Notices

View Poll Results: Do you mentally verbalize?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    23 100.00%
  • No

    0 0%
Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: So why do we talk things out in our own head?

  1. #1 So why do we talk things out in our own head? 
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    I assume it's not just me, but I was wondering why people talk things out in their mind (as in spoken words) instead of just spiting out actions. I know for myself sleep appears to play a factor in just how verbal I am in my own head. Fortunately I don't answer myself or have a 3rd person point of view.

    It almost appears that our thought process is somewhat limited to a language barrier. I sometimes find visualizing an idea will result in faster results then trying to "talk" my way through it. Speed readers from what I understand learn to not speak to themselves as they read, something I've not really mastered. One has to wonder if the rate a culture can develop has anything to do with the language they speak. Do different people in different professions internally verbalize to different degrees?

    It's all just kind of weird.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    133
    Inner monologue, the technical term for Internal verbalization, is built in to each and every person. I do not understand how this works, nor will I pretend I do. But I assume it is there to be our concious-self.

    You said you have a hard time with an idea if you do not have words for it. This was actually a very big issue in psychology for many years. I forgot the names of the psychologist's involved, but one's theory stated that:
    "if we do not posess the language to express a thought, we can not have that thought."
    The other theory uses a culture in New Guinea (?), who only have two words for color, "light" and "dark". However they are still able to see and visualize the entire color spectrum. This was used to disprove the first theory stated.

    Inner monologue is heavily used to help us role-play. We act out situations in our head, if they ever come up, we now have a construct on how to manage them. In this manner, inner monologue reduces spontanaeity and leaves us with predictable behavior. Inner monologue is also how our dreams occur. Inner monologue is a very important part of all of us. I do not know if we would be able to survive without it, because we would not be able to communicate our feelings and thoughts to ourselves to process.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Very interesting. I actually just tried an experiment of reading while playing back a song I like in my head, I was able to voice over the music, kind of weird and I can't say I've tried it before. It would be good to explore a bit more in order to get a more multitasking self. I'm one who's all for self modification. I gained control of my dreams years ago and now can dream what I want when I want, and never wake up because of a dream. I also dream in full color. I've heard some people dream in black and white. Now if I can just learn to not let stupid drivers upset me.

    What about visual thought where you take an idea and convert it into a picture or 3D model. I've always been able to "build" pretty much anything in my mind without a single word spoken, I have to wonder what research has been done on this area. I find this method often allows me to solve complex problems sometimes without even being aware I'm doing so, I'm sure other do the same, they come up with a snap answer that was never verbalized or walked through in their head.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Very interesting. I actually just tried an experiment of reading while playing back a song I like in my head, I was able to voice over the music, kind of weird and I can't say I've tried it before. It would be good to explore a bit more in order to get a more multitasking self. I'm one who's all for self modification. I gained control of my dreams years ago and now can dream what I want when I want, and never wake up because of a dream. I also dream in full color. I've heard some people dream in black and white. Now if I can just learn to not let stupid drivers upset me.

    What about visual thought where you take an idea and convert it into a picture or 3D model. I've always been able to "build" pretty much anything in my mind without a single word spoken, I have to wonder what research has been done on this area. I find this method often allows me to solve complex problems sometimes without even being aware I'm doing so, I'm sure other do the same, they come up with a snap answer that was never verbalized or walked through in their head.
    I remember a few psychologists who wrote about it. They described creating a mansion, in which to keep all the memories. In a sense, archiving one's memories, and remembering them is creating a picture or a 3D model. Also, if you are able to create a lucid dream, why not create your models there .

    Inner monologue. One of the most interesting parts of psychology to be sure, as it is also one of the most mystifying sides. For some reason the ability to reason has led to quite some religious and scientific controversy. After all, how can a brain, matter, create something as complex and surreal as a thought? Personally, I believe that all the processes in our mind are engineered by the brain.

