On 2015 May 14, Bernard Baars commented:

Jon Schooler and coworkers have conducted a wonderful series of studies on the stream of thought, distractibility, and the like. My remarks are not meant to diminish their great contribution.

Spontaneous mentation has a long and intellectually important history, including James, Freud, and Proust. I believe none of those people would believe that the spontaneous stream of thought is "mind wandering." That terminology suggests something that is dysfunctional. The alternative hypothesis is that the spontaneous stream of consciousness is indeed FUNCTIONAL, though its functions may be implicit. That is indeed the outcome of Jerome S. Singer's years of study, suggesting that "current concerns" are the focus of spontaneous thought. That includes recent difficulties in relationships, and possible solutions. It may include recurrences of traumatic memories or related cues. It may include inner complaints about the boring task, which people usually avoid if they get a chance to.

The competition between ASSIGNED tasks and spontaneous mentation may occur simply because the spontaneous stream is NEEDED and generally FUNCTIONAL. The mere fact that subjects sign a consent form does not mean they really consider the assigned task to have a higher priority compared to wondering about the attractive cabin attendant.

It is something of a scientific leap to label any preferred behavior to be dysfunctional. In clinical psychology and psychiatry such labeling only occurs after much debate, research, and review. Terms like "on-task" vs. "off-task" mentation are value neutral, and therefore preferable to "mind wandering". In one current literature on depression, sheer mind wandering is pathologized as "rumination," and taken to be a sign of depression. That would make Picasso's and Mozart's spontaneous thinking about painting and music to be dysfunctional and a sign of depression.

Not all task-independent thought is bad.

On 2015 May 14, Bernard Baars commented:

Jon Schooler and coworkers have conducted a wonderful series of studies on the stream of thought, distractibility, and the like. My remarks are not meant to diminish their great contribution.

Spontaneous mentation has a long and intellectually important history, including James, Freud, and Proust. I believe none of those people would believe that the spontaneous stream of thought is "mind wandering." That terminology suggests something that is dysfunctional. The alternative hypothesis is that the spontaneous stream of consciousness is indeed FUNCTIONAL, though its functions may be implicit. That is indeed the outcome of Jerome S. Singer's years of study, suggesting that "current concerns" are the focus of spontaneous thought. That includes recent difficulties in relationships, and possible solutions. It may include recurrences of traumatic memories or related cues. It may include inner complaints about the boring task, which people usually avoid if they get a chance to.

The competition between ASSIGNED tasks and spontaneous mentation may occur simply because the spontaneous stream is NEEDED and generally FUNCTIONAL. The mere fact that subjects sign a consent form does not mean they really consider the assigned task to have a higher priority compared to wondering about the attractive cabin attendant.

It is something of a scientific leap to label any preferred behavior to be dysfunctional. In clinical psychology and psychiatry such labeling only occurs after much debate, research, and review. Terms like "on-task" vs. "off-task" mentation are value neutral, and therefore preferable to "mind wandering". In one current literature on depression, sheer mind wandering is pathologized as "rumination," and taken to be a sign of depression. That would make Picasso's and Mozart's spontaneous thinking about painting and music to be dysfunctional and a sign of depression.

Not all task-independent thought is bad.