5 ms·

Don’t words transmit 3D images?

by rcme 3y ago

Retric 3y ago
They are no more optimized for 3D images than taste or smells. Try and describe your chair or oddly shaped rock as a 3D object without referring to it by classification and ask yourself how many people would have used the same sounds in the same order. There’s no direct mapping between 3D objects and the sounds used to describe them,
- rcme 3y ago
  First, words aren’t really related to sound. You and I are using words without sound, are we not? Language is an encoding. One of the things it encodes is shape. And even if you wanted to describe a chair without using the word “chair” you could do so using a series of precise measurements. It doesn’t matter that people wouldn’t use exactly the same words to describe it. In the end, everyone would understand each other.
  - chimineycricket 3y ago
    >You and I are using words without sound, are we not? Nope! You're sounding the words out in your head (or out loud) when you read it.
    - lisper 3y ago
      Not necessarily. Deaf people can read, even ones who are deaf from birth.
      - chimineycricket 3y ago
        Exceptions don't make the rule. Generally, people sound words out. Even if the language doesn't have an alphabet of sounds like Mandarin.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        lisper 3y ago
        > Generally, people sound words out. That's how hearing people learn to read. But even then it does not follow that they continue to sound words out or play back the audio in their head after they become proficient. In fact, one of the hallmarks of a proficient reader vs a beginner is that the former no longer needs to sound words out. They can just look at a word and recognize it more or less immediately.
        thret 3y ago
        I think sounding words out would be the exception. Do you sound words out when you read code? I'm having trouble imagining that.
        avar 3y ago
        To chime in, I don't, but yes, it's my understanding that for many people the "voice in their head" instead metaphorical at all. I was always under the impression that the internal narration used in visual media (e.g. the Dexter opening sequence comes to mind [1]) was taking a dramatic license, but it's apparently some people's lived experience. 1. https://youtu.be/d3_znBNPjl4?si=N5zfhtobEVtc5O1X https://youtu.be/d3_znBNPjl4?si=N5zfhtobEVtc5O1X
        chimineycricket 3y ago
        I think code is a different situation entirely. The whales are communicating not coding anyway.
        fouc 3y ago
        It's definitely not "generally", it's not even a supermajority. > Some estimates suggest that as much as 50% or more of the population subvocalizes when reading, especially during their early years of reading development. However, with practice and improved reading skills, many individuals can reduce the extent of subvocalization and increase their reading speed.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - mostlylurks 3y ago
      I am not. Not everyone subvocalizes, and for some people, like myself, an inner monologue narrating what you read is voluntary. I might choose to have the latter if I'm reading a book for enjoyment, but if I'm just reading comments online, I would prefer not to limit my reading speed by doing things like that.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Except you couldn’t come up with those measurements just by looking at a chair, and someone listing to your series of precise measurements is unlikely to understand what the object actually looks like. So it failed the basic goal of communicating the shape of something you’re looking at. Where the suggestion is whales might utilize similar bits of their brain that decode echolocation sounds into 3D images to similarly decode spoken sounds into 3D images. Beyond that there’s a complex predefined encoding between human words and sounds and sounds back to words. There isn’t for your “series of precise measurements” so a dozen young English speakers at the same high school might all come up with wildly different schemes. A subtle example of this is how is error correction mechanisms are automatically used. You can understand someone talking though some surprisingly serious distortions and missing content. Even written languages include quite a bit of redundancy. Remove every forth letter from a sentence and it’s generally surprisingly understandable. “I lo_e to _alk _y do_ in t_e mo_nin_.” So your ad hock scheme could work if everything was perfect and someone write it all down, and then say turned those measurements into a sketch, but it’s all quite useless day to day. Thus people default to using general classifications and pointing at stuff.
  - mostlylurks 3y ago
    > First, words aren’t really related to sound. No, but they are related to a naturally occurring medium of language, of which there are only two notable ones: the human voice, and signing. Written languages are simply codified representations of these forms of natural language. (Note: Sign languages are distinct unrelated languages from the local spoken languages with their own grammar and everything, not just signed representations of them.) By using written language, you are merely encoding a representation of a spoken phrase into a graphical representation. This is what truly makes writing separate from other commonplace but more abstract symbols, such as arrows, crosses, checkmarks, bathroom/restaurant/exit indicators, warning signs, etc, which convey an idea quite effectively but do not have a clear reliable decoding into natural language (i.e. if you ask 100 people to explain what they indicate, you won't be given the exact same sentence 100 times).
    - rcme 3y ago
      > By using written language, you are merely encoding a representation of a spoken phrase into a graphical representation. I would argue the opposite. Language is an encoding of ideas. By speaking, we are merely using an auditory representation of a word and when we write we use a graphical representation of a word, but the word is entirely separate from both audible and graphical representation. And indeed, we see that we can create other representations of a word. We can create a mathematical representation, like in the case of LLMs, and use words in a way that is entirely separate from sound and visuals. As a species, we used sound to invent words, but the invention isn’t tied to sound in any way. If we, as a species, evolved further and lost our vocal cords and ears, we could still use words. We could also continue to use words if we lost our sight as well. Truly words are separate from our senses.
      - Retric 3y ago
        That’s not how language works, people still use sounds and gesticulations not just words. If we lost the ability to speak we might abandon words entirely for something else. Buzz, growl, etc are obvious example where sound directly influenced what the word was and how it’s written. But the ability for kids to form specific sounds also influenced words like mom. The same is true of world complexity, natural languages always have some imperatives like stop and go that are short and simple rather than long complex utterances like sesquipedalian. Further, comparisons between languages suggest that words evolved from sounds. “No” for example sounds similar in a shocking number of languages from Afro-Eurasia and the America’s despite very long term separation.
  - d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
    If I said "blue chair" then wouldn't it likely activate the visual cortex in most humans as they relate it back to an image stored in their brain from past experience?
  - mcswell 3y ago
    A few words are related to sound: in English, "meow" sort of sounds like the sound cats make (although my cat is much more nuanced, he wants you to know!). "Woof" sort of sounds like some dogs' bark, "cock-a-doodle-do" has the same stress pattern as some roosters, and so forth. Some languages tend to have more onomatopoeic sounds than English, and signs in sign language (especially "young" sign languages, meaning sign languages that have been codified recently) are probably even more onomatopoeic. But in general, your point is true: the vast majority of words do not sound like the thing they represent. "Knock" (as in a knock on the door) doesn't sound anything like a knock.
hugh-avherald 3y ago
This suggests not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem
mcswell 3y ago
If you (think you can) make the case for 3D, then you can make the case for 4D, because we can talk about time--past, present, future, yesterday, five minutes ago...