    As mentioned before, they are intented (potraying it as a biological function) to analyse thing, to process them. No language? I do believe that would be the truth, but a person without a languauge would create a language, and would still be able to describe things in a 'literal' sense. Colours, images are a whole different matter. Personally, I feel that if someone had never seen the color blue, he would not be able to imagine blue. However, if he ever saw a tree, and linked it in his mind to the word 'Boo', I believe it is very likely that after a few generations someone will discover gravity by an apple falling down. If someone does not posses a language, they will create it. I love that 1984 quote, yet I do not believe it to be correct.

    Why do we possess inner monologue? Personally, I believe we exist on this world to ensure our own survival, and that of our species. I believe this behaviour has been programmed into us genetically, according to Darwin's law (a species with basic survival-instincts will statistically survive a species without, if this is unclear, I will describe Darwin more detailed).
    I believe that every behaviour, including our inner monologue (I classify it as behaviour also, along with heart-beat and breathing rhytms and the like) is intented to improve our survival and the survival of the species.

    In our behaviour, I believe, lies the root of survival: The Alpha-male (the dominant male) will get most females, and will thus, statistically, have the largest off-spring. Thus, if that dominant male has genetical advantages, he will spread them more than a non-dominant male.

    From this I deduct that we do not have a Wille zur Macht as Nietzsche claimed, but rather a will to become the dominant male in a group, and have as much offspring as possible. I also believe, however, that our behaviour is not that easily classified as it is for a tiger.

    If a person picks up the phone, it can not be as easily deduced as when a tiger hunts for a prey. I believe that the core of the behaviour, and the original cause is the same, however. How do people define success in life?

    Do not fall to easily for being happy. Many people will say that money does not make happy, but rather love. Both cases, however, are elementary in a life. Without money, no food, without love, no off-spring. Finding a job, acquiring food, acquiring territory, acquiring a female, protecting her, creating offspring, protecting them; I believe them to be the primary drifts and the primary causes for human behaviour.

    Inner monologue, I believe, is simply a result of such behaviour. To be able to properly respond to our environment and to survive, we need to be able to adapt to it. Inner monologue was, through Darwin's law, born.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    2112
    Guest
    I have thought before about this. About how if I spoke Portugese as a first language, would I think in Portugese? Yes, I probably would, because most of the time I hear English in my mind.

    I also watched a show about the human child (can't remember the name of it) on the Discovery Channel a few months ago. They measured babies brainwaves while playing tapes of their native language and then a foreign language. The outcome was that newborn babies are more comfortable when hearing the native language of their parents than the foreign language. But it went further, to play tapes of the inflections in the native and foreign languages, and the results were the same. I guess we're programmed from the time we're in utero to learn the language our parents speak. It is as if we begin to learn our language before we're even born.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by 2112
    I have thought before about this. About how if I spoke Portugese as a first language, would I think in Portugese? Yes, I probably would, because most of the time I hear English in my mind.

    I also watched a show about the human child (can't remember the name of it) on the Discovery Channel a few months ago. They measured babies brainwaves while playing tapes of their native language and then a foreign language. The outcome was that newborn babies are more comfortable when hearing the native language of their parents than the foreign language. But it went further, to play tapes of the inflections in the native and foreign languages, and the results were the same. I guess we're programmed from the time we're in utero to learn the language our parents speak. It is as if we begin to learn our language before we're even born.
    I do not suppose that is impossible. After all, the child is incapsuled in a liquid. Thought it is well-protected from heavy shocks, I guess it is possible that sounds are audible to the child. Interesting research that, if you find a book, or essay, I would love to read it .

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    So the big question is does my Golden Retriever talk to herself in dog tongue. If humans have an inner voice what about animals?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    133
    Isn't that what separates us from the animals? The ability to think and reason? Animals are driven by instincts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by sploit
    Isn't that what separates us from the animals? The ability to think and reason? Animals are driven by instincts.
    I don't know, my dog pouts when we discipline her, gets all excited and demanding when she thinks we are going to play with the laser in the yard, overall exhibits emotional responses. I'm just not 100% sold on the instinct theory, what instinct would make a dog demand to be played with, and then become sad and depressed looking when it doesn't happen? I think our religious beliefs often lead us to believe animals only work on instinct. I've just noticed more evidence to suggest some form of thought process goes on at some level.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    133
    There may be a mild thought process in animals. However they can not communicate the way fully grown humans do. A baby will cry and make different noises and cry in different ways for different things. My cat meows different ways for different things. They are driven on instincts and the need to survive. They don't go around having abstract thoughts and creating art.

