3 ms·

In my case it's because my internal dialogue is saying the sentence before I get to the end of it. I usually have the entire sentence in my inner dialogue befo

In my case it's because my internal dialogue is saying the sentence before I get to the end of it. I usually have the entire sentence in my inner dialogue before I even start typing. Will I edit during typing? Sure, but I have a first version in my head before I start.

bheadmaster 4y ago
> I usually have the entire sentence in my inner dialogue before I even start typing Interesting. Perhaps the question then becomes, does your inner dialogue simply chain the words one after another, or does it come up with sentences as whole?
- robocat 4y ago
  I have a friend who listens carefully and starts to mouth and even mumble his brain’s predictions for the next words I am going to say. So, I fuck with him by unexpectedly (even to myself) changing my words (or even the sentence) half way through when I catch him doing it. Predictably, I don’t like being predictable. The fact that ChatGPT does so well is perhaps a sign we do somewhat generate sentences on the fly. Obviously we mostly listen and read sequentially. One could test it by using an external random bell to signal you should try and make a significant sentence change e.g. from English to Spanish. How much practice would it take? From 1984: In the middle of Hate Week, the speaker is halfway through a sentence about hating Eurasia, he is given a note, and he continues the sentence except now Oceania is not, and has never been, at war with Eurasia, and it is Eastasia that is now hated.
- root_axis 4y ago
  It's impossible to form meaningful sentences without having a model of the sequence of the words, this is as true for a human as for a markov chain, but that doesn't mean it then follows that human sentences are just sophisticated markov chains, the nature of sentences means that they must be a sequence of words regardless of the implementation details behind the hood of the sentence creator.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Why would it? It would make more sense to start with concepts ("dog", "brown"), and then pull it into words ("That dog is brown") - given that we're trying to convey a thought that seems to be far more likely than us chaining things - we start with the intent to communicate something, the markov chain does not.
sillysaurusx 4y ago
Your eyes are telling you what color that shade of red is on the wall. But if you put it next to a different color, you’ll suddenly get a different answer from your eyes. I think if our eyes can deceive us at a fundamental level, it’s arrogant to think we aren’t deceived by our thoughts.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Well then those who think they are coming up the sentence one word at a time are equally as easy to fool, no? They could have the whole sentence figured out and their attention is only coming to a single word at a time, possibly revising what's in their field of mental view if they come up with a better word. That's the fun with these sorts of doubts, if we assume nothing, then we can form an argument for anything.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > That's the fun with these sorts of doubts, if we assume nothing, then we can form an argument for anything. We can form a counter-argument to anything, to be precise. :) It's very hard to analyze ourselves only from our own consciousness. Especially since the consciousness itself is very likely an illusion [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

bheadmaster 4y ago

> I usually have the entire sentence in my inner dialogue before I even start typing Interesting. Perhaps the question then becomes, does your inner dialogue simply chain the words one after another, or does it come up with sentences as whole?

robocat 4y ago
I have a friend who listens carefully and starts to mouth and even mumble his brain’s predictions for the next words I am going to say. So, I fuck with him by unexpectedly (even to myself) changing my words (or even the sentence) half way through when I catch him doing it. Predictably, I don’t like being predictable. The fact that ChatGPT does so well is perhaps a sign we do somewhat generate sentences on the fly. Obviously we mostly listen and read sequentially. One could test it by using an external random bell to signal you should try and make a significant sentence change e.g. from English to Spanish. How much practice would it take? From 1984: In the middle of Hate Week, the speaker is halfway through a sentence about hating Eurasia, he is given a note, and he continues the sentence except now Oceania is not, and has never been, at war with Eurasia, and it is Eastasia that is now hated.
root_axis 4y ago
It's impossible to form meaningful sentences without having a model of the sequence of the words, this is as true for a human as for a markov chain, but that doesn't mean it then follows that human sentences are just sophisticated markov chains, the nature of sentences means that they must be a sequence of words regardless of the implementation details behind the hood of the sentence creator.
SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Why would it? It would make more sense to start with concepts ("dog", "brown"), and then pull it into words ("That dog is brown") - given that we're trying to convey a thought that seems to be far more likely than us chaining things - we start with the intent to communicate something, the markov chain does not.

sillysaurusx 4y ago

Your eyes are telling you what color that shade of red is on the wall. But if you put it next to a different color, you’ll suddenly get a different answer from your eyes. I think if our eyes can deceive us at a fundamental level, it’s arrogant to think we aren’t deceived by our thoughts.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Well then those who think they are coming up the sentence one word at a time are equally as easy to fool, no? They could have the whole sentence figured out and their attention is only coming to a single word at a time, possibly revising what's in their field of mental view if they come up with a better word. That's the fun with these sorts of doubts, if we assume nothing, then we can form an argument for anything.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > That's the fun with these sorts of doubts, if we assume nothing, then we can form an argument for anything. We can form a counter-argument to anything, to be precise. :) It's very hard to analyze ourselves only from our own consciousness. Especially since the consciousness itself is very likely an illusion [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will