To all engineers, it’s just an API
And LLMs are mock we want to ship to production because in some cases it's indistinguishable from service. It's also like a burrito. Also not engineers - devs.
Difference between engineers and devs?
Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
321–330 of 404 posts
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#322The entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good summary of the Language of Thought Hypothesis. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/language-thought/ Jerry Fodor, who advocated an internal mental language, was seen as an old crank when I studied Linguistics in late 90s; I just looked him up and, god, he died recently in 2017. Here’s a New Yorker article from that time: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/post…
Complaint not targeted at you personally but - why does thought have to take place in language at all? I sometimes reason using physical or kinesthetic metaphors that would be impossible to capture perfectly in language.
and why does thought have to have one form? I think in both language and visual representations and i switch between them depending on the task and i even pipe the input from one representation into the other representation.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what about the concepts that you haven't internalized, faced or taught yet?
I read the words and then imagine them until I internalize them. I tend to space out a lot when I do that, so I don't really listen during lessons but I tend to learn most things during the lesson that way. Makes me really bad at following instructions though, since unlike math or physics you shouldn't internalize them instead you should just execute the words and that is really annoying, my brain really doesn't want…
I used to do math olympiads in high school and the concepts I saw there were always something I hadn't seen before. I always used inner monologue to figure out solutions though. I had never practiced much for math olympiads, I performed relatively well for my area, not good enough to make it to international levels though.
I can't follow verbal instructions as well though, I couldn't listen to the teacher etc. But I think it's because my inner monologue takes all the focus so I just follow my inner monologue which is probably completely another topic than what the lesson is about. I can't really focus away from my inner monologue. When I try, then I would just have philosophical meta discussion about my inner monologue. But also this meant that I couldn't actually learn the subjects as well during the class. I either had to learn from my free time or not at all.
Also have to watch films with subtitles, because audio language I have troubles focusing on.
I think all I have is my inner monologue, no good visual imagery, or other types of "thinking". I think makes me really poor at navigation as well. I never remember how to get somewhere. And also in general for anything 3d, like 3d games I will perform bad at, awareness wise.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#324FUCK YOU FOR CENSORING MY COMMENTS. YOU CAN STICK IT UP YOUR ARSES.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#325False dichotomy. Of course language is for communication like in all other animals, but where would man be without the invention of the language of mathematics? Probably not in the space and nuclear age. So the linguistic tools can push the boundaries of human cognition.
Exactly. It's like saying hands are for making things rather than for carrying things.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Helen Keller wrote about having memories of being something like a stimulus-response automata before language enabled her to be conscious and think. I think that example is actually in favour of language being required for thought, because she remembers a state of being before language where she wasn't really conscious and didn't really think. I don't see any particular reason why language would be required for memor…
Do you remember where you read that? I'd love to read more.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#327It 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 seems like there's a large number of people who experience their thought exclusively as language.
They must listen to a large amount of verbose drivel telling them how to weave their way through a crowd, or how to rotate a suitcase to fit it into a trunk.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair to Chomsky, the historical context is that he was pushing against a particular dogma of his time. So later on Chomsky evolved his own position and came up with i-language/e-language for internal vs external language and so forth. And a few years ago he was recommending a new cognitive science textbook where the first chapter begins with Claude Shannon's communication/information theory.
Interesting. Do you have a link to some of his statements to that effect? I have a lot of respect for Chomsky but sometimes it does seem he's lazy in giving a well balanced argument for the things he advocates for. The above clip I shared is him stating unequivocally that standard dogma is wrong. Now you're telling me he's walked back his position and arguing for something more nuanced.
Probably because you are only listening to soundbites. Try reading something detailed he has recently written on the subject like "Why Only Us".
The arguments for language as not-for-communication are 1. language's hierarchical structure is inefficient for linear communication 2. language seems to have appeared suddenly (probably due to a sudden mutation) and had no time to evolve and initially no one to communicate with 3. most use of language seems to be internal/thinking not communication.
These are all better arguments than those in the paper.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#329It 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…
Often times i can actively feel how laggy my brain is in wrapping the thoughts in language. Before i even have the words ready, my thinking is already way ahead at the next thought. Not sure if that's just ADHD. I like to think secretly it's because i am not too dumb and actually a quick thinker. On the other hand, my analytical thinking is not that good. While i enjoy the process of thinking about things alone for h…
> I sometimes feel like i am standing on the piazza, waiting for this beautiful thought to walk past me. Too scared to talk to it, because she would realize i am too dumb to understand her and a con-artist anyway... but then, every once in a while this beautiful thought turns around and takes over my brain. But maybe, i am truly just mad.
I have a huge quote "Notes" from all the books i've read. This is the first time a quote has made it into the notes that has come from a random comment on the internet. I think i'll carry this quote in the back of my minds eye for the rest of my life.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
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! :-)
I've watched something about an autistic person with a photographic memory who said they had trouble with the concept of "a church" because in their mind they could only picture specific churches and they all looked different. I've seen anecdotes of people with perfect pitch saying that if a tune was transposed to a different octave or played in a different key or interpretation, everyone else says it is "the same tune" but to them it has different notes so it's a different tune.
I don't know if it's weird; generalising a category from specific examples is saves memory space over remembering every individual teacup we've ever seen, so going the other way starting with a general concept of a teacup and only specifying as and when needed seems to make sense.