file under: thinking about thinking
Here's a thought experiment that kept me up last night...
So you can hear your thoughts, right?
Can you hear them in different volumes?
Try having a quiet thought, and a loud thought. For real, take a second and do it. I'll still be here.
So if you did in fact find that you can have loud thoughts,
whatever that means,
can you force yourself to think a thought so loud it's uncomfortable?
and the followup:
Can you imagine a noise so loud it's uncomfortable to think?
In this instance, we seem to be diverging in two directions with the word "uncomfortable".
For ease of use, we will call sounds the ear hears as "real" sounds, and the sounds of thoughts as "imagined".
For real sounds, volume becomes uncomfortable because the sound vibrations actually damage the physical structure of the ear, which triggers a pain response.
For imagined sounds, the uncomfortable feeling may come from the distracting nature of the thought's volume. The discomfort may also be from the memory in evokes, or from the disturbing nature of the thought. But I cannot see how the thought would produce the physical damage that a real sound would produce.
Also, I can imaginge a thought so loud it removes all other thought. I assume (and would like feedback from) people who have suffered/endured bouts of mania also have experienced this. There was a guy in front of the liquor store the other day who muttered, "The church is closed," repeatedly for the entire time I was near enough to hear. Perhaps this qualifies?
:asplode:
MAYBE IT GOES SOMEWAY TOWARDS EXPLAINING THE VISCERAL HATRED OF PEOPLE WHO USE ALL-CAPS?
This is an awesome experiment btw, I'm totally going to turn up the volume of my thoughts today and see what happens.
As it turns out, my thoughts are fairly quiet -- as in, I'm having trouble thinking any quieter than I usually do, although thinking louder is easy. But then, I also speak fairly softly... I wonder if there is anything to that correlation?
when I posed this experiment to one of my roommates, she observed that the volume of a thought is related to its intensity/significance.
To her, quiet thoughts were things like, "I wonder what time it is."
Loud thoughts were things like, "THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE."
Switch volumes on that, for a laugh.
"The house is on fire."
"I WONDER WHAT TIME IT IS."
Quote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 02:29:43 PM
So you can hear your thoughts, right?
Can you hear them in different volumes?
Try having a quiet thought, and a loud thought. For real, take a second and do it. I'll still be here.
What I found is that I'm subvocalizing.
This is also a technique for speedreading. Apparently most* people subconsciously form the words in their head as speech, when reading. I suppose the mirror-neurons for speaking fire, or something.
One trick in speedreading is to de-condition yourself to subvocalize whatever you read. Apparently the "need" to form read text into spoken words is a real limit on the speed with which you can read and comprehend. Even if you read faster than you can speak, that probably just means you can subvocalize faster than you can speak (intelligibly). Dropping the subvocalizing lets you absorb texts at the maximum speed your brain can handle, and that is something you can train by practice.
One way to un-learn subvocalizing is to count to ten over and over out loud while reading. Cause apparently you can't vocalize two things at the same time.
(link to some speedreading article I have in my bookmarks (http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/07/30/speed-reading-and-accelerated-learning/)--not sure if this one talks about subvocalizing though, sorry)
ANYWAY, to get back to your question, Cram. I found that as I try to make my thoughts "louder" the subvocalizing simply got more pronounced. Up to the point where my speech muscles started moving a littlebit. Same as when I tried to think "quieter", the subvocalizing again got more pronounced (cause I was focussing on it), but the feeling of just-barely-not activating muscles felt more like whispering or just speaking quietly.
Hmm maybe that's another trick to unlearn subvocalizing then, just try to think more quiet?
*people born deaf do not do this, and they indeed are able to read faster, or have an easier time learning speedreading.
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 02:40:05 PMFor imagined sounds, the uncomfortable feeling may come from the distracting nature of the thought's volume. The discomfort may also be from the memory in evokes, or from the disturbing nature of the thought. But I cannot see how the thought would produce the physical damage that a real sound would produce.
"Your brain makes it real."
