Hello everyone

Something came up. It usually does when it comes to this time of the month as to what I should write for this month's editorial. Prepare for some real heavy thinking this month as I'm going to explore just how you think.

You'd probably think there were only two ways to think. You either do it or don't. That is, as you read this, the words are speaking to you on a non-verbal level inside your head.

If you can't read then you wouldn't be here reading this editorial. It's a clever trick that we all do, especially as you're hearing the words without using your ears. Your brain is neatly convincing you of some internal reality that mirrors what your senses receive on a day-to-day basis.

However such a technique doesn't mean that you're reading what I wrote in my 'thinking voice'. Unless you're given some clue and can stretch yourself accordingly, would you be hearing this voice in a different accent? Would I come over in my native Somerset accent - which I can't hear verbally or non-verbally unless I move out of the county and hear myself as others hear me - or any other accent that I choose to adopt?

I'm competent enough a writer to put verbal clues into my writing to trigger different accents when it's needed but don't do that outside of writing stories but don't use any Somerset words or prounciation in real life either. Normally, I don't regard my accent as an issue and on paper and probably as you read this, I come over as somewhere in the mid-Atlantic - ie being neither one thing or the other.

Most of us take our own accents for granted and think we all sound alike anyway. With our 'thinking voices', it doesn't exist outside of local dialect words unless you know something different. The important thing to remember from the above is you're using a verbal response in a non-verbal way that only you can hear inside your head.

It's the way most people think telepathy works. People hear this non-verbal 'speech' as it is, well, as if it is speech. If nature could be so kind. It's a good tool for telepathic speeches in Science Fiction but may not hold in reality. Y'see the majority of the day, very few of us actually think verbally for very long.

Do you think your thoughts before you speak? There would be enormous pregnant pauses when talking if that happened. Instead, the brain does the necessary jump and switches to the speech centre when we have anything to say and for others to hear. Such actions have their own consequences.

We say something we might regret later because we speak before thinking. We ramble on about a subject or giving an answer when it could have been easier to say it in a few words.. Some of us can even answer something before the other speaker has finished speaking simply because of how our brains are wired.

The latter should give something of a clue to how we think. It isn't that we do much conscious thinking before talking, it's just our brains not considering fast enough the consequences before saying something. Most of the time though, none of us really consciously think. The higher brain functions that allows us non-vocal but verbal thinking is restricted to where we're alone, working through the permutation answers to a tricky problem or cursing someone instead of saying it aloud.

Unless you've learnt some mental tricks for recalling names or obscure facts, you rely far more on your memory to jump to the right information that having to search consciously for it yourself. Often as not, when there is a mental block for such information, it comes back a lot easier when you think of something else than the thing you were after in the first place.

Such machinations are used by writers a lot when they want their internal random ideas generator to come up with a new permutation on an old idea. We stare out a window, play a computer game, watch TV or whatever and the brain does most of the dirty work and our conscious minds take the credit for an autonomic brain function.

All we do consciously is select the best choice. You might not all be a writers but the same mechanism applies. A lot of it is dependent on how your mindset works and if it's exercised sufficiently to refine the process. Thinking isn't something we do much of the time yet we are still distinguished from other animals because we can do it at all. Well, at least on an abstract level that has nothing to do with procuring daily food or mating.

This level of abstraction allows us to imagine any activity before actually going ahead and doing it for real. A really heightened imagination can be conveyed in words to others as if it's for real but that's a different story.

For much of the time, we do very well by not really thinking for the majority of our active conscious periods. Much of the time is spent going about our lives in a non-verbal way relying on our reflexes and habits to take us through the day. The main difference is when we're learning something sufficiently new and adding it to our reflexes as in the case of learning a school lesson, swimming or driving a car. If the activity is used continually, it becomes reflexive and we cease to think about it.

If it isn't used much then it can easily be forgotten and something else fills its place. The brain has a habit of prioritising so we don't get clogged down with incidental things that are clearly not being used at the time. So much of this process is automatic and not under conscious control. Where does such reflexes end and the real you starts is something only the individual can really decide. We're individual enough to realise it must vary from person to person.

This brings us back to the beginning of this editorial. Whatever part of us that causes us to really think isn't used much during our lives. It's there to take responsibility for our important decisions - and even then, can spend time debating with itself before choosing - but most of the time it isn't doing much at all. It's no wonder scientists say we only ever use 10% of our brains. The majority of it is done for us.

