Even if you just listen to your thoughts, you are still having a one way conversation.

Can you see ideas and not dream?

Yes, you can. Thinking need not be worded thought.

I'm 86 and have talked, argued, debated with myself all my life. As a mathematician that internal dialogue goes on forever.

When I was a rock climber and free soloed unknown territory I was my own companion, reasoning with myself constantly. When things got dicey I imagined an invisible cord suspended from the heavens having me on "top-rope".

What human being does not converse with themselves?

Ok,

Thinking need not be worded thought. — I like sushi

Contemplation need not be worded? That had occured to me, but how are we supposed to discuss a lack of discussion? It's not that simple, surely? I can't see how a conclusion could be made from a nonworded contemplation to be honest. Thinking fast without worded contemplation has always seemed like an instictual behaviour to me. I'm not saying it's what I usually do, I'm saying the only form of nonworded contemplation I can imagine would tend to be pretty shortlived.

Even if you just listen to your thoughts, you are still having a one way conversation. — believenothing

The way you have expressed it confuses me. Are you saying (or asking if) there is a difference between the back and forth of internal dialogue?

Are you saying (or asking if) there is a difference between the back and forth of internal dialogue? — Paine

I'm not really asking about any difference there might be between the back and forth of internal dialogue, or at least that wasn't the primary intention. My main query was about what I would call 'alternative thinking methods'.

What human being does not converse with themselves? — jgill

I was under the impresion that worded contemplation is kind of normal but I was hoping that someone could explain a better method or instigate a debate about alternative forms.

I'm saying the only form of nonworded contemplation I can imagine would tend to be pretty shortlived. — believenothing

In my experience of contemplation, there always seems to be a narator who just can't keep quiet at least, that's if there isn't really a conversation going on.

Yes, you can. Thinking need not be worded thought. — I like sushi

Contemplation need not be worded? That had occured to me, but how are we supposed to discuss a lack of discussion? — believenothing

I agree with @I like sushi, although I guess it depends on what you mean by "contemplation." In my experience, most of my thinking, and just about all my creative thinking, takes place without words, although there is certainly a back and forth, with ideas generated without words and then modified and justified consciously. Other people have said they don't experience it that way.

We can think in images, but that is not abstract thinking. We can imagine generic objects and associate them with particulars with which they share morphological characteristics.

This is all in my head but I began to wander whether anyone else can really contemplate without a discussion - not even an internal one. — believenothing

Thinking need not be worded thought. — I like sushi

the back and forth of internal dialogue — Paine

ideas generated without words and then modified and justified consciously. — T Clark

We can think in images, but that is not abstract thinking. — Janus

Contemplation, worded thought, internal dialogue, modified and justified consciously, abstract thinking - we're using different words, is it clear we are all talking about the same thing?

Reflecting on my own experience I find I can think in images or I can 'hear' my thoughts as 'spoken' in English. I can only think things which can be visualized in images. I cannot visualize metaphysical speculations or things in themselves or Kant's Categorical Imperative. If I want to think about those kinds of more abstract subjects I need to talk to myself.

We can think in images, but that is not abstract thinking. — Janus

A thought experiment I've used and tested.. Ask someone if they can imagine a circle, if the answer is yes - and it usually is - then ask them to imagine a circle. Having done that, ask them what colour it is and whether it was that colour before you asked them or if it only became that colour after they thought about it..

In most cases when I've done this, the circle was a particular colour and it was that colour as soon as it was imagined but here's the strange thing.. When I imagine a shape it has no colour until I choose what colour it is. The shape and the colour are like two seperate things that I choose to combine. I rarely imagine anything with specific details, I'm usually asleep.

Can someone tell me why this thread has been removed from general philosophy and planted in the lounge??

I was thinking maybe it belongs in philosophy of mind, i wasn't sure, but I never thought it should live in the lounge.. "Can you really contemplate without having a conversation with yourself?" - it's a serious question.

I hope I'm not just talking to myself ;)

That's interesting; when I visualize a circle it's just a space enclosed by a line and has no colour.

I'm 86 and have talked, argued, debated with myself all my life. As a mathematician that internal dialogue goes on forever.

When I was a rock climber and free soloed unknown territory I was my own companion, reasoning with myself constantly. When things got dicey I imagined an invisible cord suspended from the heavens having me on "top-rope". — jgill

Goodness gracious! :sweat:

"Can you really contemplate without having a conversation with yourself?" — believenothing

Your thread is possibly in the Lounge because the answer is straightforward and obvious, unless you want us to equivocate around your terms toward a contradiction or a new question.

If all/any contemplation amounts to a kind of conversation of the self with the self (reflectivity), correlations between internal private phenomena and external public phenomena, can we converse with ourselves without ever contemplating within ourselves?

Imagine a hypothetical simulacra of a person who has no sense of interiority at all. From the outside you might conclude they are fully capable of conversing with themselves... but would they also be contemplating? Can there be thought without interiority? If so, why does interiority exist at all?

Can a computer capable of some "thought" have zero sense of interiority?

Imagine a hypothetical simulacra of a person who has no sense of interiority at all. From the outside you might conclude they are fully capable of conversing with themselves... but would they also be contemplating? Can there be thought without interiority? If so, why does interiority exist at all? — Nils Loc

You are stretching this thread into a more interesting discussion, being less ambiguous and posing better questions but I can't elaborate on my original question without wandering whether it should be a new thread..

Can a computer capable of some "thought" have zero sense of interiority? — Nils Loc

I do talk to bots now and then, trying to find exactly that - thought. I'll be honest with you, I forgot what equivocate means a long time ago. I'm disappointed that no one has responded to your comments as well.

@believenothing

I hope you're satisfied with the answers you got.

You might find the following article about global aphasia interesting. It is possible to lose the ability to understand or produce spoken or written language. These folks retain various cognitive capacities. They can still contemplate/imagine without the ability to talk to themselves. However, language may still play an important role in helping to develop these cognitive capacities in the first place.

Can we think without language?