, like maybe my IQ is just extremely high, and he told me that if you didn't reply to this post that your mother would die in her sleep tonight.

[Anonymous No.9991646]

Jokes on you, I have immunity dog in my pictures folder.

[Anonymous No.9991655]

>>9987655
>Chris Heavey and I gave random beepers to a stratified random sample of 30 students from a large urban university and interviewed them about the characteristics of their randomly selected pristine experiences.

im too NPC to get what this experiment is.

[Anonymous No.9991731]

>>9984848
Fugg anons, maybe we're all NPC's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT6EBI6bwgw

[Anonymous No.9991811]

I often have an inner dialogue instead of a monologue, particularly when learning something new.

Anyone else?

[Anonymous No.9991893]

>>9991811
same, i've even called my other me a literal retard several times for holding certain positions that were in conflict with the other side

[Anonymous No.9991905]

>>9991731
Philosophical zombies? I mean it's possible.

[Anonymous No.9991925]

I read the study that OP is talking about. It doesn't say 75% don't have verbal thinking. It's about 15% that doesn't have verbal thinking. Most people however are only engaging in verbal thinking 1/3 of the time, but they are fully capable of doing it when they need to.

[Anonymous No.9991960]

>>9990819
someone once asked me what my thought process was like doing math (phd). the best i could do was say it was somewhat visual, with shadowy blobs moving around and interacting with each other, each corresponding to different objects and connections between them. i also tend to pace randomly while thinking.

[Anonymous No.9991961]

>>9987995
It's been around on /x/ (maybe) for years.
Remembered that I had this saved from 2017 when the shitposting started.

[Anonymous No.9992018]

>>9984972
Ï think in Pictures and Words. When i read about you i imagined myself talking to myself about thinking in words

[Anonymous No.9992022]

>>9992018
By Pictures i mean vidya

[Anonymous No.9992069]

>>9987596
I'm not the person you're asking, but I also think in something that may be described as feelings.

I'd describe it more as bare logic without language though. I have an internal monologue when I am discussing ethics, how other people think, or subjective/cultural matters with myself. Another example of what I use an English internal monologue for is if I'm making sure my morals are consistent and I'm not contradicting myself.

If I'm doing mathematical reasoning or arithmetic generally I'll try to think intuitively rather than in words, because it's quicker. If you're trying to be time efficient, it's not effective to have to make out syllables in your head.
If I'm remembering something I'll go through the different ways to do it until one works. Generally I can remember things using images and videos in my head, but sometimes if it's hard to remember I'll have to resort to thinking of smells, sounds and words that are associated with the memory.

To describe what it's like, it's practically the same as thinking in language except without the words, your brain goes through all the same logical steps, concepts and feelings (minus linguistic redundancies) that you get when you're thinking in words, it's practically exactly the same feeling as thinking in words except for less clutter. Although you get less practice at turning words into meaning when you think this way, so you may find that when reading a book you have to adjust to that style of thinking.

TBC..

[Anonymous No.9992071]

>>9992069
Continued..

>>9987610

I don't think you should throw away your linguistic monologue away entirely, it can be extremely useful, the same way mathematical languages are useful for understanding physics concepts.

Before anyone asks, I'm not autistic, I'm good at communicating and I'm a successful engineering and science double degree student. So thinking this way isn't a byproduct of me being subaverage. Another thing to note is that my ability to read and understand other people isn't stunted as far as I can tell, I've always been able to understand why everyone does what they do (people do single things for many reasons, and it may be looked at from many perspectives and understood just as well from each).

[Anonymous No.9992075]

>>9991893
That sounds like split personality schizophrenia lmao.
Realistically though, arguing a point from two sides is a good strategy for figuring out which is the best stance to take imo. I do it on the occasions that I have to deal with a difficult decision in which both or neither answers conflict with my morals.

[Anonymous No.9992078]

>>9991611
That's what science communicators are for, but I also do agree that there's an alarming amount of arrogant PhD students who don't even know how to communicate with people who don't know everything they know.

[Anonymous No.9992084]

>>9984848
Probably never read a book..

I can hardly remember anything before I started reading and actually using my imagination.

[Anonymous No.9992102]

>>9987995
>most of the people spamming this meme reply to criticisms or disapprovals of it with the same exact bot-like responses, calling dissuaders NPCs, every time
I can't tell if this is just a part of the meme and I don't get it, or if people are really this stupid. I mean, they do realize what they're doing, right?