Does it make us a poorer person for not thinking very much? That I'm not sure about. I am therefore I can think. When I'm typing, as I'm doing with this editorial, I'm probably doing the same as if I was talking except instead of using my brain's speech centre, the words are coming out through my fingers instead. I'm very adaptable that way.

I can use any communication medium that is appropriate for the occasion without little consideration for preference. Other people are more comfortable seeing who they're talking to although the current use of mobile phones has developed, it appears to be more a case of contact for a lot of people.

From my writer's perspective, I might make a few mental or paper notes and getting my ideas into order but once in front of the computer screen, I just get on with expressing myself in a meaningful way. That's as much self-training as anything. The key being the information comes out in whatever mode I choose to communicate.

It isn't likely to vary much beyond being more considered and polished on paper or screen than verbally. It is the recognition of the level of communication that differentiates the very bright to the not so intelligent individuals. Just as a totally autistic person can't see out of his or her own world, the majority of us have the ability to see the world through other people's perceptions.

We can share a grief or happiness, maybe agree or disagree with an opinion. Often as not, such experiences are either shared in person or through reading or watching something at our own convenience. Something else that we're not always in total control over. Such sharing increases our perception of the world as our perspective widens. In just over a century, our perception has widened from local community to a world-wide interest in that is going on elsewhere.

By sharing our experiences with others, there is also a degree of feedback so other people can see how you interpret what has been learnt as well. Most of us can't go through life without being shaped by something or other. In a similar fashion, if our personalities are strong enough, we can also adapt or change when we have been misled or discover some falsehood about the information we've been given.

We might not all consciously think all the time but there is an awareness that we need to compare experience and sensations to re-enforce our picture of the world. It's almost as though we need reassurances about the information we're receiving. Such a process also ensures we translate what we think about such things at a comparable level to others.

In the old days, we'd call it 'gossip' - even if there is still a mixture of fiction included with the facts. One of the oddest lessons we learn from all of this is that we don't all share the same tastes although it does help to group us together with people who think the same way or like the same things. An unfortunate side-effect is that strong personalities can fundamentally control weaker or vulnerable personalities by taking advantage of any limitation presenting itself.

That's very much part of the reality that we have of this world. Having achieved said niche, we mostly stay that way until our tastes change or those to whom we associate with change theirs sufficiently to ensure a parting. It's very fortunate for some, if they change the way the others do, but far sadder when individuals are ostracised for not doing so. Group pressure or 'following the herd' is a level of conformity that even hits our Science Fiction community than regard it as 'viva la difference'. It probably shows more about mankind's roots than any level of intellectual development.

Where does that leave the thinking process? Is it the cumulative tip of what is us rather than the whole aspect of our personalities? Do we really need to think more? Are we all capable of heavy thinking or is such process limited to a minority? We can all be persuaded by the pros and cons of an argument as to its validity. A lot of the time, we can be incensed by our emotions far more than relying on commonsense or investigating further before making a decision as to which side we stand. A lot of people prefer things in a black and white world.

It either is or it isn't rather than think there might even be a middle ground that can draw valid points from either side. Like a lot of British people, I tend to be naturally cynical and rarely take anything at face value. I evaluate the evidence and test it for flaws before giving a considered reply.

It's a lot easier than being persuaded by other people's prejudices on the subject. If I'm seen to have a strong personality then I hope also it is linked to the idea that I won't persuade people without a balanced judgement. As indicated above, we don't spend that much time each day thinking so a little more can't hurt.

Like exercising our bodies, the mind needs to be exercised and bringing non-verbal thoughts to verbal recognition - to hear our own thoughts as it were - to make sense of the world our way rather than other people's interpretations. The ability to do this takes us one step up from the rest of the animal kingdom. A good gesture to recognising our own sentience and what it is to be intelligent. Somewhere in all of this is your own personality asserting itself on the world.

Any advances on being more than 10% on using more of your brain though? Now that would be wishful thinking.

Thank you and good night.

Geoff Willmetts
editor: SFCrowsnest.com

PS. My re-organising is working out and I've sorted some samples. It's taking time but I think I'm in the process of catching up. If you have moved your book elsewhere, then tell me and let me take it out of my pile for those with more patience.