    Why do animals enjoy physical contact, well now there I'm stumped. I guess it's one of the mysteries of nature (or maybe psychologists know, either way, I don't).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    2112
    Guest
    The emotional part of the brain of a cat is more like that of a human than a dog's is. I'll have to look it up, that and the babies hearing in the womb thing, HU.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by sploit
    Isn't that what separates us from the animals? The ability to think and reason? Animals are driven by instincts.
    Actually, I tried to disprove that in my first post here. I believe all creatures are driven my instincts, the need to survive and the need to preserve the species.

    2112, I automatically presumed that was the solution. I am aware of people believing there is an unconscious collectiveness in humans, but I much prefer to seek the explanation a bit closer to home .

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    133
    Do animals even have a cerebral cortex?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by sploit
    Do animals even have a cerebral cortex?
    Sure. The only difference between our brain, and that of animals is the amount of 'wrinkles' in the brain, and the size .

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    I could get into discussions of clairvoyance of which I have first hand experience with, however that would be getting into the realm of the supernatural, something science really can't explain and often tries to discredit.

    I sometimes have to wonder if The Matrix was just a movie or a clue
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    I could get into discussions of clairvoyance of which I have first hand experience with, however that would be getting into the realm of the supernatural, something science really can't explain and often tries to discredit.

    I sometimes have to wonder if The Matrix was just a movie or a clue
    Tries? I know at least one case of an institution giving one million dollar for proof that clairvoyance, telekinese, telepathy, or other 'supernatural' exists. The one million dollars remain unclaimed.

    It is not the intention of science to discredit. Science simply is, it is a way of finding pure knowledge, to minimize assumption. Of course, science itself is flawed because it is exercised by flawed beings. Nevertheless, science does enable us to make a destinction between reality and fiction. That which is the truth, and that which is not. Gravity exists, it is proven. God does not exist, he is not proven.

    This is of course, a narrow way of viewing things. Simply saying that god does not exist because we can not prove him, means we are being narrow-minded. However, humans are forced to think narrowly. If we made no destinction between a proven fact and a hypothetical fact, I could state that I was God, and that all should bow before me.

    Science tells us that a fact that does not fit into the traditional dogma needs proof to support it, scientific proof. I have to proof I am God, and I need to proof that all should bow before me.

    Scientifically, telekinesis is not disprovable, it simply does not exist. There is no try. If you have experienced it first hand, I could direct you to the research institute. I am sure they will be more than willing to donate you the one million dollars if you are correct.

    Remember, however, that mere believe does not guarantee existence. You are free to believe in whatever you want, and you are free to believe that you have supernatureal abilities. Still, if you wish for me to debate it, proof it first . Same goes for theïsm, by the way.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Remember, however, that mere believe does not guarantee existence. You are free to believe in whatever you want, and you are free to believe that you have supernatureal abilities. Still, if you wish for me to debate it, proof it first Smile. Same goes for theïsm, by the way.
    I myself have limited ability, my mother on the other hand has proven countless times to predict events of significance and of sometimes very specific nature (The original space shuttle disaster). It's not something I try to argue a point of to others. If you lived my life you would not question it's existence, my brothers and sisters also don't question it. I myself have experienced some evidence of it's existence but not to the degree she has. It would be kind of like growing up around a person that can walk on water, after about the 50th time you no longer look for the strings or question that it's really happening. The fact that I have siblings to also back up what I have experienced helps to not feel mentally ill. I think science is missing an entire chapter that just can't be seen, bottled up, captured or analyzed. I realize that by definition makes it not exist.

    It's a very touchy subject, and one they use to burn people at the stake for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Hmm, I'm sorry to hear that. One should always question his beliefs, and take nothing as a fact. I for one often doubt my atheism, and I am always looking for proof of God, or proof of the Supernatural.

    The only answers I find, however, are explanations so complex they are ambiguous. Answers I could only believe if I already believed in it. The bible is no eye-opener, nor are the reports of people who have 'seen'.

