Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#201

Post by nopinsight » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 1:36 PM UTC

hifromwork wrote: post #173

nopinsight wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did Michelangelo create his masterpieces? Can one describe the process using any verbal language in sufficient detail such that another master or a robot could create David? That's an example of thought processes beyond language. I suspect the same happens in many other fields. Even in an abstract field like mathematics, intuition often forms in the mind before verbal description or articulation.

>How did Michelangelo create his masterpieces? Can one describe the process using any verbal language in sufficient detail such that another master or a robot could create David? That's an example of thought processes beyond language. I'm not sure what you mean. He probably started with something "Ok, I need to create a statue", then "Who should I pick, I guess it should be someone Biblical, let's pick David because…

Here is the key part of my argument: in sufficient detail such that another master or a robot could create David, (implying) in the exact same style as the masterpiece, without seeing or touching the artifact itself (because that would not be just verbal language anymore).

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#202

Post by empath75 » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 1:39 PM UTC

justacomment100 wrote: post #183

My takes: 1. The existence of “rubber duck debugging”, and a whole bunch of studies on verbally explaining a concept indicate that language is essential for thought. In rubber duck debugging, programmers tell their problem to an object and this is beneficial in finding the solution. There are studies that show when we verbally teach material to someone we remember it better. Also the act of taking a test increases le…

I think you can think of rubber duck debugging and similar ideas as "forcing functions." In order to communicate an idea one must have "an idea" to communicate. The process of putting vague notions into words forces you to reason about them and clarify them.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#203

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 1:40 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #194

benrutter wrote: post #56

It absolutely melts my mind every time I come across the two facts that: - People experience their thoughts very differently - We all secretly believe that deep down, everyone experiences thought like we do. I've never really had a strong internal monologue when thinking, so my assumption would always be that of course, thinking isn't very linguistic (even if we can use it as a tool while thinking). It seems like the…

I am, apparently, someone well on the linguistic side of the spectrum, yet I too was somewhat taken aback by this statement from the abstract: "Here we bring recent evidence from neuroscience and allied disciplines to argue that in modern humans, language is a tool for communication, contrary to a prominent view that we use language for thinking" [my emphasis]. My own thinking on this has been to consider the origins…

[deleted]

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#204

Post by posterboy » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 1:40 PM UTC

nopinsight wrote: post #47

gyomu wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * 積ん読 (Tsundoku) (Japanese): Buying books and never reading them, just letting them pile up. i don't speak Thai or Mandarin, so I can't speak to the other 2, but this one is a pun (combining tsundeoku, pile up, and dokusho, book reading) that survived in the language due to its catchiness. A bit like "hangry" (hungry + angry) in English. I have a hard time interpreting the existence of those words as an indication…

Perhaps wabi-sabi (侘び寂び) might be a better example? "wabi-sabi (侘び寂び) is a world view centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi )

there are no good examples. The basic premise in Linguistics these days seems tl be that all languages are potentially equally expressive. Trade-offs in one domain (grammar, lexicon, phonology etc.) afford advantages in another. Which means, there is no need to refer to Japanese at all.

You could equally refer to some slur in a lower register to then claim that this doesn't exist in your language and how it can't be translated either. So when Joe Biden said "SoB" on tape once, that was code switching; likewise, when Trump says anything it's all made up and coded and means something entirely different. However, these are bad examples if your target is a monolingual Japanese, obv.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#205

Post by cableshaft » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 1:41 PM UTC

gvurrdon wrote: post #135

benrutter wrote: post #56

It absolutely melts my mind every time I come across the two facts that: - People experience their thoughts very differently - We all secretly believe that deep down, everyone experiences thought like we do. I've never really had a strong internal monologue when thinking, so my assumption would always be that of course, thinking isn't very linguistic (even if we can use it as a tool while thinking). It seems like the…

That test was indeed interesting. But, one thing it didn't mention was audiation. Various people I know (including me) can hear music in their heads, almost like a recording. This is very useful when performing as I can pretty much play along to this internal track. Some people appear not to be able to do this at all.

I have the internal audio. I wish I could just hook up an audio interface to my brain for that sometimes as it would be so convenient for making new music.

