I stated above, (Not claimed) about the intuitive mind: It produces all emotional processes. Please read more carefully.

If you stated it, you claim it is a fact.

You're right, I have to read your argument more carefully. Be back to on that after I read your claim more carefully. (Maybe.)

I read the line and the entire post that contained it.

I think the claim that happiness is a function of the over-mind is an opinion. You must prove that it is a fact, that happiness is not a function of the front cortex, but of the "over-mind". I accept your use of the word, it is clear and precise. I just don't think feelings such as happiness, anger, sadness, grief, etc. are functions of the over-mind. You have to prove that to us. If you think it's kindergarten stuff, please provide references contained in the applicable literature and not take them from hearsay or from imagination.

Does a monkey or an ape or a dog have no feelings?

I have no interest or desire to support my statements. My statements are based on memories of books and articles I have read over the last 50 years. I am not arguing. I have no opinions, only memories.

I am not sure what you mean by proper arguing but intuitionally I think most arguing is mindless and worth nothing.

I understand your unwillingness to prove things that are not easy to prove. I have been there, done that, mostly in cybernetics and astrophysics.

But this is a philosophy site. We toy with ideas, and if someone has a claim, we like that person to defend their claim, otherwise the discussion is futile.

I could say that my brain is green, and it can detect flying space ships that are twenty parts per billion in the air because they are also green and they contain therefore bits of my salami sandwich. Would you believe me? If I said, "It's my memory and my recollection and my opinion, and I am not willing to part with it, or defend it," then where do you think that discussion will take us to?

I thank you for candidly stating your opinion formed on the basis of memories, and I commend you for saying it is not something you can defend before reasonable scrutiny. (You did not say it this way but this is how I take what you said.)

Now I think we are discussing the meanings of two words. Are you stateing or claiming the 2 words mean the same thing?
You say - state - claim that I must prove that it is a fact, that happiness is not a function of the front cortex. Must I? No I Must not. You say - "You have to prove that to us." I am curious to know what will be the consequences if I don't.
What about reasoning? Is it not an obvious fact that men and apes have experienced happines for millions of years? Is it not an obvious fact that no animal except ourselves have conscios minds and can talk?
Re -

I am not sure but I think you replied to this and that for some reason it failed to get recorded. Perhaps I am mistaken. Would you please resend your last post?

Thank you

Stating something is giving a statement of a fact or of an opinion.
Claiming something is normally the same thing, with the extra meaning that it is true.

If you state a fact, it involves the inference, that it is true. Facts are not topics of debate.

If you state an opinion, you can claim it is true or you can claim it is false.

I read once somewhere, can't remember the source, that philosophy is an endeavour where one has to have a very fine understanding of the language -- from its robust forms to the most refined and subtle. In fact, some philosophers have claimed (mainly the logical positivists) that philosophy does not exist beyond the comprehension of the language or beyond the comprehension of ideas that the language can express. If you know the language, then philosophy can't tell you anything that is incomprehensible to you.

Asking me to define the difference between "stating something" and "claiming something" is a sign you have a lot to learn yet for becoming a passable philosopher. Sorry, not to diss you or to belittle you. But it is the truth, that not knowing the difference in meaning of two very common words will require of you a lot of work to catch up to par.

I agree, mostly, but my answer to your question: "then where do you think that discussion will take us to?" is - I would hope that it would take us to more discussion.

I might say: "Philosophy can only contain words and symbols in contrast to science which can also include physical actions such as performing experiments."

I withdraw from the discussion of the meaning of the word claim because of pure bewilderment. I just looked it up and it had 14 differnt meanings.
I give here a sample: "used as a verb --cause the loss of (someone's life): the attacks claimed the lives of five people"

I was very distressed to read the words: "philosophy does not exist beyond the comprehension of the language or beyond the comprehension of ideas that the language can express. If you know the language, then philosophy can't tell you anything that is incomprehensible to you."

If philosophy doesn't exist beyond comprehension than what am I doing here wasting my time? What's worse: Might not I be considered a philosopher? Sometimes bewidered, of course, but very good looking. Thus if philosphy doesn't exist then philosophers don't exist either.

My god! what will I do? Who will feed my children?

Sorry about that.

I personally dislike the word opinion because in my mind it seems to imply: a FIXED opinion and frequently infers a high degree of rational inflexibily. " It is my opinion that: xxxxxx.? I rarely use it myself and I am uncomfortabe when others use it.