\
(http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/images/matrix37.jpg)
I'm with Alphapance - I don't think you can imagine a noise that would actually hurt. I do think, however, that it's possible to imagine pain that actually hurts - like that sympathetic cringe response most guys have when they hear or see someone being kicked in the nuts. You know the one? Doesn't actually hurt per se but there is something bordering on being the birth of a seed of sensation - expand on that, hold that in your mind then really concentrate on remembering how a nadshot really feels - the cold sharp cutting pain in the nad itself, and accompanying warm ache that spreads throbbing up through your belly...
I'm pretty sure I could actually experience that pain just by concentration but I'm not gonna :p
Like trip, I found that my perceptions of volume were based on subvocalization.
In order to imagine an uncomfortably loud noise, I had to imagine myself standing in front of a really huge speaker. And I knew the noise was uncomfortably loud because I could imagine what it would feel like - the bass vibration running through my organs, the overwhelming wall of sound, the slight pain in my head... but these are imaginary sensations, not the experience of discomfort.
Alright, what about other limitations? Can you imagine a smell? It's a little bit weird, you tend to recognize smells, not imagine them. Can you imagine a smell which will make you sick?
Do you think it's possible to imagine a drug experience so vividly that you experience it?
I've definitely felt drunk before due to periods of acting like I'm drunk at a LARP or something. Kind of a "fake it till you make it" method acting technique. It's not exactly like being drunk, but it has some similar qualities.
I can imagine smells as easy as I can imagine sounds and pictures. I believe there's a mixture of people who find one or more of the senses to be easier or harder to imagine. And I'm pretty sure I could imagine a smell that might not make me sick (very few IRL smells do that to me either) but I would get nauseus.
With the drug thing I'm pretty sure that if one were to practice the "fake it til you make it" thing for long enough you'd get quite effective at it.
Delusional insanity taught me a just how much the brain is capable of imagining. What I learned is that there really is no limit but maybe insane is a kind of "cheat" I've never quite replicated any of the effects to such a degree since I came back. Wouldn't be at all surprised if it was doable tho.
If you can turn an imagined drug experience into a real drug experience, you could begin imagining new drugs, no? I'm not sure if that's even possible, but it's a great thought experiment. After all, a drug experience is an internal state - for the most part, seems to be the brain's domain.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 24, 2010, 07:17:03 PM
If you can turn an imagined drug experience into a real drug experience, you could begin imagining new drugs, no? I'm not sure if that's even possible, but it's a great thought experiment. After all, a drug experience is an internal state - for the most part, seems to be the brain's domain.
Odd, I thought most drugs just changed the information the brain receives, rather than acting on the brain itself (minus cocaine and a few others that whack you right in the pleasure center, of course).
I'm a bit rusty on the physiology of drug use, but I do know that some people with disassociative personality disorder have different eyeglass prescriptions for each personality. Feel free to whack me with a barstool if I'm taking this too far, but it does seem to demonstrate that our brain has more reigns on our physiology than is commonly understood. I'm very curious about how much of this is accessible to us.
I think that is very true. My brother who just got committed. They are thining it was the OCD that triggered the depression. That is, the compulsive thoughts fucked up his brain chemistry to the point where he developed the depression. They can't find any incident or instance in his past that would've triggered any of this. He started getting the obsessive thoughts after he developed this weird heart palpatation. But after he had that under control, he still obsessed about that, and started obsessing about many other areas in his life. And eventually, the depression.
But to the original question: I'm not sure you can really think a thought so loud that it hurts. At least for me, a loud thought would be something that is a very immediate situation. Or a thought involving something very important. If there was any discomfort, it was in thinking about the results of the particular situation or issue, not the "loudness" of the thought. So, I think it would be more about implications than volume.
I find it very easy to feel imaginary sensations... probably too easy, as that's why I can't watch the news and have trouble with well-described tragedies. And it's easy to think things that hurt.
^ This. Or even pictures because it just expands from there. Except for smell with pictures, though I think I'm going to try that now.