In theory I could translate it to a DAW (but I'm not that great at transcribing music...it's possible, kinda, but slow), but I can't easily repeat the music in my head (not what I make up at least, proper released songs tend to be easier to repeat), so it would be difficult to recreate it enough to be worth the effort.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#206

Post by posterboy » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 1:43 PM UTC

dejj wrote: post #68

nopinsight wrote: post #7

There are many concepts in our thought stream without a 'word' or even a simple 'phrase' to label them. A word or a common phrase is coined when a concept is sufficiently common and important enough such that someone comes up with a label to communicate the idea succinctly and the label catches on. We, humanity, have words or common phrases to label the vast majority of significant concepts. However, not every concep…

Brevity is key for words that aid thinking. Consider Chinese 成语 (Chengyu) [1] or Japanese 四字熟語 (Yo Ji Juku Go) [2]: - 指桑骂槐 (Zhi Sang Ma Huai) - Pulling the shoots to make the rice grow = helicoptering - 拔苗助长 (Ba Miao Zhu Zhang) - Point at the mulberry tree to curse the locust tree = deflective criticism These condense a whole story with moral lesson in them, and they facilitate recall of that concept. The trick is om…

You are missing that to drive one-self home is a metaphor, possibly a visual metaphor in this case, for DIY self-service in the private domain, as it were.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#207

Post by dinkleberg » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 1:45 PM UTC

haswell wrote: post #199

ecjhdnc2025 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question about visualising three dimensional objects is fascinating to me. Because my answer has changed radically in the last five or so years, and I'm not a young person! I used to consider myself 3D-impaired -- unable to maintain and rotate a 3D image in my head, which also made 3D software frustrating. (I also have, it turns out, some binocular vision issues and some other mild cognition weirdness). But a few…

As someone with Aphantasia, this is fascinating to me. There have been other aphantasics who report gaining the ability to visualize after mental exercises, and what you’re describing sounds somewhat similar. No luck for me yet, but I’m really interested in the idea that I could actually learn these skills…

This is such an interesting topic. I believe I also have aphantasia and I find that communicating about the topic is rather challenging as the right vocabulary doesn't seem to exist (or I'm ignorant of it).

I have no "mind's eye" and can't produce an image in my head. But confusingly, I am quite good at the mental 3D manipulation. I can spin the cow in my head and describe its orientation, but I don't actually see the cow, I just know it. I suppose my brain just has a different way of approaching this problem than visually.

This is where the language is tough. I'm not visualizing or imagining as those words describe the act of using a mental image. I'm perceiving the cow? It is hard to communicate.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#208

Post by cellu » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 1:46 PM UTC

guax wrote: post #71

nopinsight wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did Michelangelo create his masterpieces? Can one describe the process using any verbal language in sufficient detail such that another master or a robot could create David? That's an example of thought processes beyond language. I suspect the same happens in many other fields. Even in an abstract field like mathematics, intuition often forms in the mind before verbal description or articulation.

I don't get your point on Michelangelo. We can very easily describe the process if we could see it. We just can't cause he's dead and he was not big on YouTube, even then we can explain a lot from evidence. Its much more complex to explain why we classify them as masterpieces than how he made it.

I’d recommend to read the reflective practitioner, by Donald Schön

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#209

Post by coldtea » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 1:48 PM UTC

benrutter wrote: post #56

It absolutely melts my mind every time I come across the two facts that: - People experience their thoughts very differently - We all secretly believe that deep down, everyone experiences thought like we do. I've never really had a strong internal monologue when thinking, so my assumption would always be that of course, thinking isn't very linguistic (even if we can use it as a tool while thinking). It seems like the…

>It absolutely melts my mind every time I come across the two facts that: - People experience their thoughts very differently - We all secretly believe that deep down, everyone experiences thought like we do.

Well, the first is not exactly right. People might experience thoughts differently, but not that widely so. It's not like "anything goes", more like there are a few cases, and people fall into one or the other (e.g. some can have aphantasia).

And the second, while right, is hardly "mind melting". Why would people assume otherwise, since the only immediate empirically seen thinking they have access to is their own?

(Especially since different modes of thinking is not exactly "anything goes" as we said, so the second-hand examples of thinking they have, e.g. people describing or mimicking thinking and inner monologues in movies and books, match how the majority thinks)

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#210

Post by maizeq » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 1:49 PM UTC

justacomment100 wrote: post #183

My takes: 1. The existence of “rubber duck debugging”, and a whole bunch of studies on verbally explaining a concept indicate that language is essential for thought. In rubber duck debugging, programmers tell their problem to an object and this is beneficial in finding the solution. There are studies that show when we verbally teach material to someone we remember it better. Also the act of taking a test increases le…

1. This doesn’t indicate language is necessary for thought but rather that language is useful for refining thought. If anything it shows that some form of thought exists before it is articulated into language. I would assume inverse cases also exist, where articulation into language narrows a thought down into the vocabulary of a language.

2. I thought rare individuals who did not develop language abilities (e.g due to isolation) still had memories of their time prior to thought. The most obvious example to me is Helen Keller, who writes about her time prior to meeting her teacher.