I Good heavens!

The meaning of a word belongs more to the science of Lenguistics than to philosophy.

I have never seriously considered myself to be a philosopher. I am sure I can't explain what phiiosophy is but I know it when I see it. Perhaps I don't belong here. Much of the scholastic research which predominates here is beyond me. I am more of a pleasure seeker and I participate in this forum for pleasure. I am enjoying it hugely. I read a lot but I rarely read to learn. I am too lazy. I read for pleasure.

This next does not relate to philosophy only to procedures and rules. My name in this thread seems to be blanked out and I don't know why. Might I ask you to tell me what that means?

the scholastic research which predominates here — Ken Edwards

:rofl:

I know there's a fact that you can read faster if you don't verbalize those words read with your mouth. It is also more difficult to read those words.

logical positivists[/quote
Re - "Sorry, not to diss you or to belittle you." I might describe that statement as - "A Diss sandwiched between 2 truths". — god must be atheist

Re your statement "I just don't think feelings such as happiness, anger, sadness, grief, etc. are functions of the over-mind." The words: Anger sadness, grief, are emotions. I am uncomfortable with the word " feelings mostly because the word has so many distinct meanings. But that, perhaps, is a quibble.

I would like to use the word "obvious" with you. The word obvious is obviously meaningless without a complement. Obvious to me obvious to you etc. and I would like to speed this up by assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the truth of the following facts are obvious to you as well as being obvious to me.

One. Animals, early men and modern men have had emotions for many millions of years. Two. Only men are self aware, have consciousness, can talk or have conscious minds. Thus Overminds contain emotions.

A possible caveat. Conscious minds are intricately and intimately, connected to the overmind and can perhaps be considered as part of the overmind and a conscious mind can easily and effortlessly import an aspect of emotion from the overmind and attach it to an expression such as "those are sad words".

A puzzling fact about thinking.
123
Ken Edwards
62
I stated above, (Not claimed) about the intuitive mind: It produces all emotional processes. Please read more carefully.
3 days ago
god must be atheist
2.5k
↪Ken Edwards If you stated it, you claim it is a fact.

You're right, I have to read your argument more carefully. Be back to on that after I read your claim more carefully. (Maybe.)
3 days ago
god must be atheist
2.5k
↪Ken Edwards I read the line and the entire post that contained it.

I think the claim that happiness is a function of the over-mind is an opinion. You must prove that it is a fact, that happiness is not a function of the front cortex, but of the "over-mind". I accept your use of the word, it is clear and precise. I just don't think feelings such as happiness, anger, sadness, grief, etc. are functions of the over-mind. You have to prove that to us. If you think it's kindergarten stuff, please provide references contained in the applicable literature and not take them from hearsay or from imagination.
3 days ago
Ken Edwards
62
↪god must be atheist ↪god must be atheist Does a monkey or an ape or a dog have no feelings?

I have no interest or desire to support my statements. My statements are based on memories of books and articles I have read over the last 50 years. I am not arguing. I have no opinions, only memories.

I am not sure what you mean by proper arguing but intuitionally I think most arguing is mindless and worth nothing.
2 days ago
god must be atheist
2.5k
↪Ken Edwards I understand your unwillingness to prove things that are not easy to prove. I have been there, done that, mostly in cybernetics and astrophysics.

But this is a philosophy site. We toy with ideas, and if someone has a claim, we like that person to defend their claim, otherwise the discussion is futile.

I could say that my brain is green, and it can detect flying space ships that are twenty parts per billion in the air because they are also green and they contain therefore bits of my salami sandwich. Would you believe me? If I said, "It's my memory and my recollection and my opinion, and I am not willing to part with it, or defend it," then where do you think that discussion will take us to?

I thank you for candidly stating your opinion formed on the basis of memories, and I commend you for saying it is not something you can defend before reasonable scrutiny. (You did not say it this way but this is how I take what you said.)
2 days ago
Ken Edwards
62
Now I think we are discussing the meanings of two words. Are you stateing or claiming the 2 words mean the same thing?
You say - state - claim that I must prove that it is a fact, that happiness is not a function of the front cortex. Must I? No I Must not. You say - "You have to prove that to us." I am curious to know what will be the consequences if I don't.
What about reasoning? Is it not an obvious fact that men and apes have experienced happines for millions of years? Is it not an obvious fact that no animal except ourselves have conscios minds and can talk?
Re - ↪god must be atheist ↪god must be atheist ↪god must be atheist ↪god must be atheist ↪god must be atheist ↪god must be atheist
2 days ago
Ken Edwards
62
I am not sure but I think you replied to this and that for some reason it failed to get recorded. Perhaps I am mistaken. Would you please resend your last post?