Quote from: RWHN on June 24, 2010, 07:48:02 PM
I think that is very true. My brother who just got committed. They are thining it was the OCD that triggered the depression. That is, the compulsive thoughts fucked up his brain chemistry to the point where he developed the depression. They can't find any incident or instance in his past that would've triggered any of this. He started getting the obsessive thoughts after he developed this weird heart palpatation. But after he had that under control, he still obsessed about that, and started obsessing about many other areas in his life. And eventually, the depression.
But to the original question: I'm not sure you can really think a thought so loud that it hurts. At least for me, a loud thought would be something that is a very immediate situation. Or a thought involving something very important. If there was any discomfort, it was in thinking about the results of the particular situation or issue, not the "loudness" of the thought. So, I think it would be more about implications than volume.
I'm convinced that a lot of psychology/physiology link is chicken and egg. I've heard "chemical imbalance" a fuckton of times and I'm almost certain that, in a lot of cases, the chemical imbalance is probably a result of the thought patterns as much as the cause. Imagine a vicious circle or a downward spiral with both making each other worse. Basically what I'm saying is that I think both ideas and neurochemistry can have a profound effect on each other.
ETA: I have absolutely no evidence to back this theory up but I hope to hell I'm right, otherwise I haven't cured myself of bipolar :eek:
I'd agree with you, based on my own evidence, though I don't agree with you on specifically curing yourself of it. If I know a depression is coming, I go the fuck outside and hang out at the river with my friends and our dogs or the like. And that helps avert the lesser ones and tones the big ones down a lot. So, chemical imbalance causes them, psychology helps me control them.
edited to add a thought...
tbh "cured" is a word I use kinda tongue in cheek. One of the ways I managed to, let's say, "deal" with things was by realising that what had been sold to me as a condition was really more of a symptom, ie my mood pendulum was swinging waaaaay lower and higher than most people's and whenever your mood is at either extreme there's a sort of caving in of one's reality tunnel and a loss of ability to function but, when I arrived at the conclusion that the main cause was patterns of behaviour and not this "chemical imbalance" as I'd been informed by the "qualified professionals" it really wasn't that hard to fix and it certainly didn't require death salt of the apocalypse or any of the other tinctures and potions those fucking quacks were prescribing :argh!:
I should point out, before this leads to the inevitable flame fest - death salt and other medicines seem to work for some people - more power to ya if they do :D
I ain't going to go after you for it. :) And I wouldn't touch salt of death with a stick. I don't think they prescribe it much anymore, but I'm not totally sure. In my case, symptoms show through the meds anyway - the meds just prevent it from dipping back into the bottom of the barrel. The rest is up to me to try to control.
Ok, I think we've threadjacked this enough, right? :)
Sometimes, when I'm trying to fall asleep, I imagine a yell or some other noise, and my ears hurt, but I'm still completely awake. Dunno if that counts.
Also, in some particularly vivid dreams, I dreamed with smell. Dunno if that counts either.
Tried experiment in OP; couldn't get any real distinctions.
My thought process is a continuous stream of dialogue. It's basically me talking to imaginary versions of everyone I know well enough to imagine how they'd respond, all the time. Images are few, vague, and not especially vivid unless the memory is very fresh. Scents are right out; I can remember that something or other had a strong scent and my reaction to it, but not the scent itself.
Quote from: Hover Cat on June 24, 2010, 10:44:53 PM
I ain't going to go after you for it. :) And I wouldn't touch salt of death with a stick. I don't think they prescribe it much anymore, but I'm not totally sure. In my case, symptoms show through the meds anyway - the meds just prevent it from dipping back into the bottom of the barrel. The rest is up to me to try to control.
Ok, I think we've threadjacked this enough, right? :)
My friend is on Lithium, and for him it's a miracle salt. The wrong treatment for some people is the right treatment for others.
Then I stand corrected on the issue.
Quote from: Cainad on June 25, 2010, 04:15:38 AM
Tried experiment in OP; couldn't get any real distinctions.
My thought process is a continuous stream of dialogue. It's basically me talking to imaginary versions of everyone I know well enough to imagine how they'd respond, all the time. Images are few, vague, and not especially vivid unless the memory is very fresh. Scents are right out; I can remember that something or other had a strong scent and my reaction to it, but not the scent itself.
