Although I am also a visual artist, I cannot see internal images; meaning I cannot invoke a picture of anything like a photograph and examine it like I would a photograph. — Janus

I found this bit of the article I linked particularly interesting:

She explains that deaf people tend to experience the inner voice visually. “They don’t hear the inner voice, but can produce inner language by visualising hand signs, or seeing lip movements,” Loevenbruck says. “It just looks like hand signing really,” agrees Dr Giordon Stark, a 31-year-old researcher from Santa Cruz. Stark is deaf, and communicates using sign language.


His inner voice is a pair of hands signing words, in his brain. “The hands aren’t usually connected to anything,” Stark says. “Once in a while, I see a face.” If Stark needs to remind himself to buy milk, he signs the word “milk” in his brain. Stark didn’t always see his inner voice: he only learned sign language seven years ago (before then, he used oral methods of communication). “I heard my inner voice before then,” he says. “It sounded like a voice that wasn’t mine, or particularly clear to me.”

:up: We are very adaptable...and diverse...it seems.

I do not believe you. You can read therefore you can think in words.

[...] and we agree on most. Word-forms are meaningless until people associate them with meaning. But this, to me, means that people are meaningful, not the word-forms. People convey the meaning, and stand ready to supply it should they come across word-forms they understand. — NOS4A2

By my appraisal, we so far seem to agree in full. If you care to further this:

As with ideas universal to a populace - such as that of a circle - words (by which I mean word-forms + their associated meaning) embedded within a particular language exist independently of individual minds, although being simultaneously dependent on all minds which hold understanding for the given word(s). They are not intra-subjective realities/actualities - such that they perish together with the individual mind that apprehends them (as would personal memories of, for example, some sentiment experienced during a certain time in childhood). They are instead fully intersubjective, pertaining to all within a certain populace while not being dependent on the individual mind of any within said populace.

So, any particular word is such due to the meaning all people in a community deem it to have - a meaning which children learn to assimilate into their own mind/being via trial and error. But the word will continue to persist unaltered with the passing away of any one individual mind within the populous which speaks the particular language in which the word is understood. Given enough time wherein babes assimilate the words of their born-to language and in which mature minds of the language community pass way, the words will themselves often enough change - in both word-form and in meaning. This can be exemplified by the reading of Beowulf in its original form (preferably, maybe, with an adjacent modern English translation).

Hence, like the reality of a circle as idea, words will all be mind-dependent but not dependent on individual minds. Unlike the idea of a circle, however, given enough time, words can change - again in both word-form and meaning - with the passing of generations; whereas the idea of a circle gives all indications of being unchangeable regardless of time-span and number of generations.

Summarizing this via different terminology, each word will then present itself as a far more plastic (or else dynamic) and as a far less ubiquitous universal than the universal of, for example, the idea of a circle, the latter giving all indication of being perfectly static across time as well as perfectly ubiquitous to all beings across the cosmos which are able to engage in sufficient abstractions. Notwithstanding, each word would thereby yet be a type of universal strictly relative to the language speakers concerned: dependent on all of their/our minds while being dependent on no one particular mind in question.

Then, going back to ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, once we deciphered them via the Rosetta Stone, we then grasped the words - else expressed, the language-specific universals of that culture - which hieroglyphs as word-forms likely conveyed by comparing, assimilating, and translating them with the language-specific universals of our own language(s) - which we convey via our modern word-forms.

Hey, throwing this out there for debate and critique, what else.

I don't look at 'internal discourse' as an excess of an activity. — Paine

I don't either. I just don't have it all the time. It's not a judgement, it's just the way my consciousness is. I wasn't aware of it until I met someone who had an internal voice all the time. It's through contrast that things come into awareness.

I cannot believe words transport meaning from A to B because I have not been able to witness this occur. — NOS4A2

You repeatedly witness what you deny you witness. When you profess not to believe that words transport meaning you mean something by that and hope to convey that meaning. When you are told you are wrong you get the message and respond with words. But not randomly with just any words. You cannot make arguments you hope will convince others if any mark or sound is just as effective or ineffective as any other.