    Modern sciences are not new. Psychology, medicin, they are not new. They are all very down-to-earth things, except we have tried to approximate them through science. Hypnotists, alternative medicin, they use science, in a different way. They do not use the results from science, but rather just theories that sprung into existence because they were proved to work. The cause was later invented, creating religions.

    Hypnotism, for example. It's all very mystifying, but almost every person is in a hypnotic trance at least once a week. Whenever you are reading an exciting book or movie, and you are so focused you can't hear anything outside of it, you are in a hypnotic trance. People have just learned how to use that state, and how to alter it, pretending it is some kind of magic. In fact, it is a powerful tool for concentration and allows people to accomplish amazing feats.

    The same, I believe goes for telekinesis, clairvoyance and the rest. All self-fullfilling prophecy, I believe. We hear something, our brains want to believe it, and we interpret the facts so it actually fits the truth.

    In the morning I hit my head against the lamp. Ten minutes later, I find 10 dollars in the metro. In the papers I read that I am going to have an unlucky day. I forget about the 10 bucks, and I think about the incident with the lamp, telling myself the horoscope was right.

    Although this example might not be the best of examples, there have been researches that proved the power of the mind. People actually becoming paralysed so they could not participate in combat.

    Do not believe everything you see, (In)Sanity.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Do not believe everything you see, (In)Sanity.
    No not really. I am however not prone to hallucinations or other forms of illness that would lead me to see or hear things that don't exist. I can only base what I believe on from countless occurrences that begin to defy all statistical probability. I can also be very drunk and still hold a clear thought and perception of everything around me without falter

    I don't think anyone can help someone else truly believe in something they have not experienced, it's one thing to talk about it, it's another to actually see it. I have thrown away many beliefs in my lifetime, and others I can't discredit and must hold on to.

    If you were a microchip with a certain function on a logic board, you may never be able to communicate with another chip on the other side of the board that does a totally different function, you may never know that other chip even exists or even how to begin to find out if that other chip exists, your core function may not have the protocols needed to look outside of what you know and into areas you were not designed for, so no matter how hard you try you are bound to your design. In the case of the logic board you still all share the same common source of power that keeps you running. I don't think we have discovered the true source of energy yet, we only see the results of it. The other chips on the board do exist, you may just not be designed to ever find this out. Such is the life of that one chip.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman chovy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    33
    If you talk to yourself when no one is around, is it a real conversation?

    I've concluded "no". Which also proves, if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound if no one is around to here it? No again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by chovy
    If you talk to yourself when no one is around, is it a real conversation?

    I've concluded "no". Which also proves, if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound if no one is around to here it? No again.
    Actually, a tree falling down when no one is there to hear it sounds like 'Fnord'.

    (In)Sanity, we are fantastic chips. Where the chip is unable to engineer something that does the peeking for it. We can. We have created machines that enable us to enhance our limited view. We can create IR/UV-scanners, we can use telescopes... We have vastly increased our ability to find other chips out there. Also, I am unsure of what you mean by a source of energy. Personally, I have found great confort in the Big Bang, following from an anomoly. I do agree, though, that science has a long way to go and still has a lot of chips to discover .

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman chovy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    33
    What's a 'fnord'?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by chovy
    What's a 'fnord'?
    No one can be told what a Fnord is. You have to see it for yourself.

