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

Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 424 posts

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#101

Post by andai »

When I was 13 or so, a friend asked me, "So, you speak three languages. Which one do you think in?" and the question left me speechless, because until that moment I hadn't considered that people think in words. It seemed a very inefficient way to go about things!

Much later, I did begin to think mostly in words, and (perhaps for unrelated reasons?) my thinking became much less efficient.

Also related, I experienced temporarily enhanced cognition while under the influence of entheogens. My thoughts, which normally fade within seconds, became stretched out, so that I could stack up to 7 layers of thought on top of each other and examine them simultaneously.

I remember feeling greatly diminished, mentally, once that ability went away.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#102

Post by aeonik »

bonoboTP wrote: post #94
Razengan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you count without using a "language"? Try it now: Tap your hand on the desk randomly. Can you recall how many times you did it without "saying" a sequence in your head like "1, 2, 3" or "A, B, C" etc? If yes, how far can you count? With a language it's effectively infinite. You could theoretically go up to "1 million 5 hundred 43 thousand, 2 hundred and 10" and effortlessly know what comes next.

I can imagine the numbers as figures (I mean that the shape of the characters 1, 2 etc), or the patterns on a dice in sequence. This is a parallel stream, because if I count with imagined pictures, then I can speak and listen to someone talking without it disturbing the process. If I do it with subvocalization, then doing other speech/language related things would disturb the counting.

Wow I've never tried this before, and I feel like this is way easier than using words.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#103

Post by bonoboTP »

cassianoleal wrote: post #22
fnordpiglet wrote: post #2

For those who can’t and don’t think in words this is unsurprising.

I remember back in school, a language teacher once was trying to convey the importance of language. One of his main arguments was that we needed words and languages in order to think. I still recall my disbelief. I spent the next few days trying to understand how that process worked. I would force myself to think in words and sentences. It was incredibly limiting! So slow and lacking in images, in abstract relationsh…

I think people are just using the word "think" differently. They may have picked up a different meaning for that verb than you. For them, thinking == inner vocalization. It's just a different definition. They would not call imagining things or daydreaming or musing or planning action steps as "thinking".

Also, many people simply repeat facts they were told. "We need words to think" is simply a phrase this person learned, a fact to recite in school settings. It doesn't mean they deeply reflected on this statement or compared it with their experience.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#104

Post by aniijbod »

Thought and language are intertwined in ways we don’t fully grasp. The fact that certain cognitive tasks, like comprehension, can proceed without engaging traditional language-related brain regions doesn't mean thought doesn't use language—it just means we might not yet understand how it does. Thought could employ other forms of linguistic-like processes that Fedorenko's experiments, or even current brain-imaging techniques, fail to capture.

There could be functional redundancies or alternative systems at play that we haven't identified, systems that allow thought to access linguistic capabilities even when the specialized language areas are offline or unnecessary. The question of what "language in thought" looks like remains open, particularly in tasks requiring comprehension. This underscores the need for further exploration into how thought operates and what role, if any, latent or alternative linguistic functionalities play when conventional language regions aren't active.

In short, we may have a good understanding of language in isolation, but not necessarily in its broader role within the cognitive architecture that governs thought, comprehension, and meaning-making.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#105

Post by jebarker »

weard_beard wrote: post #100
jebarker wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs Not to over-hype LLMs, but I don't see why this results says this. AI doesn't need to do things the same way as evolved intelligence has.

To a point. If you drill down this far into the fundamentals of cognition you begin to define it. Otherwise you may as well call a cantaloupe sentient

I don't think anyone defines AI as "doing the thing that biological brains do" though, we define it in terms of capabilities of the system.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#106

Post by heavyset_go »

jebarker wrote: post #93
Animats wrote: post #48

This is an important result. The actual paper [1] says that functional MRI (which is measuring which parts of the brain are active by sensing blood flow) indicates that different brain hardware is used for non-language and language functions. This has been suspected for years, but now there's an experimental result. What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs. It's not clear what that someth…

> What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs Not to over-hype LLMs, but I don't see why this results says this. AI doesn't need to do things the same way as evolved intelligence has.

It doesn't need to, but evolved intelligence is the only intelligence we know of.

Similar reason we look for markers of Earth-based life on alien planets: it's the only example we've got of it existing.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#107

Post by slibhb »

bbor wrote: post #97
fuzzfactor wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say language is just the "communication module" but there has got to be another whole underlying interface where non-verbal thoughts are modulated/demodulated to conform to the language expected to be used when communication may or may not be on the agenda.

Well said! This is a great restatement of the core setup of the Chomskian “Generative Grammar” school, and I think it’s an undeniably productive one. I haven’t read this researchers full paper, but I would be sad (tho not shocked…) if it didn’t cite Chomsky up front. Beyond your specific point re:interfaces—which I recommend the OG Syntactic Structures for more commentary on—he’s been saying what she’s saying here fo…

Chomsky is shockingly unhumble. I admire him but he's a jerk who treats people who disagree with him with contempt. It's fun to read him doing this but it's uncollegiate (to say the least).

Also, calling "generative grammar" productive seems wrong to me. It's been around for half a century -- what tools has it produced? At some point theory needs to come into contact with empirical reality. As far as I know, generative grammar has just never gotten to this point.

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#108

Post by yapyap »

Animats wrote: post #48

This is an important result. The actual paper [1] says that functional MRI (which is measuring which parts of the brain are active by sensing blood flow) indicates that different brain hardware is used for non-language and language functions. This has been suspected for years, but now there's an experimental result. What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs. It's not clear what that someth…

Lol, it’s insane how some people will track everything back to AI

Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

#110

Post by keybored »

slibhb wrote: post #107
bbor wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said! This is a great restatement of the core setup of the Chomskian “Generative Grammar” school, and I think it’s an undeniably productive one. I haven’t read this researchers full paper, but I would be sad (tho not shocked…) if it didn’t cite Chomsky up front. Beyond your specific point re:interfaces—which I recommend the OG Syntactic Structures for more commentary on—he’s been saying what she’s saying here fo…

Chomsky is shockingly un humble. I admire him but he's a jerk who treats people who disagree with him with contempt. It's fun to read him doing this but it's uncollegiate (to say the least). Also, calling "generative grammar" productive seems wrong to me. It's been around for half a century -- what tools has it produced? At some point theory needs to come into contact with empirical reality. As far as I know, generat…

Who has he mistreated?
Post reply on HN