Imagine the people closer and farther away.
Good thread.
Quote from: Cainad on June 25, 2010, 04:15:38 AM
Tried experiment in OP; couldn't get any real distinctions.
My thought process is a continuous stream of dialogue. It's basically me talking to imaginary versions of everyone I know well enough to imagine how they'd respond, all the time. Images are few, vague, and not especially vivid unless the memory is very fresh. Scents are right out; I can remember that something or other had a strong scent and my reaction to it, but not the scent itself.
That sounds much more interesting than my usual dull monologue, I'm going to give that a try too. Do you ever get confused between having told an imaginary version of a friend something and the actual person?
Excellent scope for self-mindfucks ITT.
How about trying to think of words without using any of that inside-voice thing?
I can imagine them just being written down on a wall/paper, but it has to be one or the other; other wise I just end up mentally sounding it out
Quote from: NotPublished on June 25, 2010, 05:53:12 AM
How about trying to think of words without using any of that inside-voice thing?
I can imagine them just being written down on a wall/paper, but it has to be one or the other; other wise I just end up mentally sounding it out
Is there a term for that? "Thinking without words" is a bit clunky. You can do this with practice, although I found it really hard at the beginning
without continuously sub-vocalising "lalalala...".
I often employ something I call "icons" (there's prolly a better word for it - I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's thought of it) as a shothand to internal dialogues. Quite often I can cover whole conversations by flicking through a bunch of these. I've tried to describe them to people plenty times but it never really comes out right. For a kick off "icons" prolly isn't the best description. It's not like I imagine a little picture, more like I immerse my self in a real or imagined state of being appropriate to whatever situation an internal monologue would be employed to deal with or work out.
For instance - my thinking is heading in a depression kinda direction. The clue is in that my monologue usually becomes sorta negative reinforcing also really circular. As soon as I cotton on to this (doesn't usually take long) I place myself in a kinda desert, in black and white with a weird sort of buzzing, roiling black cloud unseen but clearly experienced, kinda above and behind me. At this point the solution to the situation will be straight in front of me. Saves on ages of imagined conversations and shit.
Like I said - it's really fucking hard to explain, I'm putting this out there just in case someone else does this and can put it into better words than me.
that's very interesting... could you elaborate more on it? I'm intrigued by the idea of teaching yourself mental shorthand and non-verbal reasoning.
Quote from: Telarus on June 25, 2010, 04:50:45 AM
Quote from: Cainad on June 25, 2010, 04:15:38 AM
Tried experiment in OP; couldn't get any real distinctions.
My thought process is a continuous stream of dialogue. It's basically me talking to imaginary versions of everyone I know well enough to imagine how they'd respond, all the time. Images are few, vague, and not especially vivid unless the memory is very fresh. Scents are right out; I can remember that something or other had a strong scent and my reaction to it, but not the scent itself.
Imagine the people closer and farther away.
Good thread.
WOAH
That's awesome. You clever bastard.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 25, 2010, 04:52:26 AM
Quote from: Cainad on June 25, 2010, 04:15:38 AM
Tried experiment in OP; couldn't get any real distinctions.
My thought process is a continuous stream of dialogue. It's basically me talking to imaginary versions of everyone I know well enough to imagine how they'd respond, all the time. Images are few, vague, and not especially vivid unless the memory is very fresh. Scents are right out; I can remember that something or other had a strong scent and my reaction to it, but not the scent itself.
That sounds much more interesting than my usual dull monologue, I'm going to give that a try too. Do you ever get confused between having told an imaginary version of a friend something and the actual person?
Excellent scope for self-mindfucks ITT.
Not confused enough to cause problems with the real person or make them think I'm crazy, but I do sometimes get excited or very angry at what the person's cardboard-cutout-in-my-head said. When that happens I'm always very careful to compose myself before talking to the person for real. When the real person's response isn't like what my brain imagined it to be, it's usually a pleasant surprise; the real people are way more interesting than the simulacra in my mind.
