Live data from Hacker News

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

gwern.net

221–230 of 404 posts

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

#221

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…

OK so -- on this score. I have, I believe, a kind of partial aphantasia. Though maybe it's normal and people just don't really see the distinction?

I used to think -- until maybe ten years ago -- that I could not imagine the faces of friends and loved ones.

That is, if I try to visualise a person's face, I get an incomplete glimpse in my mind that dissolves away within an instant.

(People in my dreams do not really have detailed faces, if I can ever really look at their faces at all; it's like I don't make eye contact. Though they are not face-less horrors.)

This has been distressing, particularly when my mum died.

But then I discovered two really interesting things:

1) I can sometimes imagine a "still" face if I visualise a photograph of that person (maybe only slightly more if I took it)

2) I can bring someone's face to mind much more successfully if I associate it with an emotion or an action, and once I've done that, as long as I keep them in motion I can visualise a lot more for longer.

A quarter of a century after she died, if I want to remember my mum, it's a real challenge. She hated being in photos so there aren't many. But it's possible to start by imagining her angry (sorry mum) or the annoyed look on her face when she was trying to solve a puzzle game on the computer. Then I might be able to keep her face in my mind for long enough.

My dad passed away a couple of years back and for this loss I was ready; I have some photos, but more importantly I had spent the previous years learning his face experiencing different emotions. My favourite route to imagining my Dad's face is to imagine a situation where he might show puzzled, half-smiling amusement or fascination when presented with something he didn't understand or didn't work quite the way he expected. I will be able to recall his face in motion, just as my face starts to leak around the eye sockets :-/

So on the one hand: even now I can't visualise still faces at all! I struggle to describe faces of people I don't really know well. As soon as a face is still, it goes.

On the other hand, I have taught myself a visualisation process that can conjure up meaningful animated recollections that are filled with emotion. I have to do it deliberately, but it's lovely to do.

One final quirk: despite all this, I appear to potentially be a super-recogniser. I can't visualise a still face, but I do not "forget a face"; I can tell you with eerie accuracy whether I've seen someone before and where. And I do rather well with the "which of these faces did you see in this clip" type test, and very well at the tests like "which of these faces is this face from another angle".

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

#222

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'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).

Isn't that what CNC machines do? Or even 3D modeling software, which then gets 3D printed? Is that not creating things, potentially as complicated as David, using language? I know CNC machines use G-Code.

I think the only limiting factor we have on that is we don't yet have a robot that can chisel marble to create a carbon copy of such sculptures, but we can otherwise do it with other materials.

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

#223
An important concept , and one that also has implications for mental health treatment. Eg, many talk therapies operate under the assumption that 'saying the wrong words in your head' is a factor maintaining the problem, and replacing these with better ones will result in improvement.

But since words are not thoughts, and further they are not mental actions (such as relaxing), saying different words in your head is only useful if they help put you in a frame of mind where you can access, or discover, the right thoughts or 'mental actions'.

I conjecture that within the diversity of human minds, there are some for whom language closely bound to thoughts and mental actions, and others less so, and that talk therapy is more useful for the former than the latter. If this is true, then it is also likely to be the case that most talk therapists are of the former persuasion, since they are not likely to espouse a practice which has no effect on themselves.

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

#224
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> English as a communication tool looses very little expressive power when users do not use sub-clauses. Very little for that subset you wish to communicate, maybe. In some literary traditions, not only are clauses nested within clauses at the sentence level, but whole narratives are nested within others. (hmm, are there any in-the-wild examples of recursive tmesis? if so, that'd be just fan-far-fucking-out-tastic)

Clauses within clauses are not "recursive", no more than "let x = 1 in (let y = 2 in (let z = 3 in x + y + z)" represents recursion in some hypothetical programming language. Programming languages and human languages existed before people felt the need to define them using formal grammars. Yes most formal grammars use recursion but that's a property of the system you are trying to use to describe (meta) the structure…

You are saying that text on a (finite) page is not recursive (because recursion is a computation, not the output of that computation). But we are interested in the computations that the language faculty performs not the output.

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

#225

Okay, so my first experiment was to try to think without language. Go ahead, you try it. I can't do it. So a simple conclusion is that language gives rise to what we call thought. However, I do some things - which I do not call thought - without language. There was/is an old IBM programming test of patterns and I can choose the correct pattern even when I cannot think why that is. In "Notes on the Synthesis of Form",…

> So a simple conclusion is that language gives rise to what we call thought.

Simple and wrong. Remember that thought is highly influenced by habit. If you habitually think in language, it might just possibly take more than thirty seconds of trying before you can conclude it's impossible.

Unless you're defining "thought" to be "internal mental processes that take the form of language", in which case have fun at tautology club.

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

#226
post #24

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…

> * 关系 (Guanxi) (Mandarin): Your network of connections that help you get stuff done in life and business. I do think in American English at least there is a phrase for this: Your Network. You even used it to explain the word :) Usually the first association to “your/the network” is social. You have to specify if you mean the technical version with computers.

[deleted]

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

#227

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…

> People experience their thoughts very differently

I don't see how we could possibly know this.

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

#228
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * 关系 (Guanxi) (Mandarin): Your network of connections that help you get stuff done in life and business. I do think in American English at least there is a phrase for this: Your Network. You even used it to explain the word :) Usually the first association to “your/the network” is social. You have to specify if you mean the technical version with computers.

> * น้ำใจ (Nam-jai) (Thai): Literally "water from the heart". Being very nice and helpful without expecting anything back. "Charity"

Charity is closer to ใจบุญ (jai-bun) than น้ำใจ (nam-jai).

A mixture of "act of kindness" and "good will" would be a more fitting translation, but the interesting part here is that "sportmanship" is also considered an act of น้ำใจ (น้ำใจนักกีฬา nam-jai nak-kee-la or literally. sportman's nam-jai).

We also have a word เสียน้ำใจ (sia-nam-jai) for when our nam-jai ended up as a waste, or for when the other party is being ungrateful for the kindness that's being given, and also เลี้ยงน้ำใจ (leang-nam-jai) for when you're doing/accepting nam-jai for the sake of not making the other party sia-nam-jai.

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

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> 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).

Right. This is enormously challenging in itself. And I think because nobody talks about it, it's possible, or maybe the default, to assume that you're simply broken in an obvious, universal way, and not that there might be variation or even routes to change your outcomes with metacognition or thought experiments.

What often comes up is stuff like "oh I thought 'the mind's eye' was just a figure of speech, I had no idea people meant it in a meaningful sense"

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

#230

Okay, so my first experiment was to try to think without language. Go ahead, you try it. I can't do it. So a simple conclusion is that language gives rise to what we call thought. However, I do some things - which I do not call thought - without language. There was/is an old IBM programming test of patterns and I can choose the correct pattern even when I cannot think why that is. In "Notes on the Synthesis of Form",…

I can think without language, and so can you. That's why we have the phrase, "what just happened?" "what was that" you have seen an event, you can see think about it, but you don't understand it. thoughts come before language, language helps to cement understand. I also speak multiple languages, I don't think in any language.
Post reply on HN