Quite a lot of humans don't think in language, or do only some of the time, see e.g. https://www.iflscience.com/people-with-no-internal-monologue... , https://www.livescience.com/does-everyone-have-inner-monolog... , https://www.bustle.com/wellness/does-everyone-have-an-intern... .
Indeed, there are two types of people in that regard, whose mind is blown (usually) that there is another type. One thinks in words, one has no words but a smooth stream of thought going.
That's wild - I am clearly the first sort, because I cannot imagine what "a smooth stream of thought" would even be if it were not expressed in words.
You have to think that there were breakthroughs in communication technology — not just language in general but possibly also one individual who happened to be good at explaining things, either before or after language, who both taught more people, but also taught them how to teach — that led to step changes in technology.
Theory: there are no humans without language. Consider: what language do you think in?
This is sort of the chicken and egg question though. You're basically asking if pre-human primates had language, which plausibly they did, and so consequently did the first humans who were their descendants. But somebody was the first whether they were homo sapiens or not.
You have to think that there were breakthroughs in communication technology — not just language in general but possibly also one individual who happened to be good at explaining things, either before or after language, who both taught more people, but also taught them how to teach — that led to step changes in technology.
Theory: there are no humans without language. Consider: what language do you think in?
We think in something Steven Pinker termed “mentalese”. It is distinct from human language. There are many examples of people who are cognitively normal, but either lack or have severely impaired language for various reasons.
The distinction between reason and language is not widely appreciated, and is a main if not the primary reason people overestimate the abilities of LLMs.
Theory: there are no humans without language. Consider: what language do you think in?
We think in something Steven Pinker termed “mentalese”. It is distinct from human language. There are many examples of people who are cognitively normal, but either lack or have severely impaired language for various reasons. The distinction between reason and language is not widely appreciated, and is a main if not the primary reason people overestimate the abilities of LLMs.
This really reminds me of the recent “Hellen Keller on life before self-consciousness” and the discussion about people who were born deaf and how their thinking changed after learning sign language.
Indeed, there are two types of people in that regard, whose mind is blown (usually) that there is another type. One thinks in words, one has no words but a smooth stream of thought going.
That's wild - I am clearly the first sort, because I cannot imagine what "a smooth stream of thought" would even be if it were not expressed in words.
It is like your motor control thoughts, you don't think let me pickup this spoon you just pick it up, when given an equation you do not think go through the steps if x - 9 = 22, you just say x is 31 yet you have skipped in your mind there exists a base mental representation of these things some call it a small world model of a large world model encoded in an abstract knowledge representation sort of like a compilers abstract syntax tree and this representation is sort of universal in that you can take it from someone and give it to another person and they will automatically know provided that they have the requisite properties of the world model in which it exists for instance a thought about the symmetric group s3 could be transferred provided that the requisite structure for groups( just the definition, and concept of rotation exists which already exists by default in mammals).
Quite a lot of humans don't think in language, or do only some of the time, see e.g. https://www.iflscience.com/people-with-no-internal-monologue... , https://www.livescience.com/does-everyone-have-inner-monolog... , https://www.bustle.com/wellness/does-everyone-have-an-intern... .
Indeed, there are two types of people in that regard, whose mind is blown (usually) that there is another type. One thinks in words, one has no words but a smooth stream of thought going.
> Indeed, there are two types of people in that regard
> One thinks in words
No. There are people who believe they think in words, because they haven't bothered to examine the question, but there are no people who think in words.
Think about the number of people you've ever seen do a double take at the idea that "I don't know how to put this into words".
Indeed, there are two types of people in that regard, whose mind is blown (usually) that there is another type. One thinks in words, one has no words but a smooth stream of thought going.
> Indeed, there are two types of people in that regard > One thinks in words No. There are people who believe they think in words, because they haven't bothered to examine the question, but there are no people who think in words. Think about the number of people you've ever seen do a double take at the idea that "I don't know how to put this into words".
I absolutely think in words. There are no pictures or whatever other mental model. There is literally a narrative of words and blackness inside head.
The would strongly point to speech developing around that time, but there's no mention of language or speech in the article - odd.
The common ancestor of neanderthals and homo sapiens had a larger than normal hole in the skull (the hypoglossal canal) which contains the nerve bundle going to the tongue. They're pretty sure that was the result of language use before 1M BC. There may have been several stages of later improvement after the initial development.
Yet some other evidence places it much later at around 130ky. Go figure.
Indeed, there are two types of people in that regard, whose mind is blown (usually) that there is another type. One thinks in words, one has no words but a smooth stream of thought going.
That's wild - I am clearly the first sort, because I cannot imagine what "a smooth stream of thought" would even be if it were not expressed in words.
For what it's worth, I used to be certain that I thought in words too. Then I moved to a different country and used a second language often enough that I sometimes think in it. I then realized that there are periods where I think in neither my native language nor in my second language, even when I'm thinking. YMMV of course.