    WWW.principiadiscordia.COM

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Wow 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kingston, MA
    Posts
    3
    Well, there have been many interesting points here. First I'd like to speak to the comment about life without language. I learned an interesting fact in Lamaze classes for my first daughter. The Catholic Church tried an experiment many years ago which denied new born babies language and other human interaction. Their intent was to discover a "true" language. They ended up losing each of the babies. I don't recall the total number of babies used, but if you're interested I can find out. Basically Babies need human interaction, however with interaction, they learn a language of sorts, even without spoken words. Therefore no "true" language could be created.
    As far as hearing and learning in the womb, many experiments have been performed in this field. The general consensus is that they do hear, very well I might add. They can't help but learn. That is why they are more comfortable with their native tongue. My own experience with this is with my first daughter. While in the womb, I would get up close to my wife's belly and say, "Who's my baby girl?" The inflection was always the same. I did this for about 3-4 months. When she was born, as most babies do, she was screaming at the top of her lungs. I said my line as I did the same way for months, and she stopped immediately and locked her glance on me. She continued to stay quiet and very obviously comforted as long as I was speaking to her.
    -Sean M.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Chips? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kingston, MA
    Posts
    3
    Do we have a chip to discover why a person can be healed? I don't mean someone gets cut and it heals, I mean a person who has spent years on crutches gets a Reiki session and walks away without them. Whether you believe in Reiki or not, something happened there. Is it truly a healing energy that repairs the body or is the healing performed entirely by the mind of the injured person. Either way you don't know the true answer because we don't have a "chip" to measure the process. If you say there was something to that Reiki stuff, you admit to a supernatural process. If you say it was all in the mind of the healed party, you admit that there are processes the human mind can perform which we have no way to see or measure. What a conundrum.
    -Sean M.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 because of your link 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kingston, MA
    Posts
    3
    Mr. U, are you a Discordianist? If so do believe anything we write here? And should we believe anything you write? Just curious.
    -Sean M.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: because of your link 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by essempiem
    Mr. U, are you a Discordianist? If so do believe anything we write here? And should we believe anything you write? Just curious.
    I am many things . I believe all knowledge and all theories are flawed because we can't prove the reality of the world around us. Still, I try to learn as much as I can about this world.

    You can believe me as much as you would believe any other member. I can be right, I can be wrong, just like any theory can be right and wrong. Eventually, we are free to conclude from our own observations, and if someone believes that the sun coming up means that he is the Son of God, or even the Son of Eris, that is his/her theory, and the truth to that person.

    I personally believe it's everybody's own choice whether he should or should not believe what he reads. Ultimately, I'm just another fly on a huge heap of shit trying to find the Dog who just shat it.

    In regards of Reiki, although I am not entirely familiar with it, I am familiar with theories on Chi, or rather the effects it should have in combat, but I have concluded that it's mostly just regulation of air. No 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" here. Reiki, I believe is the power of the mind. Our mind is capable of enormous things.

    I remember an experiment in which a hypnotist put a ring of a woman inside a small doll, and paralysed the woman by strapping the doll. The woman could not move until he finally showed that the ring was not at all in the doll, and she could once again move.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    I am many things . I believe all knowledge and all theories are flawed because we can't prove the reality of the world around us. Still, I try to learn as much as I can about this world.
    I have to agree with your view, I myself find a constant battle of logic and law vs. unexplainable reality.

    The one thing I can say is that our "reality" appears to have laws that govern our existence. I think these laws are very hard coded and can't be changed. I also believe we have not discovered all of these laws and that perhaps just maybe one or two are snuck in to keep us moving.

    If life is a mere simulation, the simulation still would have laws to govern it's behavior. The big question in that case would be if one of those laws allowed for changes in the others. Not to get into religion but the bible states we have free will, does free will extend to the point that we can break free of the laws of physics that bind us?

    The reason all of our theories on our existence always lead to a paradoxical loop is because we are forced to think using the very laws designed to keep us in check. The evidence is incomplete. It may also be the case that we simply have not found the one missing piece in the design.
    Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 TB 
    TB
    TB is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    64
    Hi HomoUniversalis,
    I am familiar with theories on Chi, or rather the effects it should have in combat, but I have concluded that it's mostly just regulation of air.
    I take it your conclusions are based upon theory and not practice. You are correct that regulation of air plays a role in the development of Chi, however Chi itself bears no resemblance to breath when applied as a martial art. I practice myself and have been on the recieving end of the Chi of a grandmaster and this is what I have concluded. Do you seriously expect to have any ability to judge something like Chi based upon familiarity with the theory? It is rather like a guava. What do they actually taste like? The only way to know this is to eat them, theorising is almost useless with the practical experience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Hey welcome to the forum TB.

