Internally talking to yourself is not the same as thinking.
1 Like
Especially if you are Anendophasic.
Mainstream scientists claim that the SELF doesnât exist so itâs not possible for the SELF to internally talk to oneselfâŚand yet we know that mainstream scientists are cluelessâŚso we donât have to listen to them.These fools still think that we are all electrical binary signals.
You knowâŚthe Descartes claim âI am electrical binary signals,therefore I amâ farcical nonsenseâŚLOL!!!
Isnât it?
I find it a great way to solve a problem. I call it thinking aloud instead of thinking silently. Especially cursing when it doesnât resolve the problem.
Normal people hear voices? 
What about externally arguing from different positions???
That would be external⌠when I say that.
Mmmmm but it is still coming from my internal thinking and directed solely at myself. ie. one way communication.
Yeah shmupiter is wrong. Unless itâs small talk. Unless youâre keeping yourself on task.
Neurons fire: Make a cup of coffee.
Neurons fire: I wonder what I need to do tomorrow?
Neurons fire: Replay argument should have said that / this.
Itâs all the same, Jupiter. Whether you are sorting through logic in your noggin, or talking to yourself internally, it requires a thought process. Which is basically âthinkingâ.
Donât see why it has to be more complicated than that.
1 Like
Jupiter is not wrong.
Internally talking to yourself is not the same as thinking.
To me, thinking is a much deeper process of inner reflection. It does not even need to be done in words spoken to oneself. I can think about things in terms of concepts, shapes or geometry, relations, meaning, all without using specific words. Of course usually words are part of it too.
Thinking is more like⌠seriously examining something internally-mentally. Partly will use words most likely, but also use other things like I listed above. Thinking is aimed at producing understanding. New insights. Expanding the mind.
Whereas just talking to myself about what plans I have today, that is a lot simpler. But still, it is addressing a problem or at least a question. So yeah, a milder form of thinking, one that resolves much faster (maybe).
Or maybe this is just the difference between mundane thinking (what shall I wear today?) and critical thinking (what is the nature of reality?).
âhearâ is an approximation, but they have an internal verbal cognition going. Andendophasics do not. They donât really think in words. Of course, there is a spectrum.
How can you claim internally talking to yourself is thinking?..So are you claiming that externally talking to yourself is thinking as well?
Actions follow thoughts.
Many of you claim that the SELF doesnât exist to action things following thoughtâs which is obvious nonsense.
I canât help thinking in terms of clock cycles about this. I feel like some ways of thinking are just more involved than others, more nested, more drawn out. It takes longer than âwhat jeans will I wear?â to solve a rubiks cube, but is the actual process any different?
For the jeans question, there will probably be well used and established neural pathways for that, so the process is almost instantaneous, but for the cube perhaps new paths have to be taken, maybe the logic becomes more interelational, and there are several more threads involved.
I still just think thinking is just thinking (valid grammar 
), but thereâs perhaps differing levels of intensity and number of threads.
But then again, which jeans depends heavily on context, will I bump into that woman today, are those the ones where the zip doesnât stay up properly? Bit of associative thinking going on there too..
1 Like
If there is no exchange or interaction involved, then itâs not communication. How could one exchange ideas with himself? How could one tell himself a story heâs never heard before? Our internal dialogues are modes of thought, which help us construct narratives by which to understand the world. This is how thinking presents to our understanding aside from mental pictures, which some people are unable to create. Those who canât develop mental pictures only have language as a reference point. For them, inner dialogue is the primaey mode of thought.
Our internal dialogues are not modes of thoughts,Physical thoughts are electrical binary signals.So you are claiming to be electrical binary signals which we know is ridiculous.
There is no such thing as a physical thought. That is a category error. The mind is what the brain does sort of thing. Itâs a system that your own awareness is part of.
Think of your brain like a projector for a moment, projecting nstinct, desire, impressions, feelings, etc. as little movies. Pictures and dialogue. IPeople fancy themselves simple observers of thought as if ideas arive from the cosmos. But how can you watch what you are currently participating in, as if you are an impartial observer or distant third party?
Also, not all electrical systems are binary.
I know how science works statiktech.The physical biological body in which you reside is a binary processing machine.
You believe that you are nothing more than the binary software of this programmed biological machine which claims that itâs not responsible for its actions.You believe that you are nothing more than its binary electrical signals because you believe Descartes claim âI am binary electrical signals,therefore I amâ.
Descartes wasnât a good philosopher or scientist Statiktech.
You are an active participant in the 3D show that you are watching,listening to and feeling.
You wouldnât be able to see,hear or feel anything without binary data which is contained within varying frequency electromagnetic analogue energy waves emitted from all vibrating matter. Energy waves which the biological machine antenna senses pick up and convert into binary electrical signals and then sounds,visions and sensations which the SELF,which is metaphysical and embroiled within the physical,interprets.
The actions and claims of this machine are the output of binary electrical signals.Internally talking to yourself is an action not a binary electrical signal.A biological machine doesnât just process/have binary electrical signals running through it.
The biological machine performs actions and claims things.
As our biological machine bodies are programmed with binary software the machine covers all logic outputs when it comes to existence/non existence.Its software logic claims,
I exist/I exist
I exist/I donât exist
I donât exist/I exist
I donât exist/I donât exist
The biological machine body exists because it needs to exist (it was created) to claim that it doesnât exist..
The biological machine body exists but doesât possess life (hence the claim,I donât exist)
That is not what Descartes meant at all. His statement is elegant in its simplicity. To think about existence is to demonstrate it. He is showing that the statement âI thinkâ presumes the existence of a thinker.
I donât believe or understand any of this stuff you claim. The human body is not binary. Binary is a numerical system things can be translated into, or understood as. I donât think of binary as a fundamental aspect of the fabric of reality as you seem to believe. Every post you make seems to contain incoherent rambling about binary machines. Can anything be addressed as anything other than a binary machine in your worldview?
You donât know anything statiktech.
All of the physical is binary and the physical biological machine body does process varying frequency electromagnetic binary energy waves emitted from vibrating matter.I am teaching you âŚyou are not teaching meâŚ.because I know what Iâm talking aboutâŚ..you donâtâŚ.you are utterly clueless and kept in the dark.
Descartes wasnât a good philosopher honestlyâŚ..he hadnât got a clue about reality.
+/-=+/- philosophy science is elegant in its simplicity.
I teach about realityâŚ.not misrepresentations of it.