How do you think?

[SpudLink]

thegreenhell said:

I've often wondered how animals can think if they don't have language. I have an almost constant internal monologue, and can also visualise in high detail. I thought this was just normal, but it seems not.

My theory (based on very little) is that our ‘thoughts’ originate as something less sophisticated. A ‘proto-thought’ if you like. Our brain then applies a structure to the proto-thought, as a coherent argument, or an engineering diagram, a song, a painting, etc.

The proto-thought is probably not much different to the thinking processes of more intelligent animals. It’s enough to plan a hunting strategy, or choose the right stick to dig insects out of the bark.
But animals lack the ability to structure the proto-thought into what we humans consider actual thinking.

[Skeptisk]

SpudLink said:

thegreenhell said:

I've often wondered how animals can think if they don't have language. I have an almost constant internal monologue, and can also visualise in high detail. I thought this was just normal, but it seems not.

My theory (based on very little) is that our ‘thoughts’ originate as something less sophisticated. A ‘proto-thought’ if you like. Our brain then applies a structure to the proto-thought, as a coherent argument, or an engineering diagram, a song, a painting, etc.

The proto-thought is probably not much different to the thinking processes of more intelligent animals. It’s enough to plan a hunting strategy, or choose the right stick to dig insects out of the bark.
But animals lack the ability to structure the proto-thought into what we humans consider actual thinking.

I would be very cautious about making judgements about how animals think and how they experience it. For what it is worth I suspect human exceptionalism is behind historic misjudgments about the abilities of animals.

[SpudLink]

Skeptisk said:

SpudLink said:

thegreenhell said:

I've often wondered how animals can think if they don't have language. I have an almost constant internal monologue, and can also visualise in high detail. I thought this was just normal, but it seems not.

My theory (based on very little) is that our ‘thoughts’ originate as something less sophisticated. A ‘proto-thought’ if you like. Our brain then applies a structure to the proto-thought, as a coherent argument, or an engineering diagram, a song, a painting, etc.

The proto-thought is probably not much different to the thinking processes of more intelligent animals. It’s enough to plan a hunting strategy, or choose the right stick to dig insects out of the bark.
But animals lack the ability to structure the proto-thought into what we humans consider actual thinking.

I would be very cautious about making judgements about how animals think and how they experience it. For what it is worth I suspect human exceptionalism is behind historic misjudgments about the abilities of animals.

That’s fair enough.

[Triumph Man]

Mixture here - although mostly in pictures, normally if a work problem or when I’m working on the car. In work I build a detail in my head, but I close my eyes to do it so I can see it more clearly. I must look like a right weirdo!

[bigpriest]

thegreenhell said:

cheesejunkie said:

Languages is an interesting one.

I have rudimentary french, Spanish, and Japanese. I think I get better at them by rehearsing conversations in my head before they happen face to face.

When I'm doing it I'm not picturing another person, I'm picturing myself having the conversation. I don't think that's arrogant, it's just the way the mind works.

Similar for me too.

I've often wondered how animals can think if they don't have language. I have an almost constant internal monologue, and can also visualise in high detail. I thought this was just normal, but it seems not.

Animals communicate with sounds and vocalisations just not in a "language" that we could easily interpret. Nothing to say that animals don't process their thoughts with an inner voice. Due to their instincts being a bigger factor in survival maybe internal thought is not needed as much?

[Missy Charm]

Skeptisk said:

Timely this article appeared in the Guardian today about Hyperphantasia

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/apr/20/li...

Oh good, another pointless label. I've had an overactive imagination for as long as I've been alive: I can rotate, disassemble and reconstruct objects in my mind's eye; listening to a radio programme prompts an imagined visual accompaniment: the situation if it's drama or people in the studio or lecture theatre if factual; fictional characters have faces; I can 'fly' about the house and the town it's in by virtue of imagination only. The whole lot has sound, too, and an accompanying monologue.

The imagination is, I suspect, like lots of other things in that it can be improved if one works at it.

