Where do 'inner voices' originate?

[Robert_Sock]

Imagine showing a television to a lost tribe of people who have had no contact with the outside world. Now try explaining to them that the picture and sound of the television comes from broadcasting companies. The tribal people would probably look at you like you were nuts, insisting that the sound and picture were originating from within the television set itself.

Now, rethink where the prompting of inner voices come from; might it be that these promptings too are originating from afar, and not merely a product of our brain?

It’s interesting to note that human beings make great television antennas. I do not think this is coincidental.

How does God reveal personal revelation to us? Perhaps unconsciously at first, but eventually they have to ‘speak’ to us.

How does Satan tempt us? Through desire certainly, but again, at some point the crafty arguments of Satan need to ‘speak’ to us.

The implication of inner voices being extrinsic to the person are profound! Killing the ‘self’ will cause these inner voices to become more obvious.

 

[christofirst]

I am possibly not discerning enough to determine the source of “inner voices.” It all seems like my own thoughts to me. However, out of respect for those who are certain of an external source, I voted 50/50.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Imagine showing a television to a lost tribe of people who have had no contact with the outside world. …

Again?

Imagine showing a television to a lost tribe of people who have had no contact with the outside world.

 

[Mary_Ellen]

Inner voices can come from our imaginations, from God, or from the devil.

I believe St. John of the Cross has the best advice for dealing with them - for the most part, ignore them all. If locutions are truly from God no resistance is possible and they produce their good effects in the soul regardless. On the other hand, too much attention paid to locutions from God can mislead, says John: in the first place, the true meaning in not always in the literal meaning; and secondly, people and times change, so the communications become flexible (e.g., something predicted does not happen because people have repented).

 

[Robert_Sock]

Inner voices can come from our imaginations, from God, or from the devil.

I believe St. John of the Cross has the best advice for dealing with them - for the most part, ignore them all. If locutions are truly from God no resistance is possible and they produce their good effects in the soul regardless. On the other hand, too much attention paid to locutions from God can mislead, says John: in the first place, the true meaning in not always in the literal meaning; and secondly, people and times change, so the communications become flexible (e.g., something predicted does not happen because people have repented).

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I like Saint John of the Cross, and I pay him heed.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I honestly want to know who it is inside my head that keeps asking me to drink more coffee! Any ideas?

 

[mebcb]

You are addicted! We are sending the Coffee Police to your house! We will take away all your coffee! You have been warned!

 

[Oreoracle]

Firstly, I want to note that I’ll call inner voices “consciences” as that sounds far less schizophrenic.

I think there are multiple factors that make it more likely that consciences originate from our own minds:

1. We are sympathetic to the advice of our own consciences. So if any outside source is advising us without our knowledge, we would have to accept the staggering coincidence that he/she/it happens to agree with us on most matters.
2. Conscience manifests in a very limited way; namely, in our own consciousness, unable to be detected by anyone else. One would think that an extrinsic source would leave metaphorical “fingerprints” that allow others to detect a conscience.
3. The activity of consciences seems to be directly related to brain activity. For example, if brain activity is slowed sufficiently (say, in preparation of surgery), one doesn’t frequently hear reports of being led by one’s conscience whilst unconscious. This suggests that the brain is actually what produces the feelings attributed to consciences.

 

[GEddie]

For the most part, under the dome of our heads, in our remarkable sense of imagination.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Firstly, I want to note that I’ll call inner voices “consciences” as that sounds far less schizophrenic.

Psychiatrists and psychologists are really OK with inner voices per se.

Inner voices need not all be from a benevolent or moral source.

I think there are multiple factors that make it more likely that consciences originate from our own minds:

1. We are sympathetic to the advice of our own consciences. So if any outside source is advising us without our knowledge, we would have to accept the staggering coincidence that he/she/it happens to agree with us on most matters.

This ‘sympathetic’ advice is more like that of the self or ego. And can ‘it’ agree with ‘us?’ What I’m saying is that you’re inadvertently implying two mental entities: ‘It’ and ‘us.’ Who are they exactly? Again, it sounds like you mean that one part of the self is trying to communicate with another part of the self.