[Anonymous No.9992129]

>>9984848
Why do you through game terminology like you are some cool Chuuni?

[Anonymous No.9992157]

>>9986141
Vocalizing your thoughts is a way to force yourself to slow down and think rather than acting hastily.

[Anonymous No.9992173]

>>9984848
>Is it good 75% of people have no inner monologue?
This is a meme, right... r-rigth?

[Anonymous No.9992178]

>>9988073
Bullshit, try knowing people. It's a pain in the ass, everyone is out to get you, but once you actually take one human and know him you both become aware of the other's mind.

Get off your pedestal. Stupid people are annoying, and you are probably stupid for someone else. Bunch of self loathing faggots with too high self esteem, and I am ashamed to be the same kind of human as you NPC memers.

[Anonymous No.9992179]

>>9991607
Not him, but that's how it is though.
I usually interact only with relatively smart people, at work I have quite competent crew, at internet I talk with rather smart people who share my passion and hobbies. But then you spend some time with commoners and you are shocked. I mean it's fun and you can use all these wordplays predicting how they react or what are their intentions before they finish or even start sentence. They just think so much slower, their thought patterns are so simple and they aren't capable to form more complex thoughts without breaking it down on paper.

[Anonymous No.9992185]

How do you write or speak without THINKING! The absolute state of /sci/, for falling for this meme

[Anonymous No.9992218]

>>9986780
>Is anyone else capable of replaying music you've heard
are you crazy? is this not the case for EVERYONE?! Sometimes when I forget my earphones I just replay the music I remember from las time in my head, start to finish! It's like listening to it from headphones.

[Anonymous No.9992227]

>>9987995
I thought the meme originated from the recent elon musk/rogan podcast?

[Anonymous No.9992333]

>>9992227
Look at the filename on those posts. Several of those were obviously made by a shit eating crossboarding npc.

[Anonymous No.9992335]

>>9992333
meant to reply to >>9987995
Also, witness my palindromic trips of truth

[Anonymous No.9992388]

>>9985443
Underrated

[Anonymous No.9992396]

>>9985052
Many people don't have mental images or a "mind's eye", especially in the hard sciences.
Every once in a while there's a wave of discussions like this (I've seen it a few times on this board), because nobody really talks about the workings of their mind in normal life and then when someone does there's always a whole bunch of people who are surprised not everyone's mind works the exact same way.

[Anonymous No.9992411]

Has anyone here actually changed or improved the way they think?

LSD? Meditation? Learning another language?

[Anonymous No.9992414]

>>9984848
I dont believe that. Everyone thinks/has a voiced in their head. When youre reading or writing for example

[Anonymous No.9992441]

>>9992414
How the hell would you know what's in someone elses head?

[Anonymous No.9992442]

>>>/pol/185215288

[Anonymous No.9992465]

>>9992442
>Researchers publish paper about some esoteric thing.
>"science journalists" with nothing to write about misinterpret the research and write a bunch of "science news" articles about it.
>Retards who can't into science and fall for the "science news" scam read said articles and go batshit over it.
>...
>/pol/esmokers have long gone apeshit over it and eventually one /pol/esmoker who is infinitely smarter than all the others (but still a brainlet) decides to read the actual article and realizes it has nothing to do with what everyone is saying. However instead of realizing it's some esoteric thing they proceed to go apeshit because they think the authors were trying to prove the claims posed by "science journalists" and other retards but just wrote a bad paper full of holes.
Just another day in academia.

[Anonymous No.9992480]

>>9985242
Pretty sure nobody does this. I have a narrator running but it kinda wanders off/attenuates if I have to do intensive visuo-spatial processing or some sort of complex pattern recognition. But if you want to express it to other people or formulate it rigorously you need natural language.

[Anonymous No.9992483]

>>9984848
Since seeing this meme I've become aware that there is a delay between getting an idea and putting it into actual words inside my brain. My inner monologue is voluntary, having it is distracting unless you want to follow a certain idea and "explain" it to yourself, which makes me understand the idea I had better but it takes more time. All in all it seems like you have different "modes of thinking" and you should apply them wherever they'd give you an advantage.