Oddity: I've never liked 'realistic' computer games - the modern ones that supposedly simulate an experience feel like inadequate simulacra. The imagination always wants them to be better than they are, so they become dull very quickly. The old ones such as Space Invaders or Asteroids are much better; they are abstractions or representations of something that allow, and indeed force, imaginative engagement with the visual images. One has to think about what's there, rather than being forced to digest someone else's vision.

The same is true of old telly programmes and films; they didn't have the wherewithal to make it 'realistic', especially when it came to special effects. It was often done with old-fashioned stagecraft and suggestion. It was incumbent on the viewer, therefore, to fill in the gaps in his or her head. That made programmes better. New ones that spend hours explaining everything are tedious.

[Pit Pony]

Skeptisk said:

Pit Pony said:

Skeptisk said:

Timely this article appeared in the Guardian today about Hyperphantasia

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/apr/20/li...

Unfortunately, the Guardian has decided I've had too much left wing Liberal indoctrination for free this month and wants me to pay.
Could you summarise ?

Are you sure there is a paywall? From time to time I get asked to register but you can normally click the choice “do it later” and then you get full access again

[M4cruiser]

Abbott said:

Very interesting post. I am having some tricky conversations with Mrs A about central heating. When I think about the way the house is heated I can see the heat moving around from floor to ceiling and room to room. She has no idea what I am going on about.

Heating is an interesting connection to thinking. Mrs M4 can't understand our central heating either,
If it's cold we just need to turn up the central thermostat 1 degree.
But no, she switches on a fan heater in the living room, and leaves the door open to the hallway which contains the central thermostat. So the thermostat thinks it's warm and turns off the central heating to the whole house.
This thought process is going on inside my head, and I just assumed she was thinking the same, but no.

[cheesejunkie]

Missy Charm said:

Oh good, another pointless label. I've had an overactive imagination for as long as I've been alive: I can rotate, disassemble and reconstruct objects in my mind's eye; listening to a radio programme prompts an imagined visual accompaniment: the situation if it's drama or people in the studio or lecture theatre if factual; fictional characters have faces; I can 'fly' about the house and the town it's in by virtue of imagination only. The whole lot has sound, too, and an accompanying monologue.

The imagination is, I suspect, like lots of other things in that it can be improved if one works at it.

Oddity: I've never liked 'realistic' computer games - the modern ones that supposedly simulate an experience feel like inadequate simulacra. The imagination always wants them to be better than they are, so they become dull very quickly. The old ones such as Space Invaders or Asteroids are much better; they are abstractions or representations of something that allow, and indeed force, imaginative engagement with the visual images. One has to think about what's there, rather than being forced to digest someone else's vision.

The same is true of old telly programmes and films; they didn't have the wherewithal to make it 'realistic', especially when it came to special effects. It was often done with old-fashioned stagecraft and suggestion. It was incumbent on the viewer, therefore, to fill in the gaps in his or her head. That made programmes better. New ones that spend hours explaining everything are tedious.

I was with you until you criticised modern CRPGs. I rarely have the time to be bothered with them and prefer books for my mental offload but some of them are good, totally understand that you’re playing within the limits of the tech and someone else’s imagination. When I play them I understand that and don’t allow that to make me feel limited.

On the broader labelling point, I agree people can ps off with labels, but I’m stunningly normal on this one. But it may be helpful to realise some aren’t like me without treating them like special flowers.

[cheesejunkie]

M4cruiser said:

Heating is an interesting connection to thinking. Mrs M4 can't understand our central heating either,
If it's cold we just need to turn up the central thermostat 1 degree.
But no, she switches on a fan heater in the living room, and leaves the door open to the hallway which contains the central thermostat. So the thermostat thinks it's warm and turns off the central heating to the whole house.
This thought process is going on inside my head, and I just assumed she was thinking the same, but no.

If you can explain central heating to my wife I’ll buy shares in what you’re selling.

It’s hilarious that she denies changing the thermostats when we’re the only two in the house and it’s not me.

We have a fuller house but not always. Yes I’m familiar with people who don’t understand the heat flow. I can picture it but don’t obsess over it.

[AC43]

W124 said:

Also, I’m a musician. I can imagine a song, all the parts, the mix, the mastering - in my head. I can do this, and nod my head to it, whilst working on a totally different song. Even right at the start. I sort of save it up. I’m always one song ahead. The mind is crazy.