Thank you
2 days ago
god must be atheist
2.5k
Stating something is giving a statement of a fact or of an opinion.
Claiming something is normally the same thing, with the extra meaning that it is true.

If you state a fact, it involves the inference, that it is true. Facts are not topics of debate.

If you state an opinion, you can claim it is true or you can claim it is false.

I read once somewhere, can't remember the source, that philosophy is an endeavour where one has to have a very fine understanding of the language -- from its robust forms to the most refined and subtle. In fact, some philosophers have claimed (mainly the logical positivists) that philosophy does not exist beyond the comprehension of the language or beyond the comprehension of ideas that the language can express. If you know the language, then philosophy can't tell you anything that is incomprehensible to you.

Asking me to define the difference between "stating something" and "claiming something" is a sign you have a lot to learn yet for becoming a passable philosopher. Sorry, not to diss you or to belittle you. But it is the truth, that not knowing the difference in meaning of two very common words will require of you a lot of work to catch up to par.
2 days ago
Ken Edwards
62
↪god must be atheist I agree, mostly, but my answer to your question: "then where do you think that discussion will take us to?" is - I would hope that it would take us to more discussion.
2 days ago
Ken Edwards
62
↪god must be atheist I might say: "Philosophy can only contain words and symbols in contrast to science which can also include physical actions such as performing experiments."
2 days ago
Ken Edwards
62
↪god must be atheist

I withdraw from the discussion of the meaning of the word claim because of pure bewilderment. I just looked it up and it had 14 differnt meanings.
I give here a sample: "used as a verb --cause the loss of (someone's life): the attacks claimed the lives of five people"
2 days ago
Ken Edwards
62
↪god must be atheist I was very distressed to read the words: "philosophy does not exist beyond the comprehension of the language or beyond the comprehension of ideas that the language can express. If you know the language, then philosophy can't tell you anything that is incomprehensible to you."

If philosophy doesn't exist beyond comprehension than what am I doing here wasting my time? What's worse: Might not I be considered a philosopher? Sometimes bewidered, of course, but very good looking. Thus if philosphy doesn't exist then philosophers don't exist either.

My god! what will I do? Who will feed my children?

Sorry about that.
2 days ago
Ken Edwards
62
I personally dislike the word opinion because in my mind it seems to imply: a FIXED opinion and frequently infers a high degree of rational inflexibily. " It is my opinion that: xxxxxx.? I rarely use it myself and I am uncomfortabe when others use it.
a day ago
Ken Edwards
62
↪god must be atheist I Good heavens!

The meaning of a word belongs more to the science of Lenguistics than to philosophy.

I have never seriously considered myself to be a philosopher. I am sure I can't explain what phiiosophy is but I know it when I see it. Perhaps I don't belong here. Much of the scholastic research which predominates here is beyond me. I am more of a pleasure seeker and I participate in this forum for pleasure. I am enjoying it hugely. I read a lot but I rarely read to learn. I am too lazy. I read for pleasure.

This next does not relate to philosophy only to procedures and rules. My name in this thread seems to be blanked out and I don't know why. Might I ask you to tell me what that means?
a day ago
khaled
2.2k
↪Ken Edwards
the scholastic research which predominates here
— Ken Edwards

:rofl:
24 hours ago
Thinking
103
I know there's a fact that you can read faster if you don't verbalize those words read with your mouth. It is also more difficult to read those words.
23 hours ago
Ken Edwards
62
↪god must be atheist ↪god must be atheist
logical positivists[/quote
Re - "Sorry, not to diss you or to belittle you." I might describe that statement as - "A Diss sandwiched between 2 truths".
— god must be atheist
18 hours ago
Ken Edwards
62
↪god must be atheist Re your statement "I just don't think feelings such as happiness, anger, sadness, grief, etc. are functions of the over-mind." The words: Anger sadness, grief, are emotions. I am uncomfortable with the word " feelings mostly because the word has so many distinct meanings. But that, perhaps, is a quibble.

