Sure. I was just giving a thumb's up to the recognition of value in considering one's 'training set' shown by @Olento's post.

you are thinking when you are just speaking naturally and going with the flow. Are you not thinking in language? — Patterner

To be honest, I don't think I am when I am just talking naturally, which is how, I think, that I end up saying dumb s**t in public. But if I am thinking, it is at a very low level.

I have a vague memory from decades ago that a study was done that said people could not think easily when their vocal chords were numbed. Wish I could find that study. — Patterner

I don't doubt that study exists. Not only that, but I recall reading a few years ago that most people read by subvocalising, and by managing to stop the subvocalisation you can read much faster.

I recall reading a few years ago that most people read by subvocalising, and by managing to stop the subvocalisation you can read much faster. — Lionino

Wow! What an idea! I'm a very slow reader, so I need to try that.

"I promise to fetch water for you if you give me some of that haunch" — Banno

Lady Killer on the make.

When the self has a thought, the content of the thought gets conveyed to the self having the thought. — ucarr

Conveyed….from where?

Given that there is no such thing as an empty thought, it follows necessarily that when a self has a thought, it must be that the content does not get conveyed to the self, but arises from the self in conjunction with the thought the self has.

The assertion, then, reduces to either the conveyance, not of the content, but of the thought itself, to the self that has the thought, a contradiction, or, there is nothing whatsoever conveyed to the self regarding thought and its content, that doesn’t already reside therein, such that, ipso facto, thought is possible.

Not to say there isn’t something conveyed to the self, as something must be in order to justify his experience. It just isn’t thought or its content.

Given that there is no such thing as an empty thought, it follows necessarily that when a self has a thought, it must be that the content does not get conveyed to the self, but arises from the self in conjunction with the thought the self has. — Mww

Is there any differential in space and time separating the self and its thoughts? I ask this question for two reasons: a) a thought is about the judgment of the self in reaction to a perception of the world; judgement implies a separation of judge from judged; b) a judging self is self-aware in its acts of judgment and self-awareness requires a separation of self not only from world but also from self; if there is no separation of self from self, then there is no self-awareness and thus absent self-awareness absent self.

This structure of thought as being inherently self-referential raises an important question: can thought occur without communication? — ucarr

Are you denying a supposed self-referentiality of thought? This question is central to the gist of my thesis because it focuses upon the structure of thought as an interconnectivity with communication throughout the interconnectivity an essential attribute.

Since you say:

...it must be that the content does not get conveyed to the self, but arises from the self in conjunction with the thought the self has. — Mww

I say:

As to the structure of a thought as a judgment arisen from its content as the existential ground of the judgment, this inter-communitive relationship I posit as the central module of perception, thought, communication and language.

we coordinate behaviour by communicating. — Banno

:100:

Is there any differential in space and time separating the self and its thoughts? — ucarr

There isn’t any space in a thought, and if the self just is that which has thoughts, one is temporally inseparable from the other.
————-

….a) a thought is about the judgment of the self in reaction to a perception of the world — ucarr

I don’t think of judgement like that. The self judges, so it can’t be that the self is judged. Using your terms, I’d only admit to judgement as being the self’s manifest reaction to a perception.

…..b) a judging self is self-aware in its acts of judgment….. — ucarr

Tautologically true, but congruent with every other aspect of what the subject does….

…..and self-awareness requires a separation of self (…) from self….. — ucarr

I personally don’t agree with that; I find it a mischaracterization of self, in its irreducible sense. Self-awareness is redundant. Awareness presupposes self, and, self is necessarily that which is aware.

…..if there is no separation of self from self…. — ucarr

I wonder how that can even happen. By what mechanism can a singular identity become detached? If self separates from self, what then becomes of self-awareness?
————-

this inter-communitive relationship — ucarr

Thought and judgement, because they are related to each other….communicate? Why can’t they just be specific components integrated into a particular process? It’s like saying the water communicates with the soil in which the plant grows.

Anyway, it’s become too psychological for my interests, so, thanks for the alternative perspective.

...it’s [our dialogue] become too psychological for my interests, so, thanks for the alternative perspective. — Mww

You've let me know you won't dialogue with me further. Okay. I'm posting the following responses for the record; I try to always respond to counter-narratives.

There isn’t any space in a thought, and if the self just is that which has thoughts, one is temporally inseparable from the other. — Mww

I think brain activity occurs in spacetime. Also, when someone thinks, they know they're thinking. The knowing person is not identical to his/her thoughts being examined, otherwise the knowing person couldn't do the evaluation.

The self judges, so it can’t be that the self is judged. — Mww

Guilt is an everyday example of the self judging its own actions and finding fault with itself.

…..b) a judging self is self-aware in its acts of judgment….. — ucarr

Tautologically true, but congruent with every other aspect of what the subject does…. — Mww

When a person drives a car, he/she monitors his/her judgments about time and distance in order to begin breaking in order to avoid hitting the car in front. Knowing you're stopping the car in time to avoid a collision is not circular reasoning.

…..and self-awareness requires a separation of self (…) from self….. — ucarr

I find it a mischaracterization of self, in its irreducible sense. — Mww

The gist of my thesis is that the self is not reducible to a unitary person.

Self-awareness is redundant. Awareness presupposes self, and, self is necessarily that which is aware. — Mww

You seem to be implying self cannot be objectively aware of self. Have you never primped in front of a mirror before making a public address?