1. Conscience manifests in a very limited way; namely, in our own consciousness, unable to be detected by anyone else. One would think that an extrinsic source would leave metaphorical “fingerprints” that allow others to detect a conscience.

Do you mean by research psychologists like me? Well, the fact of the matter is that it’s not a topic that anybody is allowed to study (i.e., no research grant would be awarded you).

1. The activity of consciences seems to be directly related to brain activity. For example, if brain activity is slowed sufficiently (say, in preparation of surgery), one doesn’t frequently hear reports of being led by one’s conscience whilst unconscious. This suggests that the brain is actually what produces the feelings attributed to consciences.

Back to my old analogy, a TV can be turned off or malfunction just as is so in the brain; the signal still remains, but there is a complete loss of the picture and sound.

 

[Oreoracle]

This ‘sympathetic’ advice is more like that of the self or ego. And does ‘it’ agree with ‘us?’ What I’m saying is that you’re inadvertently implying two mental entities: ‘It’ and ‘us.’

It isn’t inadvertent. Your position seems to be that some external entity is communicating with us. I am saying that if there is indeed an “it” independent of “us” that is communicating, then it seems remarkable that it agrees with us far more often than not.

Come to think of it, the fact that “it” even knows how to communicate with us would be incredible in itself. What are the odds that some being quite alien to me shares my language and is interested in my life? The most obvious answer is that the being is not alien at all, but is simply me.

Well, the fact of the matter is that it’s not a topic that anybody is allowed to study (i.e., no research grant would be awarded you).

And that is probably true. Why do you think that grants are typically not given for such efforts?

Back to my old analogy, a TV can be turned off or malfunction just as is so in the brain; the signal still remains, but there is a complete loss of the picture and sound.

Yes, but, while we can certainly verify that a tv signal remains, we cannot seem to do the same for the “inner voice”.

 

[innertide]

dunno i’ve tried discussing this hestiantly with a priest who use to be my spiritual director, he avoided what i was talking about to inner voices and what i though i heard during adoration like it was the black plauge. And was vague and dismissive .

So if people are not going crazy, not imagining things, are not hallucinating , and it isn’t some kind of matrixing with in the human brain or anything that can be scientificallly explained, then does it not leave to reason that the only explaination is of a spiritual manner.

 

[Robert_Sock]

It isn’t inadvertent. Your position seems to be that some external entity is communicating with us. I am saying that if there is indeed an “it” independent of “us” that is communicating, then it seems remarkable that it agrees with us far more often than not.

Come to think of it, the fact that “it” even knows how to communicate with us would be incredible in itself. What are the odds that some being quite alien to me shares my language and is interested in my life? The most obvious answer is that the being is not alien at all, but is simply me.

Both the conscience and the ego develop within us at a most early age, and it’s my contention that the conscience never develops independently of the Voice of God.

Again, as I pointed out in my last post, one part of the self is free to talk to another part of the self, and all this can happen internally. It does often come off as babel, but a lot of times it also leads to misadventure of one sort or another, which causes me to be suspicious.

Free will aside, does God leave anything to chance? Especially development of the spiritual mental facilities? (please answer)

And that is probably true. Why do you think that grants are typically not given for such efforts?

The projects are deemed ‘unscientific.’

Yes, but, while we can certainly verify that a tv signal remains, we cannot seem to do the same for the “inner voice”.

Yes, you would think that it would be detectable at some level, but the largely Atheistic reviewers would cut such a project to pieces. Maybe you could get by the grant review by covering your true intent under the guise of ‘science,’ but you’ll still never get the article past the review process of the article itself.

LOVE!

 

[andrewstx]

I voted intrinsic hoping it meant from the subconsciesnce.

 

[marywarfield]

dunno i’ve tried discussing this hestiantly with a priest who use to be my spiritual director, he avoided what i was talking about to inner voices and what i though i heard during adoration like it was the black plauge. And was vague and dismissive .