I would like to use the word "obvious" with you. The word obvious is obviously meaningless without a complement. Obvious to me obvious to you etc. and I would like to speed this up by assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the truth of the following facts are obvious to you as well as being obvious to me.

One. Animals, early men and modern men have had emotions for many millions of years. Two. Only men are self aware, have consciousness, can talk or have conscious minds. Thus only Overminds contain emotions.

A possible caveat. Conscious minds are intricately and intimately, connected to the overmind and can perhaps be considered as part of the overmind and a conscious mind can easily and effortlessly import an aspect of emotion from the overmind and attach it to an expression such as "those are sad words".
a minute ago

I think that the "puzzling" issue of the op is explained quite easily by the fact that we learn to talk before we learn to read, or think in words. Because of this, talking is our foundation for use of words. Then, reading and thinking with words develops afterward as a reproduction of talking, which is intended to be silent. However, reading, and thinking with words, remain the same basic activity as talking, without the making of noise.

As you yourself have recognized though, thinking goes much deeper than simply using words, there is also, for instance, the matter of understanding the words. So this representation of thinking, as talking to oneself, is not a very good representation of thinking, because it's just a very shallow and small part of thinking which is being represented.

As to the first I emhatically agree with you about the complete primacy of Talking.

As to your second I am not sure that thinking and talking and understanding are not three different aspects of the same thing but no, understandig is more extensive and includes intuitive and possibly aesthetic understanding as well as logical understanding.

Your last is, of course, correct. I might prefer to say "adunct" to thinking rather than "representation" of thinking and is trivial.

As to your second I am not sure that thinking and talking and understanding are not three different aspects of the same thing but no, understandig is more extensive and includes intuitive and possibly aesthetic understanding as well as logical understanding. — Ken Edwards

Let's say that understanding is not the same as thinking. Doesn't understanding require thinking? And wouldn't some thinking not produce understanding, resulting in misunderstanding for example? So it seems to me that thinking is more extensive than understanding. Or do you think there can be understanding without thinking?

No, I do not think that there can be understanding without thinking, almost by definition. I might say this. Thinking is usually considered to be thinking with words and that there is no other way to think except by using words. But I am an artist, a sculpter and I know that that idea is false because I know that I spend much of my time thinking about forms and shapes and the locations of pieces of clay in relation to other pieces of clay without using words at all. I call that kind of wordless thinking -"intuitive thinking". And wordless thinking includes no understanding at all. That means you are correct - thinking is more extensive than understanding. Much more.

Thinking is usually considered to be thinking with words and that there is no other way to think except by using words. — Ken Edwards

I tend to think that actual thinking does not really involve words, and this is a sort of misunderstanding that people hold. You describe relating pieces of clay together. I find most of my thinking involves relating activities. That is how I organize my day, This has to be done before that, and something else has to been done afterwards, etc.. None of this involves words, just some sort of images of the activities in question, so that I know what it is and I can related it to the other activities. In the end, I might assign words to help me remember what I figured out.

So in this type of thinking, which I think is quite common, there is what is needed, or wanted, and the means for getting it is determined. There really isn't any use of words. But if I proceed in thinking out a process, there is no need to refer back to images of activities already determined. There is a situation where activities A and B have been determined, and this has gotten me to activity C, yet I still have to get to H. Now there's a sort of hole in my thought, where A and B are, because I don't need to think about them anymore, I just take them for granted as having been determined. So I need to call them something, label them, "A" and "B" in this example, to make sure that I don't forget them.

This is what I think thinking with words is like. It's not actually a big part of real thinking. The words signify something which is known, taken for granted, so this doesn't need to be brought into the thinking. So the words are not really part of the thought, they're just there to prevent the existence of a hole in the thought, which is what has already been thought, therefore taken for granted.. The actual thinking occurs in going beyond these words, thinking in some sort of images or ideas. Then there is some actual thinking with words which involves deciding which words to use to properly represent what has been concluded by the thinking, so as not to forget it.

You say: "I find most of my thinking involves relating activities. That is how I organize my day, This has to be done before that, and something else has to been done afterwards, etc.. None of this involves words, just some sort of images of the activities in question, so that I know what it is and I can relate it to the other activities. In the end, I might assign words to help me remember what I figured out."