You attempt to persuade others that:

not a single person can be affected by a word — NOS4A2

and by saying so you hope to do the very thing you deny can be done.

How would you characterize what happens in your head when you think? Like whenn trying to solve a problen?

How would you characterize what happens in your head when you think? Like whenn trying to solve a problen? — Apustimelogist

Since people are different, I’m here speaking only for myself. I’ve been this way (without an inner voice) in periods of my adult life. One appraises, judges, compares, and decides upon (etc.) concepts with an active cognizance of what the concept(s) at issue are—this in manners fully devoid of what maybe could be expressed as the phenomenal aspects of words, aka word-forms—i.e., devoid of the imaginary sounds that are not apprehended via physiological senses—but strictly consisting of meanings, or else the content of concepts (rather than their labels).

To emphasize, not to in any way equate any human to lesser animals, but lesser animals do not hold any language (in the sense of grammatically ordered words) and can yet arrive at Eureka moments of great ingenuity after being presented with puzzles. Needless to add, all of this thinking/cogitating about and discovering of solutions for them always occurs sans language and, hence, sans any internal voice. Included is one video to this effect after a quick scan on youtube (great apes can also do some astounding things requiring puzzle solving and hence abstract thought, thought which is again languageless).

All humans have far greater abilities of abstraction that any lesser animal. So to me it’s in no way bizarre that some humans can engage in very complex, abstract thought without in any way making use of an internal voice. From this vantage, the internal voice of thought could be viewed as a type of cognitive crutch that assists in going from one state of mind to another—such that the crutch is not necessary, at least not in principle. In many ways akin to discerning quantities without counting via use of words.

Don’t want to be overly vulgar in this, but think of the act of sex; some have a hard time with it unless they talk throughout; others might deem the sensual intensity of the experience to be unpleasantly diminished via constant verbalizations of the emotions and thoughts experienced (or were their inner voice to be active during the activity). Same rough parallel, I think, could be made to the variety of ways in which people think.

but strictly consisting of meanings, or else the content of concepts (rather than their labels). — javra

Would you say these are like specific experiences? With phenomena? Its strange because I don't think I can express meanings without words so it is not clear to me what active cognizance of wordless meaning could be like in the moment.

Would you say these are like specific experiences? With phenomena? Its strange because I don't think I can express meanings without words so it is not clear to me what active cognizance of wordless meaning could be like in the moment. — Apustimelogist

Well, they're most definitely experienced. "Phenomena" technically translates into appearances perceivable through the physiological senses. In this sense, then, they are devoid of phenomena. Also, the meanings are not expressed to oneself but, instead, directly dealt with.

A different way of expressing it, this via words of course, is that it deals with appraising, manipulating, and deciding upon understandings.

I imagine that most can discern two dots on a blank page without needing to count them. Here, then, one understands the quantity involved without the need to use words. Then, were there to be two circles, one with two dots and one with three dots, a person could discern that the circle with three dots contains a greater quantity of dots simply via the faculty of understanding. This without a need to use words in the thought process. One can of course use words to count the dots ("one", "two", "three") but this in a sense slows down the process of discerning - as I was previously saying, being a kind of cognitive crutch in the process of thought.

Differently exemplified, the word "animal" evokes a fairly complex abstraction which is understood. Mammals, insects, lizards, fish, birds, these are all types of animals, while trees, and mushrooms, and rocks are not. The understanding of what "animal" conveys is grasped without the use of words by adults - else a thorough verbal listing of all concrete types of this abstraction would be required in addition to a verbalized categorization of what concrete types fit into what subcategories (cat is a type of feline which is a type of mammal which is a type of animal). As with discerning and contrasting quantities, a person could then discern the meaning/abstraction/understanding of what via words is expressed as "animal" - as well as the various types this category contains - without the use of words. So doing being wordless thoughts. As with counting by use of words being a kind of crutch in discerning quantities, so too can be said of using one's inner voice to now express the word "animal" to oneself so as to address the concept which the word is understood to convey.