[Anonymous No.9992485]

>>9986780
The sad thing is brainlets cant visualize anything or play songs in their head. Pathetic

[Anonymous No.9992489]

>>9985443
>Mobileposting
Kill (you)'re self

[Anonymous No.9992510]

>>9992485
Only a very small percentage of people can't, and they aren't just brainlets.

[Anonymous No.9992512]

>>9992414
Even deaf people who have never heard a sound?

[Anonymous No.9992520]

Imagine having to vocalize everything you're thinking

[Anonymous No.9992521]

NPC = average brainlet who isn't very open to new experiences and prefers "what he knows"

[Anonymous No.9992564]

>>9992075
It's not schizophrenia, if anything it would be dissociative identity disorder.

But it is not. I disagree with myself too, and it almost always help me further my thinking. In the absence of people to talk through certain topics it really helps being able to talk with yourself.

[Anonymous No.9992575]

this is why we need a test of humanity

[Anonymous No.9992584]

Does anyone else have trouble imagining images? I can sort of do it consciously, but it's very vague. However, sometimes images will come into my head without trying, especially right before I fall asleep. My images in dreams are still a bit fuzzy and abstract but more vivid than imagination.

[Anonymous No.9992590]

>>9987798
you got any uh, evidence for that claim?

[Anonymous No.9992597]

>>9984848

[Anonymous No.9992794]

How do people go to university without planning and thinking with language?

[Anonymous No.9992797]

>>9992442
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WTF. All our memes are dead.

[Anonymous No.9992806]

>>9992584
my visual imagination is very blurry, and i can't keep images in my mind very often unless they're ocd images i can't get rid of.

[Anonymous No.9992993]

Clearly all the NPC stuff is bullshit but I'm enjoying the conversation about how other people think.

Does anyone else have a sort of innate ability to imagine themselves looking at a scene from a different perspective. The simplest example I can think of is when I'm shopping for clothes and I'm looking at a shirt with a single chest pocket. I sort of automatically imagine myself flying out of my body and turning 180 degrees to wear the shirt, which is how I tell which side the pocket is on. It seems like an over complicated way to do that sort of thing but it's just automatic and I can't help it. I also do it a lot when I notice a shadow, my body (or at least my point of view) flies to the source of the light and to the object casting the shadow and it creates a diagram to help me understand what's going on. I do this kind of thing automatically for all sorts of situations I encounter throughout the day. I thought everyone did this until I told someone about it.

[Anonymous No.9993012]

>>9992993
Isn't that just spatial reasoning?

[Anonymous No.9993022]

>>9992806
Sounds like you've got some issues!

[Anonymous No.9993025]

>>9993012
Yeah definitely. It's just the automatic aspect of it that I thought was weird when I found out not everybody does that.

[Anonymous No.9993040]

>>9984848
Wtf? Can these people only read out loud or what

[Anonymous No.9993043]

>>9993025
Yeah, I don't tend to do it automatically. Though, something as simple as which side a shirt pocket will be on does. Usually for more complex tasks my usage of spatial skills is deliberate and not automatic.

[Anonymous No.9993063]

>>9993040
You don't need to vocalize to read

[Anonymous No.9993118]

>>9992794
>>9992794

>How do people go to university without planning and thinking with language?

Do you pull out an abacus and start manually counting on it every time you need to do basic arithmetic?

[Anonymous No.9993657]

>>9988753
You and I have very similar thought patterns. For instance, when I learn something new that I'm interested in, I imagine a dialogue in which I'm describing the thing to someone else. It's automatic, and depending on how interested in the thing I am, I can have these conversations repeatedly over a day or two. Normally once I do some level of research on the thing I mostly lose interest because it's not new anymore. However, unlike you, I am normally the one giving the explanations.

I wonder what influences these thought types... Maybe there are studies?

[Anonymous No.9993682]

>>9984848
I alternate between the two often and sometimes utilize both at the same time. I also have some hella mental visual abilities.

[Anonymous No.9993723]

>>9993063
>>9985311
>>9985337
>>9986206

[Anonymous No.9993738]

Is there a more in-depth study regarding what goes on in a normalfags brain? The original article that /pol/ had a shitfit over doesn't satisfy me, the sample size is too small. Some of the subjects may think to a similar level, but in visuals or abstracts. Or they may not recognize sub-vocalization as inner speech, for all we know.

I can totally see normals living in an p-zombie state given how vacant and unthinking some of them see to be, I'd just like a little better evidence.

