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]

#251

Post by RaftPeople » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 3:54 PM UTC

nikster wrote: post #161

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…

Same here. I had a conversation with friends who said, language influences thinking. I said, no, I have thoughts, and I communicate them with language but the thoughts are not language. Later we spoke about being able to have no thoughts - still mind. I said I can do this any time, I can stop the thoughts and be still. At the time I had no training but I could do it for 10, 20, 30 seconds easily. And I knew with trai…

> I said, no, I have thoughts, and I communicate them with language but the thoughts are not language.

I'm the same way, my thoughts happen first, are completed and sitting in working memory with my awareness of the thought/result/whatever it is.

If I have an internal monologue, which isn't always, it's after the fact and more about re-stating the thought that already happened.

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

#252

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 3:56 PM UTC

verghese wrote: post #21

Reminds me of the the quote from Albert Einstein: "I very rarely think in words at all. A thought comes, and I may try to express it in words afterwards." Language is a higher level abstraction for the brain. Sort of like a higher level programming language vs assembly or binary.

Not claiming to be like Einstein in other ways, but I could say the same.

Sometimes people ask me if I think in English or my native language. I'm tempted to say "mostly not".

BTW, loose speculation: Maybe being bilingual does "free" the brain from word thinking.

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

#253

Post by haswell » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 4:02 PM UTC

ecjhdnc2025 wrote: post #221

haswell wrote: post #199

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…

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 h…

This is all extremely interesting. I also struggle to remember faces, and most of my are tied to emotions, sounds, smells, sensations, etc. When I recall something/someone, I don't see it/them, I just "know" + feel.

And I find myself very easily fooled by subtle changes in a person's appearance. If someone gets a major haircut or changes their hair color, they might as well be a different person to my brain, initially.

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

#254

Post by RaftPeople » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 4:03 PM UTC

leto_ii wrote: post #88

benrutter wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely have an inner monologue im some situations, reading is a good example. I can speed read in which case I don't really have a perception of the sounds, but if I'm closely reasing something then I do have a sense of the sounds if words as I'm reading. The idea of thinking independtly like that though seems unbearably slow to me (although lots of very clever people report doing it, so obviously it isn't for…

> The idea of thinking independtly like that though seems unbearably slow to me So, as a person who definitely has an inner monologue, I absolutely agree. It's not like I'm literally sounding out words in my mind all the time. The vast majority of things I do I do without explicit use of language. I think my understanding (mostly coming from Chomsky and in disagreement when OP) is that language is a mechanism for thi…

> mostly coming from Chomsky and in disagreement when OP

Is Chomsky's idea that language is not necessarily the same as spoken language, it is an alternate brain mechanism that provides structure to thought as opposed to being the wild west of fluid/analog non-discrete/non-symbolic type of information processing?

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

#255

Post by RaftPeople » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 4:10 PM UTC

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #76

benrutter wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely have an inner monologue im some situations, reading is a good example. I can speed read in which case I don't really have a perception of the sounds, but if I'm closely reasing something then I do have a sense of the sounds if words as I'm reading. The idea of thinking independtly like that though seems unbearably slow to me (although lots of very clever people report doing it, so obviously it isn't for…

That is thinking slow for you?? How do you reach conclusions or how do you know the reasons why you reached the conclusion?

> That is thinking slow for you?? How do you reach conclusions or how do you know the reasons why you reached the conclusion?

Are you thinking that using words during thinking helps with reaching conclusions and knowing why you reached the conclusion?

For me it's just there, the thoughts, the facts, the logic, the sequence, the connections, etc. Expressing all of that in words happens afterward (if it happens).

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

#256

Post by bhk » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 4:15 PM UTC

benrutter wrote: post #73

leto_ii wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never really had a strong internal monologue when thinking I'm curious, what is it like when you read something? Is it just not meditated by a monologue at all?

I definitely have an inner monologue im some situations, reading is a good example. I can speed read in which case I don't really have a perception of the sounds, but if I'm closely reasing something then I do have a sense of the sounds if words as I'm reading. The idea of thinking independtly like that though seems unbearably slow to me (although lots of very clever people report doing it, so obviously it isn't for…

It seems obvious to me that thinking critically about what you read or hear takes effort and time. I wouldn't call it unbearable, though, because the alternative is polluting your mind with unvetted notions.

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

#257

Post by Jensson » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 4:24 PM UTC

cableshaft wrote: post #222

nopinsight wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt Michelangelo could write such a spec, but he could make David. The ability to communicate is not the same thing as the ability to do, they are separate, as people who can write such a spec probably can't make it by themselves either.

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

#258

Post by jodrellblank » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 4:24 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…

I just did that quiz and the question about the sound of a trumpet getting louder made me notice that my imaginings of talking and instruments actually activate my vocal chords and neck muscles a bit; and imagining a trumpet is more like imagining someone make an imitation trumpet sound.

Also was hoping that quiz would ask about other senses; how easily people can choose to imagine tastes and smells, e.g. on their agree/disagree scales:

1. You can easily imagine the smell of freshly baked bread.

2. You can easily call to mind the taste of peanut butter.

3. You are melting chocolate and somebody suggests adding basil, you can vividly imagine how that would taste before trying it.

4. When remembering an event that happened to you, there is a strong smell memory included.

5. You can imagine feeling the weight and texture of a brick in your hands.

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

#259

Post by jodrellblank » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 4:28 PM UTC

kaashif wrote: post #247

ecjhdnc2025 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weird thing obviously is that next to nobody with a mind's eye is actually seeing the cow. A tiny tiny fraction of people talk about their mind's eye being part of their visual field, to the point that they can sort of functionally see -- hallucinate -- an imaginary object on a table like AR. Another small number of people talk about imagining complete objects out of nowhere that they then have to analyse to desc…

> Another small number of people talk about imagining complete objects out of nowhere that they then have to analyse to describe; the imaginary thing has complete shape before its shape is described. But this is different from the kids tea party. I can easily pretend to hold a teacup without closing my eyes and visualizing a teacup, I don't think one has anything to do with the other. If you ask someone to actually i…

If I cover your eyes and put a teacup on your open palm so you can't see the colour or feel the size, _what are you holding_?

I'm imagining a teacup - made of china, decorated in some way, capable of holding a few mouthfulls of ~75C thin liquid, smaller than a big mug, larger than a shot glass, with a handle sizes for the tip of one finger, delicate, ceremonial; concept space constrained to broadly teacup-ish area. But not a specific teacup unless it becomes important whether it's a plainer heavy duty cafe teacup or a grandma's Royal Jubilee promotional teacup.

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

#260

Post by SamPatt » Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 4:32 PM UTC

benrutter wrote: post #73

leto_ii wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never really had a strong internal monologue when thinking I'm curious, what is it like when you read something? Is it just not meditated by a monologue at all?

I definitely have an inner monologue im some situations, reading is a good example. I can speed read in which case I don't really have a perception of the sounds, but if I'm closely reasing something then I do have a sense of the sounds if words as I'm reading. The idea of thinking independtly like that though seems unbearably slow to me (although lots of very clever people report doing it, so obviously it isn't for…

My conscious thoughts are verbalized in my head, and it is somewhat slow, but I also have a sense of intuition, which is very fast, though works best in silence. I can pull things from intuition into conscious thought, but explaining why I feel something is the same slower process.

So thinking about something isn't a one speed operation, but being able to communicate those thoughts is.