Don’t words transmit 3D images?

by rcme 3y ago

Don’t words transmit 3D images?

They are no more optimized for 3D images than taste or smells. Try and describe your chair or oddly shaped rock as a 3D object without referring to it by classification and ask yourself how many people would have used the same sounds in the same order. There’s no direct mapping between 3D objects and the sounds used to describe them,

rcme 3y ago
First, words aren’t really related to sound. You and I are using words without sound, are we not? Language is an encoding. One of the things it encodes is shape. And even if you wanted to describe a chair without using the word “chair” you could do so using a series of precise measurements. It doesn’t matter that people wouldn’t use exactly the same words to describe it. In the end, everyone would understand each other.
- chimineycricket 3y ago
  >You and I are using words without sound, are we not? Nope! You're sounding the words out in your head (or out loud) when you read it.
  - lisper 3y ago
    Not necessarily. Deaf people can read, even ones who are deaf from birth.
    - chimineycricket 3y ago
      Exceptions don't make the rule. Generally, people sound words out. Even if the language doesn't have an alphabet of sounds like Mandarin.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - lisper 3y ago
        > Generally, people sound words out. That's how hearing people learn to read. But even then it does not follow that they continue to sound words out or play back the audio in their head after they become proficient. In fact, one of the hallmarks of a proficient reader vs a beginner is that the former no longer needs to sound words out. They can just look at a word and recognize it more or less immediately.
      - thret 3y ago
        I think sounding words out would be the exception. Do you sound words out when you read code? I'm having trouble imagining that.
        avar 3y ago
        To chime in, I don't, but yes, it's my understanding that for many people the "voice in their head" instead metaphorical at all. I was always under the impression that the internal narration used in visual media (e.g. the Dexter opening sequence comes to mind [1]) was taking a dramatic license, but it's apparently some people's lived experience. 1. https://youtu.be/d3_znBNPjl4?si=N5zfhtobEVtc5O1X https://youtu.be/d3_znBNPjl4?si=N5zfhtobEVtc5O1X
        chimineycricket 3y ago
        I think code is a different situation entirely. The whales are communicating not coding anyway.
      - fouc 3y ago
        It's definitely not "generally", it's not even a supermajority. > Some estimates suggest that as much as 50% or more of the population subvocalizes when reading, especially during their early years of reading development. However, with practice and improved reading skills, many individuals can reduce the extent of subvocalization and increase their reading speed.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mostlylurks 3y ago
    I am not. Not everyone subvocalizes, and for some people, like myself, an inner monologue narrating what you read is voluntary. I might choose to have the latter if I'm reading a book for enjoyment, but if I'm just reading comments online, I would prefer not to limit my reading speed by doing things like that.
- Retric 3y ago
  Except you couldn’t come up with those measurements just by looking at a chair, and someone listing to your series of precise measurements is unlikely to understand what the object actually looks like. So it failed the basic goal of communicating the shape of something you’re looking at. Where the suggestion is whales might utilize similar bits of their brain that decode echolocation sounds into 3D images to similarly decode spoken sounds into 3D images. Beyond that there’s a complex predefined encoding between human words and sounds and sounds back to words. There isn’t for your “series of precise measurements” so a dozen young English speakers at the same high school might all come up with wildly different schemes. A subtle example of this is how is error correction mechanisms are automatically used. You can understand someone talking though some surprisingly serious distortions and missing content. Even written languages include quite a bit of redundancy. Remove every forth letter from a sentence and it’s generally surprisingly understandable. “I lo_e to _alk _y do_ in t_e mo_nin_.” So your ad hock scheme could work if everything was perfect and someone write it all down, and then say turned those measurements into a sketch, but it’s all quite useless day to day. Thus people default to using general classifications and pointing at stuff.