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 04:03:53 PM
I often employ something I call "icons" (there's prolly a better word for it - I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's thought of it) as a shothand to internal dialogues. Quite often I can cover whole conversations by flicking through a bunch of these. I've tried to describe them to people plenty times but it never really comes out right. For a kick off "icons" prolly isn't the best description. It's not like I imagine a little picture, more like I immerse my self in a real or imagined state of being appropriate to whatever situation an internal monologue would be employed to deal with or work out.
For instance - my thinking is heading in a depression kinda direction. The clue is in that my monologue usually becomes sorta negative reinforcing also really circular. As soon as I cotton on to this (doesn't usually take long) I place myself in a kinda desert, in black and white with a weird sort of buzzing, roiling black cloud unseen but clearly experienced, kinda above and behind me. At this point the solution to the situation will be straight in front of me. Saves on ages of imagined conversations and shit.
Like I said - it's really fucking hard to explain, I'm putting this out there just in case someone else does this and can put it into better words than me.
I don't really visualise anything, but certain avenues of thought/concepts definitely have a sort of "mental shape" to them. It sounds like they work in a similar way to your "icons", in that I can piece them together in any order, or apply them individually to situations. I think "icons" is quite an apt name really, in that you click an icon on a computer to load a particular program, and similarly this is something in your brain which you "load" to get to where you want to be. Unless we're talking about completely different things?
Quote from: Cramulus on June 25, 2010, 04:08:32 PM
that's very interesting... could you elaborate more on it? I'm intrigued by the idea of teaching yourself mental shorthand and non-verbal reasoning.
I really don't think I can. The thing with non-verbal reasoning is it doesn't seem to fit into words. I can give more examples if that's any use to you. When I'm packing stuff for a trip I have a cupboard with all my camping and wilderness gear in it. When I look at the objects in the cupboard they get superimposed with either red or green colour, depending on whether I need them or not for this particular expedition. It sounds like I'm putting in less thought and, tbh it feels that way in practice but believe me I make a lot less mistakes in terms of taking shit I don't need or forgetting stuff I do than back when I was reliant on mental chit chat to make the decisions. I think when I did stuff-selection the old way my attention was much more likely to wander off on tangents and shit then I'd skip over things or just not notice them or something.
Also - imagining a tune while your doing it helps turn off the "voices" I don't use songs tho, cos the words can throw me.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 25, 2010, 04:52:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 04:03:53 PM
I often employ something I call "icons" (there's prolly a better word for it - I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's thought of it) as a shothand to internal dialogues. Quite often I can cover whole conversations by flicking through a bunch of these. I've tried to describe them to people plenty times but it never really comes out right. For a kick off "icons" prolly isn't the best description. It's not like I imagine a little picture, more like I immerse my self in a real or imagined state of being appropriate to whatever situation an internal monologue would be employed to deal with or work out.
For instance - my thinking is heading in a depression kinda direction. The clue is in that my monologue usually becomes sorta negative reinforcing also really circular. As soon as I cotton on to this (doesn't usually take long) I place myself in a kinda desert, in black and white with a weird sort of buzzing, roiling black cloud unseen but clearly experienced, kinda above and behind me. At this point the solution to the situation will be straight in front of me. Saves on ages of imagined conversations and shit.
Like I said - it's really fucking hard to explain, I'm putting this out there just in case someone else does this and can put it into better words than me.
I don't really visualise anything, but certain avenues of thought/concepts definitely have a sort of "mental shape" to them. It sounds like they work in a similar way to your "icons", in that I can piece them together in any order, or apply them individually to situations. I think "icons" is quite an apt name really, in that you click an icon on a computer to load a particular program, and similarly this is something in your brain which you "load" to get to where you want to be. Unless we're talking about completely different things?
Yeah, I think we're on the same page. I think I know what you mean about "mental shape" too. Like moods for me have what could prolly be best described as "shapes" like if your mind was playdough you'd just mould it into that shape and then you'd be feeling that way
My thoughts get really loud, sometimes.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:02:51 PM
My thoughts get really loud, sometimes.