If self separates from self, what then becomes of self-awareness? — Mww

Consider an imaginary experience of internal conflict: both of your divorced parents invite you to Christmas dinner and you're torn between visiting one or the other household.

Thought and judgement, because they are related to each other….communicate? — Mww

You're trying to persuade your significant other to join you at the resort lodge for skiing. At one point during your pitch, the other person frowns. In your mind's eye you think: "I pressed too hard on my point about them owing me for favors done on their behalf. I'd better back off a bit."

I hope you realise I rejected that view.

I think brain activity occurs in spacetime. — ucarr

Of course, but we weren’t discussing brain activity. If you wish to go there, you’re obligated to connect the self and its activities, a predominantly metaphysical paradigm, to the brain and its activities, a predominately scientific paradigm, with apodeitic specificity. That the self is impossible without the brain is given, but is at the same time far to general a proposition to be of any explanatory help.
————

Guilt is an everyday example of the self judging its own actions and finding fault with itself. — ucarr

Such is the superficial appearance, but I disagree that the self is finding fault with itself. It is actually the self finding fault with an act a posteriori, as effect, but not necessarily with its antecedent judgement by which the act is determined a priori, as cause.
—————

The gist of my thesis is that the self is not reducible to a unitary person. — ucarr

I, on the other hand, hold the self is reducible to a unitary, or singular, rational identity.
—————

You seem to be implying self cannot be objectively aware of self. — ucarr

I’m familiar with arguments in which the self is both subject and object. This happens only in expositions of it, wherein what the self is in itself as object, is confounded with the manifestations of the self’s doings as subject. In other words, the self is necessarily reified when attempting to explain itself. Which gives rise to the inevitable absurdity of the self reifying itself. Still, conceptions, intuitions, morals, thoughts, subjects and objects and whatnot, are all required pursuant to expressions of the human kind of intelligence, but the self doesn’t use any of them to do what it does, except to manifest itself as subject.

So, yes, I submit the self not only isn’t aware of itself objectively, but is absurd to suppose it needs to be. In fact, I reject the notion that the self is aware of itself subjectively, hence the redundancy, while merely granting the availability of some mechanism by which it seems to be the case.

Language is not about sharing information so much as coordinating behaviour. — Banno

i.e. communicating (à la synchronizing), no?

I didn't get that from your post. In any case socially "coordinating behavior" (i.e. communication^^) – such as observed in other primate groupings as well as described in, for instance, Wittys proposal of socially acquired language-gaming – seems more reasonable than not to assume is the why of language use and not only, or reductively, the what-for of it.

^^e.g.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_pragmatics

...we weren’t discussing brain activity. — Mww

You think thought and communication are divorced from brain activity?

That the self is impossible without the brain is given, but is at the same time far to general a proposition to be of any explanatory help. — Mww

Have you read the book linked below?

Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter

It is actually the self finding fault with an act a posteriori, as effect, but not necessarily with its antecedent judgement by which the act is determined a priori, as cause. — Mww

How do you reconcile your above with your below?

The assertion, then, reduces to either the conveyance, not of the content, but of the thought itself, to the self that has the thought, a contradiction, or, there is nothing whatsoever conveyed to the self regarding thought and its content, that doesn’t already reside therein, such that, ipso facto, thought is possible. — Mww

I, on the other hand, hold the self is reducible to a unitary, or singular, rational identity. — Mww

So at twenty years a memory-bearing person is just the same as that memory-bearing person at five years?

I’m familiar with arguments in which the self is both subject and object. This happens only in expositions of it, wherein what the self is in itself as object, is confounded with the manifestations of the self’s doings as subject. In other words, the self is necessarily reified when attempting to explain itself. Which gives rise to the inevitable absurdity of the self reifying itself. Still, conceptions, intuitions, morals, thoughts, subjects and objects and whatnot, are all required pursuant to expressions of the human kind of intelligence, but the self doesn’t use any of them to do what it does, except to manifest itself as subject. — Mww

How is your propositional content within your above paragraph possible -- especially through the noumenal section -- without your intentional and thoroughly functional reification?

So, yes, I submit the self not only isn’t aware of itself objectively, but is absurd to suppose it needs to be. In fact, I reject the notion that the self is aware of itself subjectively, hence the redundancy, while merely granting the availability of some mechanism by which it seems to be the case. — Mww

Reflexivity and redundancy are not synonymous.

Since you're a brain in a vat -- self-cognitively speaking -- spending the rest of your days in solitary confinement within a white room would be for you a matter of indifference.

You think thought and communication are divorced from brain activity? — ucarr

Did I not say that brain activity, relative to the self, is given?

….the noumenal section…. — ucarr

The…what????

Reflexivity and redundancy are not synonymous. — ucarr

Your reflexivity is my reciprocity, and no, they are not synonymous with redundancy.

spending the rest of your days in solitary confinement within a white room would be for you a matter of indifference. — ucarr

Yep. Why not? Euphemistic escape: the white room is of my own design, laying in the dark, where the shadows run, not from themselves, but from me, because they are mine. You, being just as human as I, inhabit your own white room, in which you will be confined for the rest of your days.

Riddles, cleverly disguised as clandestine aphorisms, don’t interest me, although their construction is kinda fun. I mean, really…how can there be shadows, running or not, in a dark room. And if you’re laying in the dark, what does it matter if the room is white? Peter Brown needed his head examined. Or maybe just laid off the windowpane.