I emphatically agree. Well described. The ratio of "Relating Activity Thinking" must be hundreds of thousands of times more frequent than conscious mind thinking.

I think that there are, indeed, many other ways of thinking. My problem is that I don't have good names for these. Intuitve thinking, thinking by the overmind, aesthetic thinking, musculer control calculations, sight, hearing and feeling acivities etc are commonly used much more often, perhaps a million times more often than Conscious mind thinking.

But, the coscious mind is not negligable. Consider. You might pause in your days activities to add up a grocery list with a pencil. That would be Conscious mind thinking. You might pause to make a telephone call. That would be Conscious mind thinking. You might pause to write a letter. That would be Conscious mind thinking. Your sister might come for a visit. You might hug each other. That would Not be Conscious mind thinking. Then you might converse. That would be Conscious mind thinking.

Also, please stand up and step back from the table and take an obective look at what you yourself are doing right this moment. You are using your conscious mind, ie your talking mind, to read my words. That is Conscious mind thinking.

But then you may finish the day and go to bed without again usung the Conscious mind at all. Millians of thoughts, of overmind thoughts.

The truth is that all these thousands of mental mechanisms work smoothly together in intimate cooperation.

Sorry but those experiments are flawed. As has been shown plenty of people don't move their mouths at all while thinking.

Myself included. Not sure what you were getting at here. I think we can call this "fact" false.

I think that there are, indeed, many other ways of thinking. My problem is that I don't have good names for these. Intuitve thinking, thinking by the overmind, aesthetic thinking, musculer control calculations, sight, hearing and feeling acivities etc are commonly used much more often, perhaps a million times more often than Conscious mind thinking. — Ken Edwards

I don't think it is particularly useful to attempt at distinguishing specific types of thinking, like this. I believe that if true boundaries between this or that type of thinking, cannot be found, then such imposed divisions may be more misleading than not. And, I believe that the tendency to make such distinctions emanates from psychology, then it compounds itself in neurology where theorists will attempt to prove certain parts of the brain are responsible for certain types of thinking, and things like that. But I believe there is far too much crossover, back and forth of neurological activity to allow such proposed divisions to provide a meaningful representation of thinking.

But, the coscious mind is not negligable. Consider. You might pause in your days activities to add up a grocery list with a pencil. That would be Conscious mind thinking. You might pause to make a telephone call. That would be Conscious mind thinking. You might pause to write a letter. That would be Conscious mind thinking. Your sister might come for a visit. You might hug each other. That would Not be Conscious mind thinking. Then you might converse. That would be Conscious mind thinking. — Ken Edwards

So I believe that even this fundamental division of conscious mind thinking, and non-conscious mind thinking, is a misleading division to make, fraught with problems. I believe that all thinking which you propose as "conscious mind thinking" has a huge component of non-conscious activity mixed throughout it. But since the non-conscious is not evident to the conscious mind, it gives the impression that we can make such a division. However, I think the conscious activity is just like the tip of the iceberg, and there is a vast amount of non-conscious activity going on, which is supporting a tiny amount of conscious activity. We could represented it like a pyramid, the base being non-conscious, with the point at the top being conscious. Since it is activity we are talking about, represented as a thing (the pyramid), there is continuous back and forth throughout this proposed "thing".

As conscious beings, we look from the top down, but the base is all hidden from us. So we propose a division. However, the division makes understanding the causality of the situation impossible. We want to understand the consciousness as being in control over the thinking, because this is how it seems intuitively, but the imposed division prevents the possibility of top down causation. We cannot consciously control the non-conscious, because we can't apprehend it. Then if we allow that causation is bottom up, from the non-conscious into the consciousness, we have no way to account for the reality of the influence of conscious decisions, and freely willed activity. Therefore it seems like the only representation which could be consistent with reality is a continuous back and forth between the two. But this renders the representation of such a division as misleading.

Hi darkness. Well, we have here a very trivial point. All I can say is this. I have read thousands of books in my long life and many of them have been books about psychology.

But I rarely read to learn. I usually read for pleasure. I read the Scientific American for pleasure like reading Tom Sawyer. I never take notes or anything. And all very random. So I can't begin to tell you where I read all this.

It is considered a fact among scientists of various disciplines that speech arrived first and foremost, in evolution, well before the conscious mind came along, because speech type electric brain circuitry had already been evolved millions of years earlier. Grunts, screams, growls etc. So when the conscious mind came along about a half million years ago, I seem to remember, it came along as an adjunct to speech which had gotten there first.