    I think you have a point in your post, it's kind of like the one thing all adolescent males have on their minds, they study it, theorize about it, talk to their friends about it, but they really don't have a clue until they experience it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31 Re: TB 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TB
    Hi HomoUniversalis,
    I am familiar with theories on Chi, or rather the effects it should have in combat, but I have concluded that it's mostly just regulation of air.
    I take it your conclusions are based upon theory and not practice. You are correct that regulation of air plays a role in the development of Chi, however Chi itself bears no resemblance to breath when applied as a martial art. I practice myself and have been on the recieving end of the Chi of a grandmaster and this is what I have concluded. Do you seriously expect to have any ability to judge something like Chi based upon familiarity with the theory? It is rather like a guava. What do they actually taste like? The only way to know this is to eat them, theorising is almost useless with the practical experience.
    I do practise martial arts, and I feel that it is not Chi that makes people 'powerful' but rather the harmony of movement, and correct breathing techniques. Although Chi is an interesting theory, I feel that it's results can also be explained by biology/fysiology. Although I have not have the honour of training with a grandmaster, I know that my trainer could easily punch me through a wall. Not because of 'Chi' but rather because he knows how to align his body to fully optimise his strength. That, I believe, is true Chi, yet we are free to differ in opinion .

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 TB 
    TB
    TB is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    64
    Hi Mr. U
    I do practise martial arts, and I feel that it is not Chi that makes people 'powerful' but rather the harmony of movement, and correct breathing techniques
    Do you practice a hard or soft martial art? There is no question that all martial arts require harmony and correct breathing, however the internal arts like tai chi, pa-kua, hsing-hi are fundamentally different to the harder arts like karate. kung-fu etc. Even the chen style of tai chi which has rapid movement still uses the force of chi in combat.
    I feel that it's results can also be explained by biology/fysiology
    I am sure you are correct. I am not up with the latest research in this area, but in spite of some scientific understanding of why tai chi is beneficial to health etc, I am not aware that a real understanding of what chi is itself has been reached.
    I know that my trainer could easily punch me through a wall. Not because of 'Chi' but rather because he knows how to align his body to fully optimise his strength. That, I believe, is true Chi, yet we are free to differ in opinion
    No question that aligned and coordinated bodies from well trained martial artists can do this, hard and soft styles. However a tai chi master will do the same with the use of any external muscular movement, it is more a grunt and a pulse of energy is generated that, in my case, just caused faintness as I was not in the direct path. The direct attacker flew a metre upwards and outwards. All this without a punch, kick, just a fist pressed to the master's belly.
    The 'Chi' you refer can certainly be called that, however the mechanisms and results are quite different from the Chi that I refer to. Having different names will avoid confusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    I practice Jiu Jitsu, a mix of Judo and Karate, and I practice Judo next to that. My passion lies with Jiu Jitsu, and it is, as you would say, a hard martial art. Although I feel that Tai Chi would be beneficial to me, I find that I hardly have enough time as it is.

    The difficulty I have with Chi is it's mystery. Some say they can heal people with their hands by using their hands, others say they can kick through concrete because of their Chi. To me, Chi represents, indeed, the perfect harmony of the body, coming through years of training in technique, reflexes and speed, the three 'points' I train my body on.

    You say you refer to a different kind of Chi. Might I ask which one?