Don't know if I could express it much better than this, but I find that words are only the very tip of an otherwise massive iceberg. Words (or, maybe better yet, what in this thread has been termed "word-forms") are appearances and, in this sense, phenomenal, whereas the iceberg beneath the waters consists of meaning which cannot be perceived, neither via the physiological senses nor via imaginings of one's mind. Even when one thinks via one's inner voice, one is still using word-forms to appraise, manipulate, and decide upon the icebergs beneath the waters - so to speak via a limited analogy.

Yes, I can hear or 'hear' my verbal thoughts sometimes. I do hear voices that seem not to be the main part of me. Sometimes it can, for example, be a critical voice. I understand that voice may not seem possible since sound is not bouncing around in my brain, but then lights are not flashing around in my brain and I can certainly see images with my eyes closed, and these happen also when my eyes are open but are not what I am seeing externally. The brain can create sounds or if we want 'sounds' just as it creates images.

So, so far I am describing thinking in words that can have a (very muted) auditory or 'auditory' aspect. I generally identify with these. That's me working away on something. And also I can hear or 'hear' words/sentences sometimes that seem, for example, to be addressing me, even with my own name.
For example, just as I might out loud say something like 'You're such an idiot, John.' I can have a similar thought arise, within me. I don't experience doing this second kind of thought, though generally I consider it a part of me. IOW I don't experience the agency aspect of this second kind of thought voice.

These are not, by the way auditory hallucinations. I have a lot of experience with meditation, phenomenology of mind-type research, and introspection, so I think I actually notice these very rapid often quite subtle phenomena, where others might not.

I also mull/contemplate/think a lot without words and I think this gives me a contrast to notice these things.

I suspect that many people if they slowed down would hear or 'hear' these things also.

I hope I've understood the OP correctly and am topic. I could go from there to respond to the more philosophical end of the OP, but I think that's a focused start.

Yes, I assume others can read what I write. Yes, I hope to convey what I’m thinking to others. But sometimes they don’t understand the words in the same way. We quibble about what a word means, for example. Why is that?

The reasons our understanding of a word rarely aligns is because I meaning something is not the same as the words meaning something. I am conveying meaning; you are conveying meaning; the words are not.

People and words are two entirely different types of beings. One has power, conveys meaning, thinks, speaks, writes, reads—the other is just the fleeting echoes of this being and His activity. In the case of the spoken word, the words dissipate with the sound wave. Text lingers much longer, as much as any other mark on that medium, but it has not been shown to be endowed with some invisible and magical property called “meaning”. Your inconsistent wavering between the two beings as the conveyor of meaning may satisfy your own understanding, but I cannot get past it. I start to trip up on your words the moment I see them. Maybe to you it comes naturally. My assertions appear to you nonsense, perhaps rightfully so. But in every single case not a single ounce of meaning has jumped from me to you or vice versa, and our disagreements, misunderstandings, fallacies etc. are only further evidence of this.

You are reading the words. You follow the sentences with your eyes, left to right, top to bottom, according to your understanding, and endow them with your own meaning and at your own leisure. They are not doing anything to you. You are doing things to them. And the idea that meaning exists between or external to the beings who mean is fatuous piffle.

But sometimes they don’t understand the words in the same way. — NOS4A2

This is quite different from your claim that:

I cannot believe words transport meaning from A to B because I have not been able to witness this occur. No one has. No one has looked at a symbol and seen anything called “meaning”. — NOS4A2

If sometimes there is misunderstanding then sometimes there is understanding.

The reasons our understanding of a word rarely aligns is because I meaning something is not the same as the words meaning something. — NOS4A2

As Alice was told:

Say what you mean or mean what you say.

Now you, like Alice, might think that they say or mean the same thing. They don't. If you fail to understand the difference that is not the fault of the words.

One has power, conveys meaning, thinks, speaks, writes, reads—the other is just the fleeting echoes of this being and His activity. — NOS4A2

Once again, one way in which one conveys meaning, and here on this forum the primary way, is with WORDS.

