4 ms·

The Kekulé Problem (2017)

16 points by Hooke 5y ago

eyelidlessness 5y ago
> But all indications are that language has appeared only once and in one species only. Huh? This is either plainly false or using some unconventional jargon that's useless for an outside reader.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  From my point of view, you're the one putting forward an unclear statement. I understand what the author is saying clearly ("only humans developed language"), regardless of whether I agree or not. I can't guess what you're referring to, though. Are you referring to non-human animals, to the different species of human in prehistory, or both? What kind of communication are you considering to be language? I may even agree with you, but your tone seems unnecessarily hostile.
  - drewcoo 5y ago
    I think a "hostile tone" is appropriate to muster in response to Nautil-dot-us, a science-y woo populist publication. As far as the claims, humans keep redefining what "language" means to only include their own species. See also: intelligence. And "appearing only once" is similarly redefined as needed. If they make their own tautologies because they're defining terms, they might be spinning beautiful poetry, but not meaningful truth. I doubt the poetry, too, but that's a longer conversation.
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    I’m referring to the fact that non-human animals are widely known to have language, and that the only way the quote could make sense is some specialized meaning of language that wasn’t specified.
    - lcuff 5y ago
      "non-human animals are widely known to have language". I remember reading years ago about Koko the gorilla being taught sign language, but that Koko was incapable of seeing the sign for 'fire' without having a fear response. McCarthy didn't spell it out in the article more than to say: "The simple understanding that one thing can be another thing is at the root of all things of our doing. From using colored pebbles for the trading of goats to art and language and on to using symbolic marks to represent pieces of the world too small to see." I infer from this that a more sophisticated (or, in your words, specialized) definition of language that is of interest to McCarthy includes abstraction. I can talk about fire without arousing fear in a fellow human because they understand I'm not announcing the immediate presence of fire, I'm talking about it abstractly. As far as I know, no non-human animals are known to have the ability.
      - MrJohz 5y ago
        Soup Emporium on YouTube has a fairly detailed and compelling (at least to me as a lay person) video about Koko and whether she could truly speak. He argues that, while she could perform signs correctly, there's little evidence that she understood them in the context of actual language, and rather saw them as tools associated with certain outcomes. For example, signing "food" when you're hungry is a form of communication, but so is a cat meowing loudly near its food bowl. It is a large leap to then claim that this communication approximates language simply because it uses the same tools.
- tsol 5y ago
  Animals don't have any true language. They communicate in various ways, but that isn't automatically language
nextaccountic 5y ago
It appears this article has its own Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kekul%C3%A9_Problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kekul%C3%A9_Problem
not2b 5y ago
I often come up with solutions to technical problems I've been struggling with at work, in my sleep, and when I wake up I think I have something new to try. In practice it seems like the idea my unconscious came up with is only any good about 1/3 of the time or so, but even so, it's useful that some part of my brain I don't have direct access to was crunching away on it.
akkartik 5y ago
"..since the unconscious understands language perfectly well or it would not understand the problem in the first place, why doesnt it simply answer Kekulé’s question with something like: “Kekulé, it’s a bloody ring.” Perhaps because the unconscious doesn't understand language? Perhaps it just accesses data structures compiled down from language?
- DiggyJohnson 5y ago
  My thoughts precisely: Humans are animals. Humans minds that operate on the conscious and unconscious levels. Both are involved in reasoning and thinking in the human mind. Language is clearly used at the conscious level; it is not so clearly used by the unconscious component of the mind. Non-human animals (animals) have minds similar to humans. These minds have the ability to at least work unconsciously. We do not see human-like language (I’m well read on all cases of talking apes and birds) in the animal kingdom. We do see at least unconscious reasoning in the animals, more and more often surpassing our expectations on the complexity of animal behavior. I hypothesize that the conscious mind is the instantiation of language, and our experience of being conscious is somehow an emergent property of this instantiation of language, and our ability to project information into the future. Something like our mind’s realization in the value of reasoning about information, rather than acting on filtered sense input alone. “I think, therefor I am.” Think=think consciously. This assumes the possibility of a gradient of consciousness. And I don’t claim that this is an explanation for consciousness, but rather narrowing the story for where it might exist or emerge. ”Edmund Leach once suggested that what unites all human beings is not that they are in possession of an immortal soul, but they are capable of imagining that they are. Perhaps (aside from the part about ‘immortality’) these are not such altogether different things.“