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 TB 
    TB
    TB is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    64
    Mr U,
    I practice Jiu Jitsu, a mix of Judo and Karate, and I practice Judo next to that. My passion lies with Jiu Jitsu, and it is, as you would say, a hard martial art. Although I feel that Tai Chi would be beneficial to me, I find that I hardly have enough time as it is.
    Mixing hard with soft is probably useful for any martial artist, though as you say time is the enemy. Age plays a factor, tai chi is something that will enhance your health and can be practiced with improvement to a more advanced age than the hard arts. Becoming proficient with it as a martial art is far slower than the hard styles. Depending upon how hard you train and your natural abilities, I believe that some capability can occur after 10 years if you are dedicated and mastery probably takes 20-30 years. Fitness and strength benefits occur within a few weeks, health not sure, probably a year or more. I practiced Ju Jitsu for a few years but not for the past 2, due to a run of injuries and health issues, but I consider it probably the most useful of the hard styles (having done mostly karate previously). Hence a recent return to Tai Chi, something I had stopped 10 years ago.
    The difficulty I have with Chi is it's mystery. Some say they can heal people with their hands by using their hands, others say they can kick through concrete because of their Chi. To me, Chi represents, indeed, the perfect harmony of the body, coming through years of training in technique, reflexes and speed, the three 'points' I train my body on
    No doubt about that. I practiced Okinawan karate for 2 years alongside tai chi students with no idea what they were up to, but still figuring I knew. I got zapped by a chi bolt from a serious practitioner and I was hooked. I have heard many stories about the power of chi, witnessed a few and experienced only one. Following this single experience I would hesitate to discount some of the claims. The ability to stop your heart for a minute, to make your body so heavy you leave depressions in the ground and cannot be lifted, to see a powerful karate master driven to his knees by a gentle hand upon his shoulder.
    You say you refer to a different kind of Chi. Might I ask which one
    I was drawing a distinction between your definition of chi, as you say the perfect harmony of body, and what I regard as the definition as it is meant by those who practice Tai Chi. I see them as two quite different things. There is also 'Ki' from Japanese martial arts, it is the same between the languages, however I do not think it is the same power they refer to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 TB 
    TB
    TB is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    64
    Hi In(Sanity), thanks for your welcome to this forum.

    The one thing I can say is that our "reality" appears to have laws that govern our existence. I think these laws are very hard coded and can't be changed. I also believe we have not discovered all of these laws and that perhaps just maybe one or two are snuck in to keep us moving.

    If life is a mere simulation, the simulation still would have laws to govern it's behavior. The big question in that case would be if one of those laws allowed for changes in the others. Not to get into religion but the bible states we have free will, does free will extend to the point that we can break free of the laws of physics that bind us?

    The reason all of our theories on our existence always lead to a paradoxical loop is because we are forced to think using the very laws designed to keep us in check. The evidence is incomplete. It may also be the case that we simply have not found the one missing piece in the design.
    I agree that there are actual laws governing the objective reality, despite there being diverse interpretations of it. I would say that we have done quite well with these laws of nature, with more still to come and much more that we will be able to control. I think here of genetic manipulation, asteroid blasting etc. I think the laws governing human behaviour are going to be the next great learning we will go through. How to deal with the way people are, how we form into groups and take on their nature, from soccer mobs to forum addicts.

    On free will, I would ask if it can exist given the laws of physics, chemistry and biology that have made us what we are physically? 4 minutes from death without oxygen, free fall into space without gravity, everywhere our material bodies are very much under the thumb of nature. I do not discount an afterlife, or a higher being, however as far as earthly life goes we are pretty much predestined.

    Your comment about our thinking being limited within defined parameters is a real challenge. I do believe that every now and again a free mind does appear. In science, thinkers like Darwin, Einstien, Galileo managed to undermine very powerful mindsets on topics that people were unable to even question. I for one believe in a round earth going around the sun, but I am certain that I could not produce all the evidence for this enough to satisfy a critical audience. I believe it pretty much because I have never doubted what I have been told about it.
    We could be missing some pieces of evidence. Or we could have it all, but are unable to recognise it. I think our greatest mystery is ourselves, the natural world will probably succumb before we know ourselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore wretched's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    BakomGaller
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by sploit
    [...] Inner monologue is also how our dreams occur[...]
    Is it, are we able to conduct the way we are acting while dreaming?, I guess sometimes you are conscious about you being there and what will happen next but other times it just happens... I wonder
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denmark, Earth
    Posts
    16
    Waah, just tried Sanitys experiment with going through a song in my head, while reading. First i would only read a word, when a word in the song came. Then after a bit, i got past this, but mingled up words i was reading, with the lyrics. So i gotta say i mentally verbalize.. And my brain doesnt work properly..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38 Re: So why do we talk things out in our own head? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Speed readers from what I understand learn to not speak to themselves as they read, something I've not really mastered. One has to wonder if the rate a culture can develop has anything to do with the language they speak. Do different people in different professions internally verbalize to different degrees?

    It's all just kind of weird.
    Hey, I am a speed reader and I never needed to speak out loud while reading.
    Maybe because my mother tongue is polish but rather this isn't the factor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •