Live data from Hacker News

Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

gwern.net

341–350 of 404 posts

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for the link.

I haven't read much written text by Chomsky but, in my defense, I've listened to a lot more video and audio of his talks than mere "soundbytes". I stand by my statement about his talks.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is this: if I tell you to close your eyes and form the image of a teacup in your mind, images certainly have colour and shape, so either your image does too, or you don't have an image. It's really just down to a differing definition of image. If you ask me to imagine seeing a maze with hundreds of turns, rather than saying I have a nonspecific image, I'll say I'm having trouble forming a concrete image. If…

> My point is this: if I tell you to close your eyes and form the image of a teacup in your mind, images certainly have colour and shape, so either your image does too, or you don't have an image. It's really just down to a differing definition of image. Not really. I mean, I have some aphantasia-type aspects with faces. But my mind's eye is quite amenable to the semi-lucid mental image of a cup that doesn't have col…

I obviously failed to communicate my point, I'll try one last time.

If I ask you to imagine you can see something, and you haven't decided on basic details like what it looks like, this is exactly equivalent in my mind to me saying "imagine a number" and you not being able to tell me any digits of the number - you didn't really do what I asked.

We can go through and tediously define every word we're using but hopefully the above paragraph will allow you to tell where our definitions differ.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#343
A conversation with ChatGPT to understand the papers perspective further: https://chatgpt.com/share/7f5449d3-3411-4462-acd1-ca9baa5351...

The references of interest:

Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child.

Monti, M. M., Parsons, L. M., & Osherson, D. N. (2007). Functional Neuroanatomy of Deductive Inference: A Language-Independent Distributed Network

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#344
what is a thought then? what is this little voice which guide you to think of this or that from the beginning of the day till the end even diring dream? for me from the electronic part its a pathway of electronic discharge between all over neural cells of different functional area of tgd brain which respect the phisiological structure of tge brain (motor, visual , temporary front cortex , cingulate for Long short memory, ) but what guide you to think of that then after, maybe thr machine learning conception can explain : for each different person and experience , each of us has going to activate a neural cell wchich to be the most predictable idea , and this prediction id modulated by all the input acquired all thr day ( for example if something more important is seen around us)

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point is this: if I tell you to close your eyes and form the image of a teacup in your mind, images certainly have colour and shape, so either your image does too, or you don't have an image. It's really just down to a differing definition of image. Not really. I mean, I have some aphantasia-type aspects with faces. But my mind's eye is quite amenable to the semi-lucid mental image of a cup that doesn't have col…

I obviously failed to communicate my point, I'll try one last time. If I ask you to imagine you can see something, and you haven't decided on basic details like what it looks like, this is exactly equivalent in my mind to me saying "imagine a number" and you not being able to tell me any digits of the number - you didn't really do what I asked. We can go through and tediously define every word we're using but hopeful…

> "imagine a number" and you not being able to tell me any digits of the number - you didn't really do what I asked.

I don't really feel like that's true. If you asked me to choose a specific number, sure. But if the task really were just to imagine the concept of a number, unbound to anything, it wouldn't be a specific number until it needed to be.

Similarly, when thinking of a cup, unless I'm explicitly trying to imagine a specific cup, as close to reality as possible, it is merely a cup. Not a red cup, or one with a tiny annoying handle that I can only fit one finger into.

There are two questions there. Select the properties of a randomly chosen cup, and relay them to me. At which point i'd feel like im making it up as you ask for specific properties. Or just picture a cup, squashing, stretching, rotating. I think very much that these mental images are deeply baked into the ways we interact with the world (and are not literally seeing so much as attention to details of idealized concepts). It can't be a coincidence my mental image having transformations applied to it effortlessly is because of my work with 3d modelling and robotics.

If my mind wanders into those things, I could imagine the cup morphing between those scenarios, unreality forming into reality. Seeing with the minds eye is not seeing, in a literal sense.

I believe that there is a sense in which if we were forced to actually see the real world as it is, every detail of everything all at once, as a camera sees it, it would be far too much (consider things like optical illusions, human blind-spots in the visual field). Hence all sorts of mental shortcuts are taken where below the concious layer things are stiched together to make a false sense of cohesiveness out of a distinctly disconnected and incoherent stream of input data. Every sense even has varying time-lag, to the point the brain predicts nerve signals before they come in, hence phantom limb pain etc. It ends up that so little of you is actually the concious mind you.

Objects in the minds eye are similarly abstract objects. You cannot see every detail unless you decide upon what you choose to see. An apple, in my mind, has the blotchy, slightly coarse texture on the outside most apples have. But is it a red apple or a green apple? It's somewhere between the two. The digits of my number are a blur approximating all digits, the digits I expect to see, until I look closely. Similar to how the room in your peripheral vision is still the same. Probably.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for the link. I haven't read much written text by Chomsky but, in my defense, I've listened to a lot more video and audio of his talks than mere "soundbytes". I stand by my statement about his talks.

So have I and I came across those ideas first from his talks on Youtube not his writing.

He talks about this ideas constantly so I don't know if these are the best examples but:

1. About evidence for how language for communication is inefficient: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyXqXfg-Dq4&t=3354s

2. About the sudden appearance of language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTGoYXx0Kew&t=1557s

3. Arguing with a biologist about the evidence for language being for thought (and a little bit at the end about how hierarchical structure is inefficient): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzzuPMA8s7k&t=307s

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lot's of people (me included) do not have persistent internal monologues.

Sure. But when you do have it, would it be fair to say it does shape your thoughts, no matter how small?

Yes, but it is not my primary mode of thinking.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#349
post #110

I think cetaceans use sound to broadcast visual and emotional holographs to each other, and as humans we could do good by being stewards of the differing specie and steer their linguistics together somehow. Conservation through cognitive neuroscience and linguistics. Can dolphins communicate with sperm whales? What if they could?

I've seen this idea before, that cetaceans might basically project ideas holographically. Is there any evidence for this ? Or is the idea simply rooted in the possibilities of sound ? Genuinely curious here.

Thanks, feel free to email me if you can dig up anything or ever want to spitball ideas. Email address is in my profile.

I've poked around lightly and didn't see anything vis a vis holographs, but I'm going to do a second pass - someone has to be onto this path in some paper somewhere.

No evidence whatsoever, just intuition.

If Alice and Bob are both cetaceans, communicating via underwater acoustics, what are they trying to say to each other? And do they understand each other?

I guess my thought is that non-symbolic communication in the black and seamless sea implies something more.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#350
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curiously, I have this but I lack the musical education/experience/talent(?) to really use it. I can make up and "hear" music with multiple instruments and stuff, but I'm utterly useless at writing it down. Even just reproducing part of a melody on a keyboard is a frustratingly time consuming chore. :-(

I know what you mean. What I found very helpful in getting music out of my head via an instrument was a lot of very tedious scale practice, and similar exercises. This appears to get my fingers habituated such that I may often hear a (simple) line on the radio then immediately pick up an instrument and play it.

Hmmm, thanks, maybe I should try that.

I wonder if it would help if I wrote a little program that plays short note sequences and then asks me to recreate the sequence (possibly modulo transposition).

Post reply on HN