That's amazing.

The "headphone" bit I get; after I picked up a guitar when I was a student I learned how to pick out all the individual instruments and tracks in a recording pr in a live performance which make a big difference to how I understand and process music. And how I "listen back" to it in my head.

To this day I get genuinely excited by bands with strong rhythm sections as I'm now actively listening out for that and it's not just lost in a mush.

I sometimes dream in full music mode, sometimes imagine I'm making up a new tune in my head. Maybe I am. Who knows? But's full on, full volume big amp and speakers multi-track stuff.

[SpudLink]

Missy Charm said:

Skeptisk said:

Timely this article appeared in the Guardian today about Hyperphantasia

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/apr/20/li...

Oh good, another pointless label. I've had an overactive imagination for as long as I've been alive: I can rotate, disassemble and reconstruct objects in my mind's eye; listening to a radio programme prompts an imagined visual accompaniment: the situation if it's drama or people in the studio or lecture theatre if factual; fictional characters have faces; I can 'fly' about the house and the town it's in by virtue of imagination only. The whole lot has sound, too, and an accompanying monologue.

The imagination is, I suspect, like lots of other things in that it can be improved if one works at it.

Oddity: I've never liked 'realistic' computer games - the modern ones that supposedly simulate an experience feel like inadequate simulacra. The imagination always wants them to be better than they are, so they become dull very quickly. The old ones such as Space Invaders or Asteroids are much better; they are abstractions or representations of something that allow, and indeed force, imaginative engagement with the visual images. One has to think about what's there, rather than being forced to digest someone else's vision.

The same is true of old telly programmes and films; they didn't have the wherewithal to make it 'realistic', especially when it came to special effects. It was often done with old-fashioned stagecraft and suggestion. It was incumbent on the viewer, therefore, to fill in the gaps in his or her head. That made programmes better. New ones that spend hours explaining everything are tedious.

That's completely as alien to me. There's an old quote that radio has better pictures than TV, which I could never relate to. I've listened to radio all my life, but don't think I've ever put faces to the voices.

I don't think my brain lacks visual imagination, because my dreams are very visual. But that is not how my conscious brain works.

[AC43]

SpudLink said:

Missy Charm said:

Skeptisk said:

Timely this article appeared in the Guardian today about Hyperphantasia

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/apr/20/li...

Oh good, another pointless label. I've had an overactive imagination for as long as I've been alive: I can rotate, disassemble and reconstruct objects in my mind's eye; listening to a radio programme prompts an imagined visual accompaniment: the situation if it's drama or people in the studio or lecture theatre if factual; fictional characters have faces; I can 'fly' about the house and the town it's in by virtue of imagination only. The whole lot has sound, too, and an accompanying monologue.

The imagination is, I suspect, like lots of other things in that it can be improved if one works at it.

Oddity: I've never liked 'realistic' computer games - the modern ones that supposedly simulate an experience feel like inadequate simulacra. The imagination always wants them to be better than they are, so they become dull very quickly. The old ones such as Space Invaders or Asteroids are much better; they are abstractions or representations of something that allow, and indeed force, imaginative engagement with the visual images. One has to think about what's there, rather than being forced to digest someone else's vision.

The same is true of old telly programmes and films; they didn't have the wherewithal to make it 'realistic', especially when it came to special effects. It was often done with old-fashioned stagecraft and suggestion. It was incumbent on the viewer, therefore, to fill in the gaps in his or her head. That made programmes better. New ones that spend hours explaining everything are tedious.

That's completely as alien to me. There's an old quote that radio has better pictures than TV, which I could never relate to. I've listened to radio all my life, but don't think I've ever put faces to the voices.

I don't think my brain lacks visual imagination, because my dreams are very visual. But that is not how my conscious brain works.

According to David Eagleman, the reason we have visuals in our dreams is to keep that part of the cerebral cortex going at night as we'll need it again in daylight.

If you lose a limb for example that part of the cortex gets repurposed for something else; the brain doesn't want that to heppen to our ability to process signals from our eyes, hence the visuals in our dream.

