I’ve been hearing/reading about people who don’t have an inner monologue. Their experience of cognition is not verbally-based.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/inner-monologue-...
Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought
181–190 of 424 posts
Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
> During my life, I have met several people, especially among software engineers, who seem to be similar to me This begs a question though: Since programming is mostly done with language - admittedly primitive/pidgin ones - why isn't that a struggle? Not sure if you're a programmer yourself, but if so do you prefer certain programming languages for some sense of "less-verbalness" or does it even matter? Just wonderin…
The idea that programming languages and natural languages are processed with the same wetware should be testable with something like the tests described in this submission. I don't expect it to be true, but only expecting something is not science
Some progress has been made in this area, see [0], [1], [2] and [3], observing both similarities and dissimilarities in terms of language processing:
Siegmund, J., Kästner, C., Apel, S., Parnin, C., Bethmann, A., Leich, T. & Brechmann, A. (2014). Understanding understanding source code with functional magnetic resonance imaging. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 378-389).
Peitek, N., Siegmund, J., Apel, S., Kästner, C., Parnin, C., Bethmann, A. & Brechmann, A. (2018). A look into programmers’ heads. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 46(4), 442-462.
Krueger, R., Huang, Y., Liu, X., Santander, T., Weimer, W., & Leach, K. (2020). Neurological divide: An fMRI study of prose and code writing. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 678-690).
Peitek, N., Apel, S., Parnin, C., Brechmann, A. & Siegmund, J. (2021). Program comprehension and code complexity metrics: An fmri study. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) (pp. 524-536). IEEE.
[0]: https://www.frontiersin.org/10.3389/conf.fninf.2014.18.00040...
[1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8425769
Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought
#183This 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…
I believe what this tells is that thought requires blood flow in the brain of mammals.
Stepping back a level, it may only actually tell us that MRIs measure blood flow.
Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brain size isn't necessarily a very good correlate of intelligence. For example dolphins and elephants have bigger brains than humans, and sperm whales have much bigger brains (5x by volume). Neanderthals also had bigger brains than modern humans, but are not thought to have been more intelligent. A crow has a small brain, but also has very small neurons, so ends up having 1.5B neurons, similar to a dog or some monke…
Don’t assume whales are less intelligent than humans. They’re tuned for their environment. They won’t assemble machines with their flippers but let’s toss you naked in the pacific and see if you can communicate and collaborate with peers 200km away on complex hunting strategies.
Let's toss a whale on land and see if it can communicate and collaborate with peers 10 ft away on anything. I don't think being tuned to communicate underwater makes them more intelligent than humans.
Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought
#185This 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…
For those interested in the history, this is in fact the Neural Network research path that predated LLMs. Not just in the sense that Hinton et al and the core of the "Parallel Distributed Processing"/Connectionist school were always opposed to Chomsky's identification of brain-thought-language, but that the original early 2000s NSF grant awarded to Werbos, Ng, LeCun et al was for "Deep Learning in the Mammalian Visual Cortex." In their research program, mouse intelligence was posited as the first major challenge.
Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought
#186[deleted]
Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it important? To who? Anyone with half a brain is aware that language isn't the only way to think. I can think my way through all kinds of things in 3-d space without a single word uttered in any internal monologue and I'm not remotely unique - this kind of thing is put in all kinds of math and iq'ish like tests one takes as a child.
Before you say things this patiently dumb you should probably wonder what question the researchers are actually interested in and why your average experience isn't sufficient proof.
It's "patently" and maybe understand the definition of "average" before using it.
Once you've figured out how to use language, explain why this is important and to who. Then maybe what the upshot will be. The fact that someone has proven something to be true doesn't make it important.
The comment I replied to made it sound like it's important to the field of AI. It is not. Almost zero serious researchers think LLMs all by themselves are "enough". People are working on all manner of models and systems incorporating all kinds of things "not LLM". Practically no one who actually works in AI reads this paper and changes anything, because it only proves something they already believed to be true and act accordingly.
Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought
#188This 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…
It’s impossible to overstate how crude and useless blood flow MRI studies are, at least relative to the hype they receive.
Spoiler alert: brains require a lot of blood, constantly, just to not die. Looking at blood flow on an MRI to determine neural circuitry has to deal with the double whammy of both an extremely crude tool and a correlation/causation fallacy.
This article and the study are arguably useless.
Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought
#189Re: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought
#190Earlier 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.
One reason might that LLMs are successful because of the architecture, but also, just as importantly because they can be trained over a volume and diversity of human thought that’s encapsulated in language (that is on the internet). Where are we going to find the equivalent data set that will train this other kind of thinking? Open AI O1 seems to be trained on mostly synthetic data, but it makes intuitive sense that…
> One reason might that LLMs are successful because of the architecture, but also, just as importantly because they can be trained over a volume and diversity of human thought that’s encapsulated in language (that is on the internet). Where are we going to find the equivalent data set that will train this other kind of thinking?
Probably by putting simulated animals into simulated environments where they have to survive and thrive.
Working at animal level is uncool, but necessary for progress. I had this argument with Rod Brooks a few decades back. He had some good artificial insects, and wanted to immediately jump to human level, with a project called Cog.[1] I asked him why he didn't go for mouse level AI next. He said "Because I don't want to go down in history as the inventor of the world's greatest artificial mouse."
Cog was a dud, and Brooks goes down in history as the inventor of the world's first good robotic vacuum cleaner.