So if people are not going crazy, not imagining things, are not hallucinating , and it isn’t some kind of matrixing with in the human brain or anything that can be scientificallly explained, then does it not leave to reason that the only explaination is of a spiritual manner.

I don’t know. I thought we Catholics were supposed
to be “hearing voices” especially in Communion.
Of course “hearing” isn’t exactly the right word for it
as it is an interior not exterior conversation.

But it seems to me inner voices have always been the
rage among Catholics lol. Part of the reason others
are scared of us I guess.

Bottom line I just accept it and if it truly is
the Holy Spirit then hey. So far the “voice” hasn’t told
me to go jump off a bridge!

 

[Robert_Sock]

On 6 December, 1273, he laid aside his pen and would write no more. That day he experienced an unusually long ecstasy during Mass; what was revealed to him we can only surmise from his reply to Father Reginald, who urged him to continue his writings: “I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value.”
-Saint Thomas Aquinas

Was Saint Thomas experiencing something intrinsic or extrinsic to himself? There are many other examples of saints with visions that I could probably find, but this one was fresh in mind, and it should suffice.

 

[Oreoracle]

Both the conscience and the ego develop within us at a most early age, and it’s my contention that the conscience never develops independently of the Voice of God.

But then you’re effectively assuming your conclusion from the outset. Your mind has been made up.

Again, as I pointed out in my last post, one part of the self is free to talk to another part of the self, and all this can happen internally.

But what evidence is there that our selves are divided into parts? The id, ego, and superego have been useful concepts for psychologists, sure, but we can’t actually demonstrate any corresponding separation in the brain.

Free will aside, does God leave anything to chance? Especially development of the spiritual mental facilities? (please answer)

It would be problematic to require me to answer such a question since I’m an atheist. So…I plead the 5th.

The projects are deemed ‘unscientific.’

Well, aren’t they? It seems that any claim we could make about inner voices will be unfalsifiable.

 

[Robert_Sock]

But then you’re effectively assuming your conclusion from the outset. Your mind has been made up.

My mind has not been made up completely, but, yes, I’m pretty much convinced. However, this does not mean that the feedback I get is worthless. Indeed, I greatly appreciate the feedback because it helps me to sharpen my arguments.

But what evidence is there that our selves are divided into parts? The id, ego, and superego have been useful concepts for psychologists, sure, but we can’t actually demonstrate any corresponding separation in the brain.

The superego, id and ego are the basis of personality, as theorized by Freud. They are not related to the brain in any way. Our personality can be divided into parts, as in multiple personalities, which is far more common than people realize, but I do not think that’s what you meant.

It would be problematic to require me to answer such a question since I’m an atheist. So…I plead the 5th.

Well, aren’t they? It seems that any claim we could make about inner voices will be unfalsifiable.

They are deemed to be religious questions, and not scientific.

 

[davidv]

My mind has not been made up completely, but, yes, I’m pretty much convinced. However, this does not been that the feedback I get is worthless. Indeed, I greatly appreciate the feedback because it helps me to sharpen my arguments.

The superego, id and ego are the basis of personality, as theorized by Freud.

If they are part of theory, how can they be the basis of personality? It seems to me that rather than the basis, they are the conclusion of the theories.

They are not related to the brain in any way. Our personality can be divided into parts, as in multiple personalities, which is far more common than people realize, but I do not think that’s what you meant.

They are deemed to be religious questions, and not scientific.

 

[Robert_Sock]

If they are part of theory, how can they be the basis of personality? It seems to me that rather than the basis, they are the conclusion of the theories.

Not sure what you’re trying to get at. It’s a theory of personality, with the ego, superego and id being its basis. How can ‘it’ have a conclusion and still remain a theory?
basis /bāˈsis/
noun (pl basˈes /bāsˈēz/)

1. The foundation, or that on which a thing rests
2. The groundwork or first principle
3. The fundamental ingredient