That's because you yell them at people. Nothing to be alarmed about. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 04:58:29 PM
When I'm packing stuff for a trip I have a cupboard with all my camping and wilderness gear in it. When I look at the objects in the cupboard they get superimposed with either red or green colour, depending on whether I need them or not for this particular expedition. It sounds like I'm putting in less thought and, tbh it feels that way in practice but believe me I make a lot less mistakes in terms of taking shit I don't need or forgetting stuff I do than back when I was reliant on mental chit chat to make the decisions. I think when I did stuff-selection the old way my attention was much more likely to wander off on tangents and shit then I'd skip over things or just not notice them or something.
That sounds fucking awesome.
I wonder if part of the reason why I don't visualise stuff is because I've always been terrified of losing my mind? I exhibit a really strong grip on reality as I expect it to be. Which helps make me a pain in the ass in discussions, until I reach the point where I can safely change my expectations. For example, the first time I smoked pot I went through five healthy bowls by myself before I started feeling
anything, and then my expectations of reality shifted quite considerably, but that's another story :wink:
Quote from: Cramulus on June 25, 2010, 04:08:32 PM
that's very interesting... could you elaborate more on it? I'm intrigued by the idea of teaching yourself mental shorthand and non-verbal reasoning.
Try the "lalala" approach, just repeat it to yourself (as a loud thought) while doing stuff you've already done a thousand times before - like getting a cup of coffee, or think of a random friend and decide what they'd like for their next birthday. Then try doing it without "lalala". If there's anything to the "mental shape" idea, you'll start recognising that the shapes are the same for particular concepts or people when you are using words, as they are when you are not. You'll then start noticing that there are a lot of times you do think without words already, the only difference is that the default seems to be for words to spawn other words and so unless you add awareness to the times that you are wordless, it can be a bitch to get back to that state/shape.
My theory is that the vocal part of the brain triggers on the shapes, and new shapes trigger from the shapes created by the words.. and if you don't hold the reins of that part of the brain, then it'll just continue triggering on the input it receives.
It was about 10-15 years ago that I tried this.. I remember realising that I was really slow at working through a problem because not only would I put it in words, but I'd editing/fixing grammar, thinking them slowly, massaging the rhythm - before I'd even reach a conclusion. The other thing is, while it's not as hard to do as it sounds, I find that it's hard to do continuously.. I don't practice as much as I used to, so now I just do it in concentrated bursts rather than prolonged stretches.
I've been realizing that when I'm designing a game or writing a script for a LARP, the concepts have a sort of visual geometry to them. I end up visualizing the relationships between various people and objects and plotlines almost like a flow chart. There's no way I could draw it, it only really makes sense in my head. But if I could, it would look like a bunch of shapes and arrows and loops and stuff.
Just to remark on the OP, yeah. I'm getting pretty good at it, and sometimes I wonder if I could induce a psychotic break if I did it too hard.
Does screaming produce a physiological response? Is a portion of that response replicated when you scream in your head?
I dunno, but that's pretty much why I didn't push the volume experiment too far. Although I have started trying to think in words at a higher volume, and I noticed that I have started speaking louder too, so that's pretty neat.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 25, 2010, 06:37:15 PM
I've been realizing that when I'm designing a game or writing a script for a LARP, the concepts have a sort of visual geometry to them. I end up visualizing the relationships between various people and objects and plotlines almost like a flow chart. There's no way I could draw it, it only really makes sense in my head. But if I could, it would look like a bunch of shapes and arrows and loops and stuff.
I wonder if there's a useful vocabulary for this sort of thing? I'm reminded of mnemonic techniques and rituals which to some extent may exercise the brain in a certain way, but those terms seem to be geared towards a particular goal, rather than a generic language. I dunno, I just find it really interesting that we're talking about fairly low-level brain stuff, and we seem to be understanding each other. It seems silly to want words for the processes of thinking without words, but I think it may be possible that those specialised terms may in-of-themselves help unlock lower functions? As in - words aren't useless, but too many of them can get in the way?
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 25, 2010, 07:26:27 PM
Just to remark on the OP, yeah. I'm getting pretty good at it, and sometimes I wonder if I could induce a psychotic break if I did it too hard.
There's only one way to find out. Strongly suggest you don't.
