Live data from Hacker News

On Mind, Language and Machines

0x0f0f0f.github.io

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: On Mind, Language and Machines

#11
post #8
post #4

Earlier 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…

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?

Yes I also wonder that, do you want to talk about this? tweet me @LeibGruber

Re: On Mind, Language and Machines

#12

A 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.

Evolution doesn't prevail completely. It might favor a path (and thus see its population grow), but the other path is not guaranteed to be eclipsed already.

Re: On Mind, Language and Machines

#13
post #4

Earlier 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…

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.

>Not everyone’s brain works the same way. Read some stuff by Temple Grandin or Oliver Sacks

Yes, but these study outliers. Most everybody's brain works the same way (or in a few, finite, ways)

Re: On Mind, Language and Machines

#15
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Not everyone’s brain works the same way. Read some stuff by Temple Grandin or Oliver Sacks Yes, but these study outliers. Most everybody's brain works the same way (or in a few, finite, ways)

We assume brains work in the same way, but we lack any kind of tooling for examining this other than fMRI. All this high level stuff like conceptualisation and visualisation relies on subjective self-reporting. I don't think we've even proved whether or not Chomsky's "universal grammar" hypothesis is correct.

Re: On Mind, Language and Machines

#16
post #4

A 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…

"Deaf" people have a mind too and what would their internal monologue be since they never heard uttered words but learn signs that are not auditive internally? Is it abstract internal monologue? Why would it be called monologue? Are they missing the internal tool of thought or maybe there are more tools of thought and some of them don't require internal monologue?

Re: On Mind, Language and Machines

#17
post #9
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Same here but with a different first language and English as a second. I tend to be more poetic with my first language but use it a lot more sparingly nowadays. As far as I am aware most of my internal monologue isn't verbalized but it does happen. Over all I wouldn't rely too much on my internal monologue, it feels that it slows down my thinking to put whatever abstract thought I have into words.

Re: On Mind, Language and Machines

#18
post #4

A 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…

I don't experience my thought as either words or pictures. I experience my thought as ideas. Ideas are independent of both, since the same idea can be expressed with different words or pictures.

Re: On Mind, Language and Machines

#19
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Same here but with a different first language and English as a second. I tend to be more poetic with my first language but use it a lot more sparingly nowadays. As far as I am aware most of my internal monologue isn't verbalized but it does happen. Over all I wouldn't rely too much on my internal monologue, it feels that it slows down my thinking to put whatever abstract thought I have into words.

You just made me realize that we might all "skip the words" when we have internalized a concept.

Case in point for me: math. For instance these days I'm working on geometric modelling, and when I see a wedge (exterior product of two 1D vectors = a 2D surface) I don't even read or say it, I just "see" the concept (not even a parallelogram, I don't visualize, it's just this abstraction for 2D which relates to number theory, physical spaces, etc). Then if I do something with this, I kind of navigate a map or graph (where e.g. gradients or dot products are sort of nodes). I'm gonna be 10x slower if I have to put words in it when talking to someone for instance.

Does that begin to describe how non-verbal thinkers think about pretty much everything?

Re: On Mind, Language and Machines

#20
In the cultures with the abrahamic religions (especially, but also elsewhere) the 'language of the birds' is considered a mythical 'divine language', some characters in the 'holy books' who are famed for wisdom or considered prophets are supposed to have understood it.

I'm sure this has motivated many to study birdsong and it's interesting that their language is regular, maybe birds are FSM like our computers :^)

Edit: I guess that would mean their societies are petri nets / statecharts =þ

Post reply on HN