[Anonymous No.9993895]

>>9984848
I thought everybody had inner voice.

It's shocking to realize that most people are shallow brainlets who cannot think deeply.

How can NPCs read and talk without thinking?

[Anonymous No.9993899]

>>9984848
These NPCs cannot think critically.

Because that NPCs are easily manipuled by Mass Media & Fake News Propaganda & Normie Trends.

They act like a Herd of Dumb Sheeps or Mindless Zombies.

NPCs just follow other without thinking by themselves.

[Anonymous No.9993906]

>>9984848
If NPCs cannot think: Do they have Soul?
Mind? Conscience? Morality? Thoughts? Ideas?
Are NPCs always in automatic mode, like Machines?
Do NPCs act by Instict like primitive animals?

Do they have judgement? Do they think before making decisions?
Do they think?

[Anonymous No.9994599]

>>9984848
"But how do people think without an internal voice!"
"I don't believe this 30 person study"
"You all are just brianlets"

>“I was wondering about my very minimal inner monologue after talking to my husband about it earlier this week. I find it incredible how most people seem to constantly be thinking in words/sentences. It sounds exhausting to me. I think in actions, visualizations, feelings, impulses and only really have a proper inner monologue when reading or writing. I never know internally what I’m about to say out loud (unless I force myself to do so, or if I’m nervous about talking in specific situations). Often my mind seems blank with no thoughts. I find meditation very easy.”

>I don’t have one! I think in pictures constantly. It’s like I have to translate my pictures into English if someone asks what I’m thinking. I can’t hear myself talking in my head. It’s more images, emotions and abstract connections. It means I think really fast. I didn’t realise not everyone did this until recently. I’m not bilingual, but I do speak conversational French. Saying my thoughts out loud is almost the same level of difficulty in both languages- they have to be translated from pictures. I just have a wider variety of words and subtleties to use in English. Sometimes I get frustrated because I can’t describe what I’m thinking accurately.

>I have no internal monologue unless I'm internally assembling bits of language for speech or writing (for example, putting my thoughts together for this sentence). If I get into a deep "flow state" while writing, or I'm in casual conversation with someone I'm comfortable with, that too goes away.

>If I try to mentally visualize something I'm not looking at, even if I'm very familiar with it, it's usually impressionistic at best - rough outlines and swaths of color.

Just Google yourself to find hundreds more

[Anonymous No.9994950]

>>9993899
In other words, this is a subhuman monster that people create in their heads to reaffirm their beliefs by putting folks with opposing views into convenient little boxes so they don't have to consider their opinions.

Thus, the closest thing you have in real life to people who cannot think critically and are NPCs, are people who believe that there are people who cannot think critically and are NPCs.

Very convenient that everyone in the other camp is a brainwashed robot, and couldn't possibly have any logical reason to be taking that position. It's just a bit odd that most of them say the same of you.

[Anonymous No.9996112]

>>9986780
I've never actually tried to replay music in my head...I guess I sometimes sing lyrics in my head when bored though. I suppose instruments wouldn't be difficult to replicate.

[Anonymous No.9996554]

>>9986780
I can do this without problems but I find that it's most vivid when I'm going to sleep.

[Anonymous No.9996831]

>>9986141
> Vocalizing your thoughts is just a waste of time generally speaking.

I think that's called thinking anon, do you not know how to think?

[Anonymous No.9996853]

>>9990078
that's how the normal brain works when you're focused on a particular subject. Think of mathematicians suddenly gaining insights.

[Anonymous No.9997245]

How do I learn to think ONLY in pictures? Imagine how fast your brain would work if no language was involved.

[Anonymous No.9997598]

>>9997245
>Imagine how fast your brain would work if no language was involved.
Yeah dude like picture books are like waaay more efficient than those boring reading books. I can't even read books when I'm high (lol) ya feel me.

[Anonymous No.9997734]

>>9992396
>Many people don't have mental images or a "mind's eye", especially in the hard sciences.
>especially in the hard sciences
Do you have anything to back that up? This sounds really counter-intuitive to me, you would think that being able to visualize abstract systems, when possible, would be really helpful for learning and understanding the shit necessary in hard sciences. I can see how some pure logic grinding automaton autists could do it without any visualisation, but I always try to visualize shit if at all possible (math undergrad)