Where is your inner voice located?

Well, I can certainly understand that, your mind is still operating on a subconscious level at that point...

Oh, and, not so witty a remark,
"Where is your inner voice located?"
"Inside"

Sorry, I am pretty tired...

OKay! now I've been wondering this for some time as well myself. After hearing other people didn't know either it prompted a full lapse into resarching about it.

As far as I can get on it, as far as the internal dialogue, nobody knows as of yet. As far as the hearing a narriator as you are reading is because of the fact that you are subvocalizing. Interesting. I wikied that and am reading over that now. I've been wondering for years.

At any rate, another random thing is that this whole thing reminds me of the mind connundrum that continually goes through philosophy. what is mind. How can I say that the person over there, his actions and inflections are reflective of a mind similar to mine? Do young children have minds. See, and even science doesn't know at this point.

I too have thought about the whole "Who's green is green?" thought. Since there isn't a mode of testing it, and we seem to agree on the colors (even though what's green to me, surely can't look green to somebody else), it's all kopasetic.

Exept a few instances. There are sime inbetween colors. I had a friends shirt that was so blue it was almost purple. A chunk of people would say it was blue, a chunk of the people would say it's puple. Or turqoise and aqua. Is it blue or green? Are these the colors that actually represent the difference between colors in peoples minds? Or is it preference?

I imagine that if everybody has the same ammount of cones and rods in the back of the head (things that study the wavelenghts of light and translate those into colors.) Then why the heck aren't they the same. But then again, what about color blind people? Hmm...

See, what we have here is a connundrum of "in here" versus "out there". We seek others to objectify the "in here" stuff with "out there' language. But you know, language is definately different.

How odd then the poster above me doesn't hear a narrator. Maybe at the same time, just like subvocalization, the internal monologue depends on when we heard our mothers and sibilings and fathers talking to us and we responded and internalized?

My brain exploded. Thank you. LOL

en.wikipedia.org...

This is a good read.

its also interesting to think how early humans that had no language, would have carried out thought processes, since they wouldn't of had this "inner voice" (they may of had inner sounds like grunts in the place of the "inner voice").

just a thought.

amazing topic by the way.

I think the inner voice shows that there's a sixth sense. You have smelling, tasting, seeing, touching and hearing. Your inner voice is not connected to any of these things. You can sit and talk to yourself all day without opening yor mouth and saying a word. Your inner voice can reason about things you can't observe like black holes or parallel universes. You reason with yourself on your way to work or before you go to bed.

I think your soul/spirit is what some people call your subconcious. The subconscious has all the attributes of the soul. What you call it just depends on what you believe. I think you have the soul(power source for the body), spirit(Awareness or the inner voice) and the material body(the hardware so to speak).

I think the material brain dies but not the inner voice or the soul. I think when peope see ghosts that seem to be stuck in a loop, they are seeing a disembodied soul that has no ability to reason. All probable states exists in Awareness and I think the material brain allows you to reason about "things" because the body is in a state of decoherence. This is why most near death experiences talk about being more aware as they leave consciousness. Consciousness is a state of the material brain because you are conscious of "things" because of decoherence. In Awareness all "things" are the same.

The Bible talks about you body, soul and spirit. Paul says, I hope that your body, soul and spirit are saved. The Bible says, Come and Let Us reason together. It's like the God in you(spirit) can reason with your material brain.

I think a good book that talks about this is, The Lost Secret of Death by Peter Novak where he talks about the Divided Soul.

if i interpreted this correctly, which we are talking about inner voices related to how the individual interprets them, heh.. i constantly have a voice, words before they are said, discussions, dreaming, etc, and if i put a physical position to it i appear myself, when talking to myself, to be situated to the rear center of my head. i think it's extremely interesting to discuss this.

when it comes to tasting, i wanted to get this out then i'll go look for links(if discussion futalkgjhd blah blah), but there are (sorry if it's been hit upon i wanted to get out my thoughts asap) this idea of 'super tasters' people with abnormal, (which could be argued so lack of a better word there) amount of taste buds located on the tongue, that allow them to enjoy more simplistic tastes over spicer, more indulging/harsher tastes, these people often eat there food separately and enjoy a limited diet of consisting of the same food over and over. it's really neat to get into, i myself felt i was one. it should be noted as time goes on your taste buds do die out and as time goes on, more people are more likely to developing tastes beyond what they would consider the norm. i know this explain everything and i lack links, but if there is more interest in it, i'd love to discuss it up more and find some!!

[edit on 26-6-2007 by fdisc0]

Title: Functional anatomy of inner speech and auditory verbal imagery

Author(s): McGuire PK, Silbersweig DA, Murray RM, David AS, Frackowiak RSJ, Frith CD

Source: PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE 26 (1): 29-38 JAN 1996
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 64 Times Cited: 89

Abstract: The neural correlates of inner speech and of auditory verbal imagery were examined in normal volunteers, using positron emission tomography (PET). Subjects were shown single words which they used to generate short, stereotyped sentences without speaking. In an inner speech task, sentences were silently articulated, while in an auditory verbal imagery condition, subjects imagined sentences being spoken to them in an another person's voice. Inner speech was associated with increased activity in the left inferior frontal gyrus. Auditory verbal imagery was associated with increases in the same region, and in the left premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area and the left temporal cortex. The data suggest that the silent articulation of sentences involves activity in an area concerned with speech generation, while imagining speech is associated with additional activity in regions associated with speech perception.

Other studies also implicate the right temporal cortex. The left inferior frontal gyrus contains Broca's area - a major speech area.

Auditory vebal hallucinations also involve the same areas.



[edit on 26-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by polomontana
Also, how can you hear your inner voice? We use our ears to hear our family and friends, what do we use to hear our inner voice?

