YTC
But I see the atoms and molecules. I see the absorption of light and reflection of other frequencies. I see photosynthesis I see plant structure. I see it's biology. I see it's struggle for survival and procreation. I see how it dies and ends. I see everything Now tell me something I don't know
A
A
In the early 1950s in Kolkata (then Calcutta), there were early experimental attempts at artificial rainmaking / cloud seeding in India.
The key figure linked to this period is:
Sudhanshu Sekhar Banerjee (also referred to as S.K. Banerji / “Megh Banerjee”)
Around 1952, Banerjee experimented with early forms of cloud seeding over Kolkata.
Reported methods included:
Silver iodide dispersal
Dry ice experiments
Balloon-based release systems (hydrogen balloons)
Early atmospheric testing inspired by US cloud-seeding research
The goal was simple:
Trigger rainfall by introducing particles that help cloud droplets form and grow.
Some accounts describe successful induced rainfall events, though results were not consistently controlled or scientifically standardized by modern standards.
At that time:
India was facing drought concerns in multiple regions
Global cloud seeding research had just begun (post-1946 US experiments)
Kolkata became one of the earliest Indian testbeds for adaptation of this science
Banerjee is often described as:
One of India’s earliest meteorologists working on weather modification
A pioneer who tried to localize foreign techniques for Indian monsoon conditions
Even today:
Cloud seeding is not a reliable “rain-making machine”
It only works when suitable clouds already exist
Results are probabilistic, not guaranteed
So in the 1950s:
Experiments were exploratory
Measurement standards were limited
Success claims are historically interesting but not rigorously comparable to modern climate science trials
The Kolkata experiments were part of a global wave of post-WWII science exploring:
weather control
atmospheric physics
early “geoengineering-like” ideas
They represent early experimental meteorology, not fully proven weather control.
If you want, I can break down:
how cloud seeding actually works physically (step-by-step in clouds), or
whether modern India still uses these techniques today.
A
There isn’t actually a “two-person system” inside your mind with a fixed speaker and listener. What you experience as mental chatter is better explained as a single brain generating thoughts, and another part of the same system monitoring and evaluating them.
But it feels like a conversation, so let’s break that illusion down.
The “voice” you hear in your head (internal speech) is your brain simulating language using the same systems used for speaking externally—especially language networks in the left hemisphere.
It’s not a separate entity. It’s more like:
your brain producing language in thought-form instead of sound-form
So the “talker” is simply thought generation in verbal format.
The “listener” is not a separate self either. It’s what we call:
metacognition (thinking about thinking)
self-monitoring systems in the brain
This part evaluates:
“Is this thought useful?”
“Is this true?”
“Should I act on this?”
So the “listener” is your brain reviewing its own output.
Because the brain runs different processes in parallel:
One system generates thoughts quickly (automatic, emotional, associative)
Another system slows down and evaluates (reflective, analytical)
When these interact, it creates the illusion of:
“I am talking to myself”
But it’s really:
one system producing patterns + another system inspecting them
Most “chatter” comes from:
memory replay
prediction of future scenarios
social simulation (“what will they think?”)
unresolved emotions looping
A lot of it is driven by the default mode network (DMN), which activates when your mind is not focused on the external world.
There is no separate “you listening to you.”
There is only:
a brain generating thoughts
and the same brain becoming aware of them
The sense of “observer” is what consciousness feels like when the system becomes self-aware.
If you want, I can connect this to why “pausing when triggered” actually works at the neural level—because it interrupts this automatic loop between generation and reaction.
A
Yes—what you’re referring to is anendophasia, the absence (or extreme reduction) of an internal monologue.
Most people assume everyone has a constant “voice in their head,” but research suggests inner experience varies a lot. Some people think primarily in:
words (internal speech),
images (visual thinking),
sensations or abstract concepts,
or a mix of all three.
People with anendophasia typically report:
No continuous verbal narration in their mind
Thinking happens without “spoken sentences” internally
Decisions and reasoning still happen normally, just not in word-form
So instead of thinking “I should reply to this message,” they might experience:
a feeling of inclination,
a visual impression of outcomes,
or an abstract sense of choice.
It’s not a disorder and not linked to lower intelligence or lack of self-awareness. It’s just a variation in how the brain represents thought.
Your earlier idea—“Never respond when triggered”—is often taught through self-talk (“pause, don’t react”). But for someone with anendophasia, that same regulation might happen without words—more like a felt pause or a shift in emotional state rather than an inner sentence.
If you want, I can connect this to neuroscience models of thinking styles (verbal vs non-verbal cognition) or explain how meditation research relates to reduced internal speech.
A
There’s no single known “cause” of anendophasia. At this point, it’s better understood as a natural variation in how human cognition is organized, rather than a condition with a clear origin or pathology.
Here’s what current psychology and neuroscience suggest:
People differ in how their brains represent thought:
Some rely heavily on language-based thinking (internal speech)
Others rely more on visual, sensory, or abstract pattern-based thinking
In anendophasia, the brain simply doesn’t default to verbal narration
This is likely tied to individual differences in neural processing styles, especially in language networks vs non-verbal networks.
Internal speech is associated with activity in language-related brain areas (like Broca’s area). In people with anendophasia:
These language circuits may be less involved in day-to-day thinking
Or other systems (visual-spatial, emotional, associative) may dominate cognition
Some researchers speculate it may be influenced by:
Early language development differences
How much internal “self-talk” is reinforced growing up
Cognitive strategies learned over time (e.g., visual thinkers not using verbal rehearsal)
But this is still not well established scientifically.
Important point:
No evidence shows it is caused by trauma or damage
It is not linked to reduced reasoning ability
It is part of normal human cognitive diversity (like being more visual vs verbal)
Anendophasia likely arises from how your brain naturally organizes thought, not from a single cause or event. It’s more like a “thinking style profile” than something that develops due to one reason.
If you want, I can also explain how scientists test for internal speech vs no internal speech—it’s actually quite fascinating and not as straightforward as people think.