Your inconsistent wavering between the two beings as the conveyor of meaning may satisfy your own understanding, but I cannot get past it. — NOS4A2

There is no inconsistency or wavering. The one conveys meaning via the other. Without words one's power to convey meaning is greatly diminished.

You follow the sentences with your eyes, left to right, top to bottom, according to your understanding, and endow them with your own meaning and at your own leisure. — NOS4A2

This is simply wrong. First, when reading English is do not read left to right and top to bottom according to my understanding. I read them this way because that is the way English is written. It is a convention that I was taught. Second, I do not endow sentences with meaning. Although I am free to give sentences any meaning I wish, that is not the way language works.

And the idea that meaning exists between or external to the beings who mean is fatuous piffle. — NOS4A2

If we endow meaning, then I might endow 'fatuous piffle' with the meaning 'exactly right'.

I didn't know it had a technical usage. What I mean is the form of the word, like the sound or scribble it takes. Maybe a sign? — NOS4A2

Yes, that's a way communication can misfire; we have different "internal dictionaries". My first, intuitive, reading of the thread title took "word-forms" as meaning grammatical variations of a word, such as case or number, or tense. That didn't make much sense so I half-arrived at the intended meaning before clicking the thread title. So that particular difference in meaning simply caused an initial hiccup, but no major lasting problem (or so I think).

I don't think in words, either, but I do think with words. It's difficult to explain. I can think words, but I don't bother with the sounds. If anything, I think the production-part of my brain may be active? (I fancy sometimes my tongue twitches, or my throat tightens, but it's barely noticable, and I'm really not sure.) I think there are two main uses I have for language: first, in more complex thoughts I might use words as memory crutches, whether they fully express what I'm thinking or not. Second it's a form of projection of a social situation: how can I make myself understood? A form of rehearsal. And third, there's an aesthetic aspect to it; I just like words so I sometimes formulate stuff in my head, the way I would write a short story or a poem.

Obviously, when I'm reading words are involved, but how? I'm not really sure. I certainly not having them in my head as sound, as I'm reading more quickly than I would be able to speak. Also, I'm reading a lot on the train, and sometimes I catch myself reading but listening to conversations at the same time, and I find I have no idea what I've been reading - that is I've taken in the words but not their meanings. In that case, I usually go back until I find a paragraph I remember reading, and I start "reading aloud" in my head. That's really hard to describe; I both read as a normally would, but I'm also hyper-aware of the words as they would sound . Crucially, this actually makes it harder to understand the text, but the point of the excersise is to block out words I'm hearing and to focus on what's written; eventually, I just stop this "reading aloud in my head" thing and just read normally - faster, and with less comprehension trouble.

When I'm typing a post like this, what mean to say and what I think I might end up saying is never quite the same. I'm always sort of uncomfortable with my words. They always only feel like approximations of what I'm really thinking, and they also feel... sort of rigid, while the real thinking is more of a flow. But words do have cognitive function: they can... lead me down I direction I don't actually want to go. I've often developed an argument, only to find that at some point I've become alienated from what I'm now saying. This happens when writing posts, too, which is why I type up more of them than I end up posting.

Basically, when I'm thinking words they're neither sounds nor letters; they're just somehow in my head. I have this idea that vestigal jaw-tongue-throat movements might be involved, though I'm not sure. Also, thoughts that I've already formulated I often feel a little alienated from. The more complex the thought the more likely and the more intense the alienation. I have a strong urge not to post this reply, because I partly think it's all nonsense (but there's still something in it somewhere that I think I want to say). But for once, I think that very confusion is sort-of on topic, so I force myself to click "Post comment". If you've been reading this, I have.

I have a strong urge not to post this reply, because I partly think it's all nonsense (but there's still something in it somewhere that I think I want to say). But for once, I think that very confusion is sort-of on topic, so I force myself to click "Post comment". If you've been reading this, I have. — Dawnstorm

I appreciate your effort to verbalize this, and I'm glad you did post because I find this sort of stuff fascinating.