Another interesting fact is that what we think of as "vision" is actually 95% brain processing and only 5% signals from our eyes. That's why people having hallucinations think they are so real.

https://eagleman.com/podcast/


https://eagleman.com/podcast/

[Samcat]

I've never come across this explanation of thinking types before; it may explain why I can see how a job (DIY etc.) will turn out, and the process required to get it done, whilst my wife doesn't have a clue, and cannot image how it will look when complete.

[8IKERDAVE]

I love this stuff. I work very much in 'pictures'. For example if someone asks me if I fancy doing something I play the whole thing out in my head very quickly and make a decision based on that. Often I am completely off the mark!

I do this with months of the year and days of the week. If someone mentions Thursday for example I have an image in my head that I wouldn't be able to explain to anyone. The same applies to when someone mentions 'August' for example.

I would love the opportunity to see inside someone elses mind and how they think. Would it be completely different or very similar - who knows. I would suggest the former as people react so differently in situations there are obviously very different chains of thought happening. The brain is an extremely complex thing and I personally don't think we are anywhere near exploring it's potential.

[Actual]

Cognitive Psychology, The Science of How We Think

Such a fascinating subject but why is it not discussed more often?

If different people do think differently by internal monologue, visual imagery, feelings or instinct then it must be a fundamental human trait and why is this not a mainstream topic?

The use of psychometric and personality tests are heavily used in job recruitment but as far as I know recruiters don't investigate how a candidate thinks. Or do they?

[SpudLink]

Actual said:

Cognitive Psychology, The Science of How We Think

Such a fascinating subject but why is it not discussed more often?

If different people do think differently by internal monologue, visual imagery, feelings or instinct then it must be a fundamental human trait and why is this not a mainstream topic?

The use of psychometric and personality tests are heavily used in job recruitment but as far as I know recruiters don't investigate how a candidate thinks. Or do they?

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned an interview technique which triggers the brain to visualise an image, thus putting you off your train of thought.

I agree, it’s fascinating stuff.

[sri16v]

Fascinating thread.

A good example to see how different people think/ visualise is to ask how they count or do basic calculations.

For me I visualise numbers 1-20 going up vertically with a clear break at 10 and then vertically to 20 and then horizontally from 20 to 30 and then 30 to 40 is a line above the 30's and repeats all the way to 100 where it starts again.

Something like this:

120
^
102
101
100
90,91,92,93>99
40,41,42-50
30,31-39
20,21,22,23-29
19
^
10
5
4
3
2
1

Obviously it starts from the bottom!

Am I mad or do others visualise numbers this way??

I also visualise the 7 days of the week in a circular shape, with Saturday and Sunday being separate from the weekdays

Sat Sun
Fri, Thurs, weds, Tues, mon

Sort of like that but in my mind it's more rounded and tidier!

I had discussion with a colleague about this and how they visualise numbers and they were blown away by it.

[legless]

I don't seem to think in either words or pictures.

I have no inner monologue at all, which I didn't even realise was unusual until a few years ago. Bizarrely though, I'm not great at visualising things either.

My thoughts exist as a sort of language-less concept in my head, and don't have any picture either. It's really odd, and I have no other way of describing it to people.

It means that I often struggle to find the right words or to construct a good sentence out loud, as I have to translate between the thought and English in real time.

[Megaflow]

HRL said:

Well every day is a school day.

47 years old and I’ve discovered that I have aphantasia today. I’d never even heard of it prior to reading this thread.

I’ve always had to explain to my wife how I can’t simply visualise things that she’s described to me. Didn’t realise that it was a condition affecting 1-3% of the population.

Had awful long term memory my entire life, don’t ever remember dreams, total lack of an imagination, and can’t visualise anything until I see it with my own eyes or in a picture/photo.

Internal dialogue only when thinking.

Who knew!

Edited by HRL on Saturday 20th April 19:58

I didn’t know I had two accounts on here!



What’s really interesting about this is I’m an engineer and lots of engineers always end up drawing things trying to explain it or imagine it. I wonder if this is common amongst engineers.

Edited by Megaflow on Tuesday 23 April 20:21