16 points by Hooke 5y ago

> But all indications are that language has appeared only once and in one species only. Huh? This is either plainly false or using some unconventional jargon that's useless for an outside reader.

happytoexplain 5y ago
From my point of view, you're the one putting forward an unclear statement. I understand what the author is saying clearly ("only humans developed language"), regardless of whether I agree or not. I can't guess what you're referring to, though. Are you referring to non-human animals, to the different species of human in prehistory, or both? What kind of communication are you considering to be language? I may even agree with you, but your tone seems unnecessarily hostile.
- drewcoo 5y ago
  I think a "hostile tone" is appropriate to muster in response to Nautil-dot-us, a science-y woo populist publication. As far as the claims, humans keep redefining what "language" means to only include their own species. See also: intelligence. And "appearing only once" is similarly redefined as needed. If they make their own tautologies because they're defining terms, they might be spinning beautiful poetry, but not meaningful truth. I doubt the poetry, too, but that's a longer conversation.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  I’m referring to the fact that non-human animals are widely known to have language, and that the only way the quote could make sense is some specialized meaning of language that wasn’t specified.
  - lcuff 5y ago
    "non-human animals are widely known to have language". I remember reading years ago about Koko the gorilla being taught sign language, but that Koko was incapable of seeing the sign for 'fire' without having a fear response. McCarthy didn't spell it out in the article more than to say: "The simple understanding that one thing can be another thing is at the root of all things of our doing. From using colored pebbles for the trading of goats to art and language and on to using symbolic marks to represent pieces of the world too small to see." I infer from this that a more sophisticated (or, in your words, specialized) definition of language that is of interest to McCarthy includes abstraction. I can talk about fire without arousing fear in a fellow human because they understand I'm not announcing the immediate presence of fire, I'm talking about it abstractly. As far as I know, no non-human animals are known to have the ability.
    - MrJohz 5y ago
      Soup Emporium on YouTube has a fairly detailed and compelling (at least to me as a lay person) video about Koko and whether she could truly speak. He argues that, while she could perform signs correctly, there's little evidence that she understood them in the context of actual language, and rather saw them as tools associated with certain outcomes. For example, signing "food" when you're hungry is a form of communication, but so is a cat meowing loudly near its food bowl. It is a large leap to then claim that this communication approximates language simply because it uses the same tools.
tsol 5y ago
Animals don't have any true language. They communicate in various ways, but that isn't automatically language

nextaccountic 5y ago

It appears this article has its own Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kekul%C3%A9_Problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kekul%C3%A9_Problem

not2b 5y ago

I often come up with solutions to technical problems I've been struggling with at work, in my sleep, and when I wake up I think I have something new to try. In practice it seems like the idea my unconscious came up with is only any good about 1/3 of the time or so, but even so, it's useful that some part of my brain I don't have direct access to was crunching away on it.

akkartik 5y ago

"..since the unconscious understands language perfectly well or it would not understand the problem in the first place, why doesnt it simply answer Kekulé’s question with something like: “Kekulé, it’s a bloody ring.” Perhaps because the unconscious doesn't understand language? Perhaps it just accesses data structures compiled down from language?

DiggyJohnson 5y ago
My thoughts precisely: Humans are animals. Humans minds that operate on the conscious and unconscious levels. Both are involved in reasoning and thinking in the human mind. Language is clearly used at the conscious level; it is not so clearly used by the unconscious component of the mind. Non-human animals (animals) have minds similar to humans. These minds have the ability to at least work unconsciously. We do not see human-like language (I’m well read on all cases of talking apes and birds) in the animal kingdom. We do see at least unconscious reasoning in the animals, more and more often surpassing our expectations on the complexity of animal behavior. I hypothesize that the conscious mind is the instantiation of language, and our experience of being conscious is somehow an emergent property of this instantiation of language, and our ability to project information into the future. Something like our mind’s realization in the value of reasoning about information, rather than acting on filtered sense input alone. “I think, therefor I am.” Think=think consciously. This assumes the possibility of a gradient of consciousness. And I don’t claim that this is an explanation for consciousness, but rather narrowing the story for where it might exist or emerge. ”Edmund Leach once suggested that what unites all human beings is not that they are in possession of an immortal soul, but they are capable of imagining that they are. Perhaps (aside from the part about ‘immortality’) these are not such altogether different things.“