What meaning have I conveyed with this word?

Might those not be words, then? Might they be something else?

Thanks for sharing.

Perhaps it’s time we gravitated away from the metaphors, for instance “hear”, and focused on the actual. When it comes to the philosophy of mind and language it’s littered with figurative and almost superstitious language, and is largely speaker-centric.

The basic question is this: are words more than their word-form? — NOS4A2

I am not sure what exactly is meant by that, but maybe you are hinting at the type-token distinction? For which I recommend reading https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/

Also, as a point of curiosity, if you don't have an inner monologue, how do you think? Typically people without an inner monologue also can't produce images in their mind's eyes, ¿is that your case too?

Might those not be words, then? Might they be something else? — NOS4A2

I'm not sure what "those" refers to. My post is definitely full of words.

You mentioned that when you think with words they're neither sounds nor letters; they're just somehow in your head. Might those not be words, then?

I just think. I don’t hear any voices. Perhaps I could describe what it feels like but I have no sort of auditory or visual hallucinations.

Right, but when, for example, you need to estimate in your head how many meters of fence you will use to cover a space in your yard, how do you go about that?

Well what we hear from the outside is heard by us in the auditory centers of the brain. So the actual experience of the sound is not sound bouncing around in the skull. These other things I hear, I think, are neuronal processes from other parts of the brain stimulating the same centers without outside stimulation of the inner ear. But in the end sounds with outside origins in the causal chain and sounds from the inside end up as non-sounds which we hear or 'hear'.

When it comes to the philosophy of mind and language it’s littered with figurative and almost superstitious language, and is largely speaker-centric. — NOS4A2

Given...

1. The complexity of our brains and the physical processes occurring therein.
2. The idiosyncratic differences between each of our brains. (Differences in biological factors and in experiences resulting in learning)
3. Our level of technology being well below what would be needed to get a remotely comprehensive 'picture' of what is going on in our brains.

...I don't see how it could be otherwise.

Still, there is progress. A huge amount has been learned over the decades I've been considering the topic and the pace of that learning has been accelerating as old guesses get replaced with new, better educated, guesses.

Perhaps it’s time we gravitated away from the metaphors, for instance “hear”, and focused on the actual. — NOS4A2

Good luck with that. I can recommend getting some education in electrical engineering, as an aid to trying to wrap one's head around the subject.

For engineering and building purposes I usually use a pen and paper and a measuring tape.

What meaning have I conveyed with this word? — NOS4A2

What you have conveyed is your real or feigned lack of understanding how words work. Once again, you have confused words and the form they might take in a particular language.

If it is a word, and if I knew the language, I might know or figure out by context or look it up or ask someone who did know the language what it means.

You mentioned that when you think with words they're neither sounds nor letters; they're just somehow in your head. Might those not be words, then? — NOS4A2

Ah, I see what you were referring to now. I think of those "things" as words. I mean if I recognise the word cat when spoken as the same word when written, I must have something inside of my head that triggers with either stimulus. So I'm just retrieving whatever is triggered, without it being triggered, and without me bothering to decide (either consciously or unconciously) whether that thing's supposed to be heard or seen. Straight to the source. It makes sense to me to think of this as a word.

Also, if I'm right, I associate that "word" with activity of the speech apparatus instead; which would make sense to me, since I'm producing it, and not recieving any input. So if I'm right about this it's not "naked word"; and if I'm wrong about this it is a naked word.

If what I'm thinking of is not a "word", then what is it instead? And how should I make sense of it?

***

Curious: if you think of words as just their form, then what about sentences like this:

Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.

"Flies" occurs two times in the above, and so does "like". The forms (as in the visual stimuli) are the same. Is "like" one word used in different ways?

That’s a word. What meaning has it conveyed? If it hasn’t conveyed any meaning to you, it’s because it doesn’t convey meaning.

What meaning has it conveyed? — NOS4A2

If you read my words and are capable of understanding you will find the answer. If you are not capable, that is not the fault of the words. Unlike that word, my words are in English.