... just in case :wink:
I agree.
Also:
The triangle is the simplest stable (physical _and_ mental) structure. Basic arithmetic involves triangulation (2 + 3 = 5, two terms on one side of the equation, one on the other).
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 07:51:19 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 25, 2010, 07:26:27 PM
Just to remark on the OP, yeah. I'm getting pretty good at it, and sometimes I wonder if I could induce a psychotic break if I did it too hard.
There's only one way to find out. Strongly suggest you don't.
... just in case :wink:
Psychology is rife with forbidden experiments.
I don't remember if this claim is in Musicophilia, This Is Your Brain On Music, or both, but...
Imagining or remembering a song (or other auditory stimuli) activates the same parts of the brain as hearing it.
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 24, 2010, 06:40:09 PM
I can imagine smells as easy as I can imagine sounds and pictures. I believe there's a mixture of people who find one or more of the senses to be easier or harder to imagine. And I'm pretty sure I could imagine a smell that might not make me sick (very few IRL smells do that to me either) but I would get nauseus.
I remember hearing about this in a cognitive psych class - somebody actually went to the trouble of researching this. The vast majority (80%+) can imagine an image to near or equal quality as if they were actually seeing it, a smaller majority (I think it was ~60%) can imagine sounds as if they were actually hearing it, and only minorities of people could do the same for touch, taste, and smell. Don't remember the numbers, but smell was the worst.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 25, 2010, 06:37:15 PM
I've been realizing that when I'm designing a game or writing a script for a LARP, the concepts have a sort of visual geometry to them. I end up visualizing the relationships between various people and objects and plotlines almost like a flow chart. There's no way I could draw it, it only really makes sense in my head. But if I could, it would look like a bunch of shapes and arrows and loops and stuff.
I know when I brainstorm things, often I'll have an idea or insight and I
know what it is, and maybe the concept will be associated with a shape or a scene, but it's like my brain doesn't think it counts unless I subvocalize it. So then I have to think my own idea to myself, and word it properly, and spend a bit of time making sure I use the proper level of formality, and make sure I know in which sense I mean all the words - all to make sure that the sentences I think to myself to describe my idea as closely match the original idea as possible. Sometimes it goes to the level of imagining that I had to explain it to a critical audience - like if I was running for office or something - and had to word it all so that nobody could draw the wrong conclusions from it. That would be fine if I were trying to write a speech or something, but it's usually something like "fire element specialists should be second best at flying, with effects like rocketry." (I had to consciously prevent myself from rewriting that into something neater. The original idea-shape was just a guy taking off with jets of fire coming out of his feet (like Astro-boy, but more so) and the notion of long straight lines [since they wouldn't turn very well.])
Quote from: Brotep on June 25, 2010, 11:24:49 PM
I don't remember if this claim is in Musicophilia, This Is Your Brain On Music, or both, but...
Imagining or remembering a song (or other auditory stimuli) activates the same parts of the brain as hearing it.
That also works for imagining just about anything. Imagine moving, and
almost all of the same neurons that fire when you actually move that muscle activate.
Quote from: Telarus on June 25, 2010, 09:36:45 PM
The triangle is the simplest stable (physical _and_ mental) structure. Basic arithmetic involves triangulation (2 + 3 = 5, two terms on one side of the equation, one on the other).
Interesting - I just noticed that when I do that kind of mental arithmetic, I never have the 5 'in memory' at the same time as the 2 and the 3. They just kind of ... transform? collapse? together into one number. I do know that I'm much faster than average at mental arithmetic - maybe not needing the reactants and the product to exist in memory at the same time lets me use working memory more efficiently?
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 25, 2010, 11:56:31 PM
Quote from: Brotep on June 25, 2010, 11:24:49 PM
I don't remember if this claim is in Musicophilia, This Is Your Brain On Music, or both, but...
Imagining or remembering a song (or other auditory stimuli) activates the same parts of the brain as hearing it.
That also works for imagining just about anything. Imagine moving, and almost all of the same neurons that fire when you actually move that muscle activate.
Yes, indeedy--the corresponding neurons in the brain, but not the muscle's motor neurons.