I've always felt it was just fed in downstream of the 'microphones'! Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure I remember being told that your brain goes through the motions to speak, but doesn't actually engage the muscles necessary to do it, so your inner voice is at the same speed and cadence you would normally use if you were just saying it.

I've also noticed that if I'm sloppy "thinking" something while I'm writing, I'll make the same mistake on paper.

Oh - and to fuel the paranoid, there are some interesting studies done from time to time, and yes, with some effort you could probably figure out what someone is thinking verbally by instrumenting the muscles of the tongue, lips and throat. Try this - get somewhere you have no distractions and noise so you can really concentrate on it. Put your fingers very very lightly on the skin around your adam's apple and lips. Now think 'loudly' and slowly - most people (I am one) can feel their lips and throat very very slightly responding like they would if you were speaking. Pay really close attention to the little tiny twitches your tongue is making at the same time you're feeling for motions in your lips. It's really subtle but most people can feel it in a minute or two.

I've heard tales but have no idea if it's true, that such a system has been toyed with. You'd have to be wired up like Frankenstein though. Here's one of many studies -

It is worth noting that not only speech perception,
but also covert speech activates phono-articulatory
simulation within the motor system. McGuigan &
Dollins (1989) showed with electromyography that the
tongue and lip muscles are activated in covert speech in
the same way as during overt speech. An fMRI study by
Wildgruber et al. (1996) showed primary motor cortex
activation during covert speech. A recent study by
Aziz-Zadeh et al. (2005) showed covert speech arrest
after transient inactivation with repetitive transcranial
magnetic simulation (rTMS) over the left primary
motor cortex and left BA44.

dericbownds.net...

Also, who decides what tastes good or smells good? My brother doesn't like pizza but I really like it. Are taste buds work the same way so who decides what to like and what to not like? Also with smells, I might like Polo Black cologne but someone else might think it stinks. We both smell through our noses so who decides wether a smell is liked or not?

Not everyone has the same receptors or number of receptors for smell and taste. For example, some people do not perceive cauliflower or cabbage to be sulfurous in taste, because they lack the smell receptor for it, or have a very small number. For these people (I'm one) it tastes good. But for others that have the receptor, it's nasty. There are bitter flavors that some can taste and others cannot - I am a "taster" in that regard.

I think a lot of it is what you grow up with, as someone said.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Not everyone has the same receptors or number of receptors for smell and taste. For example, some people do not perceive cauliflower or cabbage to be sulfurous in taste, because they lack the smell receptor for it, or have a very small number. For these people (I'm one) it tastes good. But for others that have the receptor, it's nasty. There are bitter flavors that some can taste and others cannot - I am a "taster" in that regard.

I think a lot of it is what you grow up with, as someone said.

i don't think it would necessarily taste 'good' in your case. the idea is that the more taste 'buds' the stronger sensitivity, the less likely to enjoy things that are potent or lush in taste. a person taking a liking to more, bitter, flavorful, stronger tastes, probably has less taste buds. the ideal behind super tasters, is a person of the opposite who opposes such strong tastes, and can enjoy the same kind of 'flavor' (your tongue is split into many different 'receptors' ) over and over. through time, these buds wear down, and the person in question, is more likely to develop a taste for other foods. this is in regards to 'i'm a taster' as it doesn't hit upon the majority of your quote about differential taste buds as much but the same can applied in theory to the individual sectors.

Originally posted by fdisc0

i don't think it would necessarily taste 'good' in your case. the idea is that the more taste 'buds' the stronger sensitivity, the less likely to enjoy things that are potent or lush in taste. a person taking a liking to more, bitter, flavorful, stronger tastes, probably has less taste buds. the ideal behind super tasters, is a person of the opposite who opposes such strong tastes, and can enjoy the same kind of 'flavor' (your tongue is split into many different 'receptors' ) over and over. through time, these buds wear down, and the person in question, is more likely to develop a taste for other foods. this is in regards to 'i'm a taster' as it doesn't hit upon the majority of your quote about differential taste buds as much but the same can applied in theory to the individual sectors.

Most of your sense of 'taste' is actually smell, and for cruciferous vegetables, there are definitely groups which do and do not 'taste' the sulfur content.

In terms of being able to taste certain tastes, some people lack, permanently, the ability to detect certain bitter chemicals. It's a matter of genetics, not wear-out.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Most of your sense of 'taste' is actually smell, and for cruciferous vegetables, there are definitely groups which do and do not 'taste' the sulfur content.

In terms of being able to taste certain tastes, some people lack, permanently, the ability to detect certain bitter chemicals. It's a matter of genetics, not wear-out.

i agree and disagree in parts with you. smell has the strongest tie to memory yes? and i've read/heard of studies where pinching your nose/disregarding smell- has a significant effect on your perception/sense of taste. but that is regardless of what i was trying to portray. to agree more, yes it may be genetics determining a development for a taste in certain bitter chemicals(or areas of taste perception), but it is also genetics behind the idea of super tasters, or developing a technically 'abnormal' amount of taste buds, in any sector of taste. and these people as i state... in which i stand to disagree on.. but don't feel like you were touching upon, will... for lack of a better term.. enjoy a lesser taste over a more potent taste, an is an example of why people may enjoy certain type of foods then others yet through age come to enjoy said foods and this flux comes in a more pronounced way. taste buds are decreased with age, that cannot be the argument, an that is to the basic. what i was stating. so we do disagree on, is that in the matter of wear out, regardless, it is a contributer to taste. i don't want to take away from my above statement more by making bold ending statements so i'll leave it as be, but thankyou for the input and i couldn't be more interested in discussing it more.
-fdisc0

In my brain of course