On Mind, Language and Machines
0x0f0f0f.github.io
On Mind, Language and Machines
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: On Mind, Language and Machines
#2Wonderful essay!
I've found myself going through a similar path in my own research and thinking.
My hope is that an optimism of computation picks up over the coming decade and beyond; an optimism that computation can serve us at the individual level, beyond what others have created for us.
Re: On Mind, Language and Machines
#3A few days back, HN saw https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22193451 which told us not everyone uses an internal monologue for their thinking process.
Now this article hints evolution favored the internal monologue design of thinking process, over alternatives.
Re: On Mind, Language and Machines
#4A few days back, HN saw https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22193451 which told us not everyone uses an internal monologue for their thinking process. Now this article hints evolution favored the internal monologue design of thinking process, over alternatives.
I've read that post. It's still a mistery to me the fact that there are people without internal monologues that can speak without any sort of problem. Chomsky and Berwick hinted that recursive language may have evolved as "an internal monologue" in their "Why Only Us" essay, where they surely can explain their evolutionary point of view better than me.
I guess if that there really are people without "the internal tool of thought", they should volunteer to be studied, especially with brain imaging and functional tests. They could help us understand more about where language comes from.
Re: On Mind, Language and Machines
#5A few days back, HN saw https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22193451 which told us not everyone uses an internal monologue for their thinking process. Now this article hints evolution favored the internal monologue design of thinking process, over alternatives.
I've read that post. It's still a mistery to me the fact that there are people without internal monologues that can speak without any sort of problem. Chomsky and Berwick hinted that recursive language may have evolved as "an internal monologue" in their "Why Only Us" essay, where they surely can explain their evolutionary point of view better than me. I guess if that there really are people without "the internal too…
It's less of a "do not have internal monologue" as experience them differently to those who have a stream of consciousness. Personally, I experience consciousness internally as a bunch of concepts and ideas, rather than actual verbose language. It doesn't proclude the generation of ideas or so on, and I definitely don't struggle with speaking.
Re: On Mind, Language and Machines
#6A few days back, HN saw https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22193451 which told us not everyone uses an internal monologue for their thinking process. Now this article hints evolution favored the internal monologue design of thinking process, over alternatives.
I've read that post. It's still a mistery to me the fact that there are people without internal monologues that can speak without any sort of problem. Chomsky and Berwick hinted that recursive language may have evolved as "an internal monologue" in their "Why Only Us" essay, where they surely can explain their evolutionary point of view better than me. I guess if that there really are people without "the internal too…
Maybe they're just not aware of it? That data stream still exists, it's just not hooked up to their audio centers so they don't hear it in their 'inner ear'?
Re: On Mind, Language and Machines
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read that post. It's still a mistery to me the fact that there are people without internal monologues that can speak without any sort of problem. Chomsky and Berwick hinted that recursive language may have evolved as "an internal monologue" in their "Why Only Us" essay, where they surely can explain their evolutionary point of view better than me. I guess if that there really are people without "the internal too…
It's less of a "do not have internal monologue" as experience them differently to those who have a stream of consciousness. Personally, I experience consciousness internally as a bunch of concepts and ideas, rather than actual verbose language. It doesn't proclude the generation of ideas or so on, and I definitely don't struggle with speaking.
I can only guess that one has a more verbal or visual imagination depending on his/her development, and it would be interesting if we knew more about the genomic factors taking place in the development of the stream of consciousness. Depending on the context I also have both verbal and visual streams of consciousness. A funny thing is that my verbal mental streams are far more fluid in English, which is not my fully native language, than in Italian. When I write in Italian my imagination is much more visual and less descriptive.
Re: On Mind, Language and Machines
#8A few days back, HN saw https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22193451 which told us not everyone uses an internal monologue for their thinking process. Now this article hints evolution favored the internal monologue design of thinking process, over alternatives.
I've read that post. It's still a mistery to me the fact that there are people without internal monologues that can speak without any sort of problem. Chomsky and Berwick hinted that recursive language may have evolved as "an internal monologue" in their "Why Only Us" essay, where they surely can explain their evolutionary point of view better than me. I guess if that there really are people without "the internal too…
You make me wonder if language regions of the brain get activated when we "talk to ourselves" in the same way as when we talk to others.
Edit: I love a downvote as much as the next guy, but if you're a neuroscientist who knows, please explain or share links?
Re: On Mind, Language and Machines
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's less of a "do not have internal monologue" as experience them differently to those who have a stream of consciousness. Personally, I experience consciousness internally as a bunch of concepts and ideas, rather than actual verbose language. It doesn't proclude the generation of ideas or so on, and I definitely don't struggle with speaking.
I can only guess that one has a more verbal or visual imagination depending on his/her development, and it would be interesting if we knew more about the genomic factors taking place in the development of the stream of consciousness. Depending on the context I also have both verbal and visual streams of consciousness. A funny thing is that my verbal mental streams are far more fluid in English, which is not my fully…
Same here, my French got relegated to the back of my mind, English took over (that was of my own volition first, to learn best, but then it became habit).
Sometimes I revert to writing in French; it takes a little time like bicycle to come back really well. It often framed my mind in a different way, provided I never thought of problem X in French. Weird. I'm more likely to speak in "poetic" terms in French, and more "logic" in English. Weird that my own abstractions shift like that. Real tangible things are not affected it seems. With other people it makes me a slightly different person (I suppose I mimic the cultural traits I attribute to each language, as if emotions or even volition got influenced by it).
Re: On Mind, Language and Machines
#10A few days back, HN saw https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22193451 which told us not everyone uses an internal monologue for their thinking process. Now this article hints evolution favored the internal monologue design of thinking process, over alternatives.
I've read that post. It's still a mistery to me the fact that there are people without internal monologues that can speak without any sort of problem. Chomsky and Berwick hinted that recursive language may have evolved as "an internal monologue" in their "Why Only Us" essay, where they surely can explain their evolutionary point of view better than me. I guess if that there really are people without "the internal too…
Not everyone’s brain works the same way. Read some stuff by Temple Grandin or Oliver Sacks. As for how evolution may have done anything is just a guess until there is empirical data backing up that hypothesis. It’s more likely that Chomsky just assumes everyone’s mind worked like his and used that to tell a just so evolutionary story.