So I don't see any reason why we couldn't think 'louder' or 'quieter' thoughts
QuoteQuote from: Telarus on June 25, 2010, 09:36:45 PM
The triangle is the simplest stable (physical _and_ mental) structure. Basic arithmetic involves triangulation (2 + 3 = 5, two terms on one side of the equation, one on the other).
Interesting - I just noticed that when I do that kind of mental arithmetic, I never have the 5 'in memory' at the same time as the 2 and the 3. They just kind of ... transform? collapse? together into one number. I do know that I'm much faster than average at mental arithmetic - maybe not needing the reactants and the product to exist in memory at the same time lets me use working memory more efficiently?
That just sounds like chunking.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 25, 2010, 11:56:31 PM
Quote from: Brotep on June 25, 2010, 11:24:49 PM
I don't remember if this claim is in Musicophilia, This Is Your Brain On Music, or both, but...
Imagining or remembering a song (or other auditory stimuli) activates the same parts of the brain as hearing it.
That also works for imagining just about anything. Imagine moving, and almost all of the same neurons that fire when you actually move that muscle activate.
Quote from: Telarus on June 25, 2010, 09:36:45 PM
The triangle is the simplest stable (physical _and_ mental) structure. Basic arithmetic involves triangulation (2 + 3 = 5, two terms on one side of the equation, one on the other).
Interesting - I just noticed that when I do that kind of mental arithmetic, I never have the 5 'in memory' at the same time as the 2 and the 3. They just kind of ... transform? collapse? together into one number. I do know that I'm much faster than average at mental arithmetic - maybe not needing the reactants and the product to exist in memory at the same time lets me use working memory more efficiently?
Yes, that's why it's a structure and not just a relationship. Two means relationship. (A.:A.: note - that's why 2 = 0).
If we formally cut the equation up we see that numbers are grouped with operators, and if I add a bunch of brackets, thusly
{[2] [+3] } {[=5]} <- the equals sign is what implies the curly bracketsthe reason we say it is stable is because if we replace one of the square-bracketed terms with an unknown (say we only perceive part of the structure), we can still resolve the whole structure.
[x] [+3] [=5] :edit: LOL used the formatting for a bullet by accident
It's a structure because 'Structural systems are local, closed, and finite. ... Structural systems can have only one inside and only one outside.'[B. Fuller] So a Point (a 1, or a singularity), or a Line (a 2, or a relationship, or a 0 an event) aren't Structures.
Paranoid Mental Structures usually occur on the form of:
My life sucks because [I'm dead broke and have a few hundred problems] + I explain others prospering because [they're all rich and related/conspiring against the common man] = The [Shape Shifting Alien Reptoid/Illuminati] are stalking me and actively causing my [poverty/misery/impotence]. Once that's an established stable pattern in some-one's head, that's hard to break yo.
And let's re-jack this thread back on-topic:
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs221.snc3/20869_138632569484904_132129836801844_421387_1987650_n.jpg)
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 02:40:05 PM
In this instance, we seem to be diverging in two directions with the word "uncomfortable".
For ease of use, we will call sounds the ear hears as "real" sounds, and the sounds of thoughts as "imagined".
For real sounds, volume becomes uncomfortable because the sound vibrations actually damage the physical structure of the ear, which triggers a pain response.
For imagined sounds, the uncomfortable feeling may come from the distracting nature of the thought's volume. The discomfort may also be from the memory in evokes, or from the disturbing nature of the thought. But I cannot see how the thought would produce the physical damage that a real sound would produce.
Also, I can imaginge a thought so loud it removes all other thought. I assume (and would like feedback from) people who have suffered/endured bouts of mania also have experienced this. There was a guy in front of the liquor store the other day who muttered, "The church is closed," repeatedly for the entire time I was near enough to hear. Perhaps this qualifies?
This is pretty much it, LMNO.
I definitely "hear" thoughts in volumes, and actually can be unrecognizable if they are quiet enough, like whisperings and mumblings. But then, I've got a weird setup in my head.
bump because I found this during some archive archeology and thought it was an interesting thread