- mostlylurks 3y ago
  > First, words aren’t really related to sound. No, but they are related to a naturally occurring medium of language, of which there are only two notable ones: the human voice, and signing. Written languages are simply codified representations of these forms of natural language. (Note: Sign languages are distinct unrelated languages from the local spoken languages with their own grammar and everything, not just signed representations of them.) By using written language, you are merely encoding a representation of a spoken phrase into a graphical representation. This is what truly makes writing separate from other commonplace but more abstract symbols, such as arrows, crosses, checkmarks, bathroom/restaurant/exit indicators, warning signs, etc, which convey an idea quite effectively but do not have a clear reliable decoding into natural language (i.e. if you ask 100 people to explain what they indicate, you won't be given the exact same sentence 100 times).
  - rcme 3y ago
    > By using written language, you are merely encoding a representation of a spoken phrase into a graphical representation. I would argue the opposite. Language is an encoding of ideas. By speaking, we are merely using an auditory representation of a word and when we write we use a graphical representation of a word, but the word is entirely separate from both audible and graphical representation. And indeed, we see that we can create other representations of a word. We can create a mathematical representation, like in the case of LLMs, and use words in a way that is entirely separate from sound and visuals. As a species, we used sound to invent words, but the invention isn’t tied to sound in any way. If we, as a species, evolved further and lost our vocal cords and ears, we could still use words. We could also continue to use words if we lost our sight as well. Truly words are separate from our senses.
    - Retric 3y ago
      That’s not how language works, people still use sounds and gesticulations not just words. If we lost the ability to speak we might abandon words entirely for something else. Buzz, growl, etc are obvious example where sound directly influenced what the word was and how it’s written. But the ability for kids to form specific sounds also influenced words like mom. The same is true of world complexity, natural languages always have some imperatives like stop and go that are short and simple rather than long complex utterances like sesquipedalian. Further, comparisons between languages suggest that words evolved from sounds. “No” for example sounds similar in a shocking number of languages from Afro-Eurasia and the America’s despite very long term separation.
- d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
  If I said "blue chair" then wouldn't it likely activate the visual cortex in most humans as they relate it back to an image stored in their brain from past experience?
- mcswell 3y ago
  A few words are related to sound: in English, "meow" sort of sounds like the sound cats make (although my cat is much more nuanced, he wants you to know!). "Woof" sort of sounds like some dogs' bark, "cock-a-doodle-do" has the same stress pattern as some roosters, and so forth. Some languages tend to have more onomatopoeic sounds than English, and signs in sign language (especially "young" sign languages, meaning sign languages that have been codified recently) are probably even more onomatopoeic. But in general, your point is true: the vast majority of words do not sound like the thing they represent. "Knock" (as in a knock on the door) doesn't sound anything like a knock.

hugh-avherald 3y ago

This suggests not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem

mcswell 3y ago

If you (think you can) make the case for 3D, then you can make the case for 4D, because we can talk about time--past, present, future, yesterday, five minutes ago...