Live data from Hacker News

Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

scientificamerican.com

271–280 of 424 posts

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

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't think being tuned to communicate underwater makes them more intelligent than humans. Your responding to a claim that was never made. The claim was don't assume humans are smarter than whales. Nobody said whales are more intelligent than humans. He just said don't assume.

Why would he not "assume" that when humans have shaped their world so far beyond what it was, creating intricate layers of art, culture and science; even going into space or in the air? Man collectively tamed nature and the rest of the animal kingdom in a way that no beast ever has.

Anyway, this is just like solipsism, you won't find a sincere one outside the asylum. Every Reddit intellectual writing such tired drivel as "who's to say humans are more intelligent than beasts?" deep down knows the score.

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

#272
There is a non-verbal me. E.g. who moves my limbs, feels the feelings (hunger, happiness, ..), and sometimes helps my verbal me to think (in math or in chess the answer just appears for the verbal me), or in sudden situations it takes over, and it makes decisions very fast.

Since it controls my limbs, I consider it to be the real me. My inner monologue is a bit frustrated that it can't control my limbs, and it can't really communicate with whoever controls my limbs.

Then there is my inner monologue, which does my thinking almost always, in an auditory way: imagine the sound of spoken words in an ~5 sec long duration, and let the answer appear. I consider it as an auditory deducing thingy, and also an intelligence on its own.

I am mostly fine with this, tho I am curious about my non-verbal me, and I wish I'd know more about it.

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

#273
post #51

Is this not obvious? Language is a very poor substitute for freely flowing electrical information - it is evolved to compensate for the bottlenecks to external communication - bottlenecks that are lacking an internal analogue. It's also a highly advanced feature - something as heavily optiimised as evolved life would not allow something as vital as cognition to be hampered by a lack of means for high fidelity externa…

The claim in the title is indeed obvious.

Also the title is editoralized for no reason. It makes searching, recognizing, citing etc waaay harder, and full of errors. I'll flag it.

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

#274
Knowing someone with a brain injury, something that is hugely apparent is how much we take for granted "sequencing" - that is, the ability for the brain to hold a sequence of events, ideas or actions in a coherent order over a period of time. It's much more fragile than you would think. People with specific brain injuries suddenly can't work out whether to put their shoes on before their socks etc.

Why I mention this is that I see both language and reasoning as rooted in this more fundamental cognitive ability of "coherent sequencing". This sits behind all kinds of planning and puzzling tasks where you have to project forward a sequence of theoretical actions and abstractly evaluate the outcome.

Which is all to say, I don't think language and reasoning are the same, but I do think it is likely they stem from the same underlying fundamental mechanisms in our brain. And as a consequence, it's actually quite plausible that LLMs can reconstruct mechanisms of reasoning from language, in a regressive model kind of fashion. ie: just because their are other ways to reason doesn't exclude language as a path to it.

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

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In these discussions, I always knee-jerk into thinking "why don't they just look inward on their own minds". But the truth is, most people don't have much to gaze upon internally... they're the meat equivalent of an LLM that can sort of sound like it makes sense. These are the people always bragging about how they have an "internal monologue" and that those that don't are aliens or psychotics or something. The only r…

This view represents one possible subjective experience of the world. But there are many different possible ways a human brain can learn to experience the world. I am a sensoral thinker, I often think and internally express myself in purely images or sounds. There are, however, some kinds of thoughts I've learned I can only fully engage with if I speak to myself out loud or at least inside of my head. The most approp…

[flagged]

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

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But conscious experience does produce observable effects. For that not to be the case, you'd have to take the position that humans experience consciousness and they talk about consciousness but that there is no causal link between the two! It's just a coincidence that the things you find yourself saying about consciousness line up with your internal experience? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fdEWWr8St59bXLbQr/zombie…

That philosophers talk about p-zombies seems like evidence to me that at least some of them don't believe that consciousness needs to have observable effects that can't be explained without consciousness. I don't say that I believe that too. I don't believe that there is anything particularly special about brains.

