nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brain

Ave Sodalis

Not sure if in right forum. Feel free to move.

I was thinking about this the other day.

When you think, how can you hear, and inturpute it, if the information does not pass through your ears.? And then not need your tongue to speak in your head properly (no, im not crazy... you do hear voices every time you do think). Why does it feel like it isn't in your brain but like in some gap or space?

And do deaf, hear their thoughts more clearly as they can't hear anything else or less clearly as they can't hear?

Also why can you only think with the front of your head? If you try to think with the back of your head, it hurts.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

orestes

Moved from philosophy, I think you wil get better answers in this forum. If the psych mods disagree feel free to bounce it back

Joe1919

sup_dude wrote: »

Not sure if in right forum. Feel free to move.

I was thinking about this the other day.

When you think, how can you hear, and inturpute it, if the information does not pass through your ears.? And then not need your tongue to speak in your head properly (no, im not crazy... you do hear voices every time you do think). Why does it feel like it isn't in your brain but like in some gap or space?

And do deaf, hear their thoughts more clearly as they can't hear anything else or less clearly as they can't hear?

Also why can you only think with the front of your head? If you try to think with the back of your head, it hurts.

I did come across some of what you're talking about while studying the 'philosophy of mind' once. I think this is the idea of the 'minds eye'. This idea is similar to the idea of 'voices in our head' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind's_eye

Julian Jaynes wrote a lot about hallucinatory voices and links this to the growth of consciousness and controversially states that this is how ancient people got the idea of 'Gods' talking to them. http://books.google.ie/books?id=XiRBoMBb8GAC&pg=PA28&dq=julian+jaynes
http://www.julianjaynes.org/bicameralmind.php

However, I would search the web for some criticism of the above to get a more general and balanced view and just use these ideas as 'start points' in your search. ( i am a bit of a sceptic).
I hope this may be of help.

Greenmachine

You could just as easily ask, how do I think something before I speak it. If you didn't hear your thoughts how else would you be aware of them. Try thinking of something while blocking your internal voice. You might find a bit of a roadblock.

Ave Sodalis

Joe1919 wrote: »

Julian Jaynes wrote a lot about hallucinatory voices

I don't mean hallucinatory voices... I mean your voice you hear when your think.

Prehaps the question is explained wrong but I can't think(no pun intended) of a better way to explain it.

LilMrsDahamsta

Coming from a completely different perspective ...

The phonological loop is a metaphorical explanation of how we store auditory information in the short-term. The multi-store model explains how this information may come from either our sense of hearing or from long-term memory.

It's by no means the only explanation, but it might give you a starting point for further reading.

Joe1919

sup_dude wrote: »

I don't mean hallucinatory voices... I mean your voice you hear when your think.

Prehaps the question is explained wrong but I can't think(no pun intended) of a better way to explain it.

'A hallucination, in the broadest sense, is a perception in the absence of a stimulus.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination
The word 'Hallucination' is been used in this very broad sense by the author. I dont think there is any offence intended.
I think the authors point is that ancient people thought that these 'internal' voices were coming from an external source such as the Gods etc. She connects these internal voices with the growth of consciousness.

Anyhow, we all hear 'internal voices' and I guess there is no problem once we know and believe their internal. (e.g. Our nagging conscience etc.)

JuliusCaesar

this will give you some answers, but rraise even more questions!

http://sharp.bu.edu/~slehar/Representationalism.html

See especially Antti Revonsuo, a psychologist

Joe1919

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

this will give you some answers, but rraise even more questions!

http://sharp.bu.edu/~slehar/Representationalism.html

See especially Antti Revonsuo, a psychologist

Representationalism is very interesting in the sense that it seems to assert that we never really directly know or observe the truth but rather only observe 'representations of the truth'.

Hegel (in 1807) used this idea to some extent to defend religion in terms of religion being true because it represented the 'truth' and give some satisfaction to many humans in doing this. ('Representations of the truth' is the most we can get in terms of truth for a representationalist. However, Hegel I think believed that the 'Absolute truth' was also eventually accessable, at the 'end of history' so to speak.)

Of course 'Science' can also be considered as 'representational' and also gives satisfaction and utility.

Hence, it can be argued (for example) that there is no argument between science and religion as both are 'representational' and both can give some degree of satisfaction and utility.Of course, there are times when Science is more useful and gives more satisfaction, (e.g. If we want to fly an aerplane) but there may be instances where the reverse is true and Religion (or Art or Philosophy) may be better.(e.g. dealing with death or trying to give meaning to life). We can use as many representations (including Art & Metaphysics as well as Science and various Religions) to view and represent (and construct our own representations) of the world as we want or find useful. (My view of Pluralism)
However, if we carry this too far, a point can come when we can delude ourselves.