So that when words finally did come along and vocabulary storage facilities developed in the prefrontal lobes and people began talking it was only as one aspect of speaking.

As you know evolution never makes big jumps. It always makes changes as minor developments of things that were already there. I have been talking of the electric, mental, thinking circuits necessary to talking but many other things had to evolve as well. Lip muscles and tongue muscles and vocal cords had to enlarge their capacities. A modern mouth can make at least 40 different sounds. And, of course, wordless communication had long since existed, witness Indian sign language.

Scientist applied motion detecters to lips and tongues and vocal chords and observed that when guys thought in words tongue movements, sometimes just tiny little twitches, were invariably recorded but never registered with non word thinking, admiring a sunset or something.

You say: "But those experiments are flawed."Thousand of experiments on 5 continents over half a century are flawed ? Wow!

You say: "As has been shown plenty of people don't move their mouths at all while thinking. Not even a little bit." How do you know? A motion detector can be made so accurate that it would detect even a mouse's tongue movements.

I have received many comments similar to yours and those comments have provoked me into thinking about this stuff and guess what? A lot of of my present understanding of these matters has evolved thanks to you.

So thanks, just keep it up.
Ken Edwards

You say: there is far too much crossover, back and forth of neurological activity to allow such proposed divisions to provide a meaningful representation of thinking."

You are totally correct of course at least among mere philosophers. I intuit that these endlessly complicated neurological activities are actually being dealt with by Psychologists in complicated discussions and experiments including coining new vocabulary.

If that is so then: Good luck to them but it doesn't help us any.

You say: "I believe that all thinking which you propose as "conscious mind thinking" has a huge component of non-conscious activity mixed throughout it."

Again I agree. All of these Different mental functions are not different at all and are are intimately an intricately interconneted and, in fact are merely part of the vast over-mind

If you have a better word than my word "Over-mind" please tell me.

"However, I think the conscious activity is just like the tip of the iceberg, and there is a vast amount of non-conscious activity going on, which is supporting a tiny amount of conscious activity. We could represented it like a pyramid, the base being non-conscious, with the point at the top being conscious. Since it is activity we are talking about, represented as a thing (the pyramid), there is continuous back and forth throughout this proposed "thing".

Very well expressed. I applaud.

But I suspect we are going to have big problems with our buddies in this forum that might confuse the fact that we are forced to use only words with each other in these forums to mistakenly think that words are the do all and end all of thinking.

But now step back a moment and take a look at thee and me.

We are at this moment using our 2 vastly limited semantic minds with occasional flashes of intuition from the overmind and trying to do the impossible.

That we have progressed as far as we have with these pathetic tools I think is remarkable.

Congratulations!

Our contemporaries is this forum have been of some help but not very much. (I am probably mistaken here) so what happens next? If you have no ideas then I suggest we go out for some pizza. But I can't invite you. I don't what state you live in. Hell, I don't even know what Contenent you live in

Again, still wrong.

Pretty sure the conscious mind came first otherwise you wouldn't have language. I wouldn't put much stock in research put forth by psychology since half of it had to be thrown out due to reproducibility and from what I learned in psychology courses in college it's not the best indicator of how humans work or their minds. So many theories yet nothing truly conclusive.

"However, I think the conscious activity is just like the tip of the iceberg, and there is a vast amount of non-conscious activity going on, which is supporting a tiny amount of conscious activity. We could represented it like a pyramid, the base being non-conscious, with the point at the top being conscious. Since it is activity we are talking about, represented as a thing (the pyramid), there is continuous back and forth throughout this proposed "thing". — Ken Edwards

There isn't. The unconscious as we have found out turns out to not be some hidden brain but more just upkeep processes of the body.

Scientist applied motion detecters to lips and tongues and vocal chords and observed that when guys thought in words tongue movements, sometimes just tiny little twitches, were invariably recorded but never registered with non word thinking, admiring a sunset or something. — Ken Edwards

And yet you have many saying they don't including me so they're clearly doing something wrong. It's more likely the inability to keep the tongue still. I mean it's fairly tricky for humans to remain perfectly still even if they are sitting down. Their study had nothing to do with thinking and words.

But I guess psychology is desperate for something to publish since that blow it was dealt.