If brain isn't more special than Chinese room, then brain understands Chinese no better than Chinese room?

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

#277
post #274

Knowing someone with a brain injury, something that is hugely apparent is how much we take for granted "sequencing" - that is, the ability for the brain to hold a sequence of events, ideas or actions in a coherent order over a period of time. It's much more fragile than you would think. People with specific brain injuries suddenly can't work out whether to put their shoes on before their socks etc. Why I mention this…

Man, brain is so weird. The weirdest brain injury symptom I can’t wrap my head around is when people lose the ability to understand the number 0. Like everything else works but this is beyond their understanding. Like what’s so special about this number?

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

#278
post #265
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…

Most pre-deep learning architectures had separate modules like "language model", "knowledge base" and "inference component". Then LLMs came along, and ML folks got rather too excited that they contain implicit knowledge (which, of course, is required to deal with ambiguity). Then the new aspiration as "all in one" and "bigger is better", not analyzing what components are needed and how to orchestrate their interplay.…

Is beying another typo?

In my personal learning journey I have been exploring the space of intuitive learning which is dominant in physical skills. Singing requires extremely precise control of actions we can't fully articulate or even rationalise. Teaching those skills requires metaphors and visualising and a whole lot of feedback + trial & error.

I believe that this kind of learning is fundamentally non verbal and we can achieve abstraction of these skills without language. Walking is the most universal of these skills and we learn it before we can speak but if you study it (or better try to program a robot to walk with as many degrees of freedom as the human musculoskeletal system) you will discover that almost all of us don't understand what all the things that go into the "simple" task of walking!

My understanding is that people who are gifted at sports or other physical skills like musical instruments have developed the ability to discover and embed these non verbal abstractions quickly. When I practise the piano and am working on something fast, playing semiquavers at anything above 120bpm is not really conscious anymore in the sense of "press this key then that key"

The concept of arpeggio is verbal but the action is non verbal. In human thought where does verbal and non-verbal start and end? Its probably a continuum

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

#279
One interesting corollary of this is the need to rethink the underpinnings of therapy. Eg, CBT is based around verbal thoughts and replacing bad ones with good ones. I've had CBT practitioners insist to me that thoughts always include words. But once you recognise that there are kinds of thinking, both processing and "mental actions" , not linked to words, it's not so easy. How do you identify and replace a maladaptive mental process, if it's not linked to a verbalisation? If it is, does replacing the verbalisation really do anything?

This I think is why so much popular psychology is so vacuous - the slogans are merely things that triggered some people to figure out how to improve their mental actions, but there's no strong linkage between the two.

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

#280
Thanks, dang.

I think that using a LLM as the referred telepathy device to a wolfram-alpha/mathematica like general reasoning module is the way to AGI. The reasoning modules we have today are still much to narrow because of the very broad and deep search trees exploding in complexity. There is the need for a kind of pathfinder which could come from common knowledge already encoded in LLMs, like in o1. An system playing with real factual reasoning but exploring in directions coming from world knowledge.

What is still missing is the dialectic between possible and right, a physics engine, the motivation of analysed agents, the effects of emergent behavior and a lot of other -isms. But they may be encoded in the reasoning-explorer. And of course loops, more loops, refinement, working hypotheses and escaping cul-de-sacs.

There are people with great language skills and next to no reasoning skills. Some of them have general knowledge. If you ever talked to them, for a at least an hour freely meandering topics you will know. They seem intelligent for a couple of minutes but after a while you realise that they can refer fact, even interpret metaphors, but they will not find an elegant one, to navigate abstraction levels, even to differentiate root cause from effect or motivation and culture from cold logic. Some of them even ace IQ or can program but none did math so far. They hate, fear or despise rational results violation their learned rules. Sorry, chances are if you hate reading this, maybe you are one (or my English is annoyingly bad).

I love talking to people outside my bubble. They have an incredible broad diversity in abilities and experiences.

Post reply on HN