Assume you have a schizophrenic who hears everything I think (internally), the whole time. When would he speak? When I speak, of course. He would speak what I say when I speak and he would be called a medium. Now assume somebody else is ALSO hearing the same thought course but is not subject to it. If I am writing, *speaking*, the second schizophrenic may be under the impression that the first schizophrenic is **thinking**, and probably speaking... and I am the medium writing or taking dictation!!! It is a fallacy.
So now assume that while writing I commit a typo, like when the caret JUMPS over the place where the cursor is on in a browser edit text box. In a computer I can correct a typo through a rather complex combination of key strokes and reposition the caret. Such correction implies a lot of visual observation; the caret is very implicit except when having to reposition to correct a typo. What happens to the **text** discourse? It stops! I have to stop my thought to correct the typo and the linked medium... if he was dictating, did he forced the typo? No! He would just keep dictating! But it is an illusion that he is dictating, an illusion to both schizophrenics who are *hearing* the author writing. Then the **dictating medium** would have to STOP its dictation and wait for the typo correction and continue thereon... rather mechanically! That is a contradiction! Now the driving medium is under control of the typist committing typos!
The channel is thin. It does not admit a lot of throughput. In order for a totally steady and unmoving, **thinking-only** mind, it would need to transmit to the drone even the typing muscular orders! And keep track of the implicit caret... and receive feedback on the position of the cursor to make corrections when the cursor makes the caret jump in this internet explorer. We cannot achieve that even in remote computer sessions! It would require AT LEAST to be there a SINGLE source, because if someone else is also transmitting... the signal might cross.
This is more true for a long text. The medium would have to be a perfect carcass under control of the active writer. Which violates the second schizophrenic wrong inference that the immobile schizophrenic medium is the one who is **thinking**.
At each typo the thinking mind stops the discourse to make the corrections. If there was a dictating mind it would have to STOP with a lag: some material just after the typo was discovered. THEN it would have to repeat the text so that the typoing typist can get the continuation! Then there is at least some separation between both minds and more contradictions follow. Again it is a delusion of the second schizophrenic that because it *hears*, the writer is NOT the driving mind.
Of course there can be simultaneous texts, one original author writing and a drone schizophrenic less than a medium taking dictation. But then typos would have to be simultaneous and synchronized too! So even the **dictated** schizophrenic would have to be independent to some measure to correct its OWN typos. And it would stop hearing while he corrects his OWN typo. And has to wait til the original author corrects its typo. This becomes worse when intercalating text or doing other computer related operations. Note that verbal speech, spoken or written, is different from **mouse-CUA speech**. There is no guarantee that both transmit nor that both transmit at the same rate nor that both can be recognized by the drone schizophrenic. The drone schizophrenic would be plagiarizing and he knows it. We developed writing, computers and maybe even caret-cursor jumps to make the distinction EVIDENT. Or we might lose the author to a drone s dictation product.
I was truly bad at dictation in school. Only now after decades I can write profficiently without watching (much) the keyboard.
Now consider very inner decisions to select capital letters or other second layer text symbols... Or quick decisions to change word order... Or window swaps... Same conclusions follow.