Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

gwern.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 404 posts

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

#281

Post by andoando »

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…

I find language to be worse for abstract thought. Abstract thought to me is shapes and transformations. I then have to put words to them, "Imagine there is a ball here and another ball here and..."

I can imagine things transformating in space much faster than thinking it in words.

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

#282

Post by dabei »

ajb wrote: post #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 on…

Maybe it's similar to tweaking the LLM prompts. A different set of words trigger a different pathway in our thinking.

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

#283

Post by dabei »

cubefox wrote: post #125

Here is my explanation why language seems to be, while not necessary, so useful for abstract thought: Thinking thoughts with abstract concepts takes up a lot of working memory. We can't hold many of those in mind at once. But if they are expressed in words they take very little memory. So we can have long winding and abstract thoughts because language compresses the parts of the thought complex we are not currently f…

Yes. Similar to how "thinking step by step" helps LLMs achieve higher quality solution.

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

#284

Post by dabei »

kevinventullo wrote: post #128
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.

I think of language more as a lossy serialization format for thoughts.

Agree, think about it as scribbles we make on the scratch pad when thinking through a challenging math question. It mostly serve as input to our ongoing thinking process, rather than persistence of thoughts.

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

#285

Post by kjkjadksj »

An easy example of this is from reading books. Chances are you imagine your own scene in your head of how the characters or setting might look like, with much more clarity and depth than what few descriptors the author supplied. In that sense you’ve been communicated something through language but you aren’t thinking within the bounds of that communicated message, your thoughts go beyond merely what is written and add their own sensibilities to the message. None of this was communicated explicitly, but it exists as thought.

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

#286

Post by kjkjadksj »

talkingtab wrote: post #214

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 just ran that experiment and successfully thought without language. I took my coffee cup into the sink in the kitchen without thinking of such actions explicitly with words, but I sure “thought” to do it. I didn’t wake up in the kitchen wondering how the cup got in the sink or anything.

Another example of thinking without language: walking around or driving a car while holding a conversation.

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

#287

Post by ecjhdnc2025 »

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 you ask someone to actually imagine seeing a teacup but what they're imagining doesn't have a colour or size, _what are they imagining_?

The pure, abstract essence of teacup, to them.

I suppose I assume it does have size and shape (it's functionally an imaginary cup, after all, and not another imaginary object).

Maybe to someone who has only ever seen blue teacups, it's inherently blue?

For me, if I start that exercise it's not even white; its colour is undefined until I interrogate the idea it should have colour.

Or until whichever hilarious infant I am having an imaginary tea party with tells me what colour it is, of course.

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

#288

Post by ecjhdnc2025 »

jodrellblank wrote: post #259
kaashif wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. B…

> But not a specific teacup

Right, isn't that weird though! :-)

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

#289

Post by ecjhdnc2025 »

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…

It might be that what I am describing falls short of aphantasia (though my difficulties recalling motionless faces do suggest it).

I sometimes wonder if what it actually is, is a kind of fundamentally unexplored thought or experience.

There's a bunch of other examples.

Like... I can't _really_ tell my left from my right on an instinctive level, though I believe this to be inherited because I have relatives who can't.

Ask me directions in a hurry and I'll get them wrong even when I am sure they are right. I don't really have a "left" and a "right"; I have two sides that don't feel that different.

So I also can't really use mirrors well.

I have surprisingly quick and accurate reflexes for catching falling things but I can't catch a ball thrown to me.

The question about all of these things is: are they just things I have never found the right way to deliberately work through into a conscious process? Are they things I can't do now because I didn't learn when my brain was fresh?

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

#290

Post by ecjhdnc2025 »

haswell wrote: post #253
ecjhdnc2025 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, initiall…

> If someone gets a major haircut or changes their hair color, they might as well be a different person to my brain, initially.

That is true aphantasia.

I don't have this aspect of the problem -- indeed, I often have the weird super-recogniser problem of correctly identifying that I have seen someone unknown to me before, and where. I might be able to even describe the clothes they were wearing that last time or something they were holding or doing.

But I would struggle to describe their face to someone else.

Post reply on HN