7 ms·

I could never wrap my head around the fact that someone who couldn’t see or hear developed a mind able to think and write with such depth and clarity.

by jukea 2y ago

sh-run 2y ago
Right? It's such a foreign form of intelligence to me. I think the paper "What is it like to be a bat" by Thomas Nagel made me realize that I can't even imagine what it's like to be my next door neighbor, let alone a being that has senses that differ from mine. Helen Keller's mind must work in a greatly different way than yours or mine. When I think, it's in English. I visualize things. Smell, touch and taste are never really involved. It's like they are the lesser of senses and yet that's all she had. It's incredible. Andy Weir in Project Hail Mary and Adrian Tchaikovsky in Children of [Time|Ruin|Memory] do a great job of describing what other forms of consciousness might be like, but still falls flat, I only really think in sight and sound. What is it like to be a bat? I'll never know.
- evilduck 2y ago
  Blindsight by Peter Watts also discusses what can be intelligent but not conscious. In the current hypefest of LLMs it’s interesting to consider that they may be similar.
  - mikewarot 2y ago
    I think that LLMs might go through the reverse journey, being fluent in tokens (words-ish) and working backwards towards the physical reality we all inhabit.
  - at_a_remove 2y ago
    "We do not like annoying cousins." Yes, exactly. The, uh, confident fluency of LLM responses, which can at the same time contradict what was said earlier, reminded me exactly of that. I don't know if you've ever met one of those glib psychopaths, but they have this characteristic of non-content communication, where it feels like words are being arranged for you, like someone composing a song using words from a language they do not know. See also: "you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything."
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Hm. The contradictions specifically are a thing I notice in humans that I think are entirely normal[0]. But the early LLMs with the shorter context windows, those reminded me of my mum's Alzheimer's. That said, your analogy may well be perfect, as they are learning to people-please and to simulate things they (hopefully) don't actually experience. (Not that it changes your point, but isn't that Machiavellian rather than psychopathic?) [0] one of many reasons why I disagree with Wittgenstein about: > If there were a verb meaning 'to believe falsely', it would not have any significant first person, present indicative. Just because it's logically correct, doesn't mean humans think like that.
    - ohthehugemanate 2y ago
      The part that really gets ME about that thought, is that those glib psychopaths/sociopaths fill an important role in human society, generally as leaders. I'm sure we can all think of some prominent political figures who are very good at arranging words to get their audience excited, but have a tenuous connection to fact (at best). Actually factual content seems almost irrelevant to their ability to lead, or to their followers' desire to follow. If that's the function which we can now automate at scale, it's not the jobs the machines will ultimately take; it's the leadership.
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    I was thinking the same. if there's anything that is what it is like to be an LLM (and I'm not saying that there is - in fact, I doubt it, while supposing that it is a possibility for future machines) I suspect it would be like this, but more so, and inverted: while Keller had some experience of an external world but no experience of language, the entire universe for an LLM is language, without any obvious way to suppose that this language is about an external world.
  - qup 2y ago
    Available to read online, I read it last year: https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm
  - qbxk 2y ago
    i think the "problem" here is that for all of human history we have always been able to use mastery of language as a signal for intelligence and competence, of which LLMs are neither. it's possible this is even instinctual it's so ingrained in our concepts of "other minds". so we're going to have to get used to the fact that just using language well isn't enough to prove intelligence, certainly not consciousness. which then begs the the question, what is the magic ingredient, on top of use of language, that we have that bestows these qualities? and also the observation that whatever this ingredient is, it must be very difficult to measure or prove which is maybe why we stuck with the crude, but easy to wield, "use-of-language" test for so long.
- antonioevans 2y ago
  Children of Time/Ruin great two books. Highly recommend them if you like SciFi and animal behavior.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  I don't think it's that strange. My thoughts and my physical sensations are separate, imaging a different body different senses isn't that much of a stretch. I speak English but I don't think in it, thoughts don't have a language.
  - blfr 2y ago
    I think that this is false, as in intersubjectively not true for the human experience. First, because our physical state has a huge influence on our thoughts, not just their content, but direction, "color." Secondly, and more importantly, while some thoughts may not have a language (image memories, mental maps), others certainly do, they're narrative. I only speak two languages but well enough (English is my second language) that I can think in both, and often come to a point where I have to decide which it will be for this train of thought. Shape rotators vs wordcels distinction strikes again, I guess.
    - frabcus 2y ago
      Quite a lot of people have no inner voice, others no inner imagery, others no inner unsymbolized conceptual thinking (cf all of Hurlburts research). We all use very varied modalities of thought! It's as rich as how different we look or how different we cook.
      - blfr 2y ago
        Having no inner voice, imagery, or whatever seems to be poorer rather than richer experience to me. I don't think the existence of deaf people invalidates the importance of music to human experience.
        filleduchaos 2y ago
        I don't think a deaf person's inability to listen to music with their ears makes them incapable of depth and clarity of thought, no. I don't think people who aren't hard of hearing necessarily have particularly deep or clear thoughts simply because they listen to music with their ears either. It's very easy to confuse correlation with causation. (I've specified "with their ears" because deaf people can perceive music through other means than the cochlea + cochlear nerve.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
hnick 2y ago
I feel like my grasp of language allows some very complex thoughts, but I often wonder if it is limiting. I seem nearly unable to think without forming phrases in my head, and even if I anticipate the conclusion I feel the need to go through the whole sentence. I know there are people with all their senses intact without any internal monologue, but mine is very much in charge. Rigorous exercise or flow state seems able to quiet it for a bit.
- pests 2y ago
  This reminds me of some experiment (that I will never be able to find again) that was basically having people count in their head while doing something else, say reading. Some people were very good at it, others horrible. One revealed the method they were using - they didn't count audibly, they visualized a ticker tape moving across their vision with numbers increasing. Or say a rotating scale with the numbers rotating. This let them read or internal monologue as the senses are now separate. I tried to practice for a bit, still impossible to do without thinking about it. Kind of like how people default to counting money in their native way.
  - hnick 2y ago
    That's interesting. I read your comment in my head while counting and seemed able to keep up, but something more complex might be hard, such as reading out loud. On another tangent, I've been trying Ritalin after speaking to a doctor. The first thing I noticed when I took it was that it became very difficult to hold multiple trains of thought at the same time. My typical routine (coping mechanism) was to work and have YouTube playing and a little attention on each, because this stopped me getting bored. But it wasn't long before I realised I simply could not hear the videos. It was a strange feeling but nice. A little similar to what you describe in how abilities vary.
    - pests 2y ago
      These questions keep me up at night. That we only get to experience though our own senses. I pretty much can only pay attention to one thing at a time. I've tried to watch movies or YouTube while coding or other things on my PC but I end up realizing I wasn't paying attention at all so now I don't even try.
hoseja 2y ago
Are we absolutely sure she did and it isn't more of a Koko situation?
- archermarks 2y ago
  Yes. https://youtu.be/jCg7Pda_3Gw?si=c9AuabaYp49Hduwr https://youtu.be/jCg7Pda_3Gw?si=c9AuabaYp49Hduwr

I could never wrap my head around the fact that someone who couldn’t see or hear developed a mind able to think and write with such depth and clarity.

by jukea 2y ago

I could never wrap my head around the fact that someone who couldn’t see or hear developed a mind able to think and write with such depth and clarity.

sh-run 2y ago

Right? It's such a foreign form of intelligence to me. I think the paper "What is it like to be a bat" by Thomas Nagel made me realize that I can't even imagine what it's like to be my next door neighbor, let alone a being that has senses that differ from mine. Helen Keller's mind must work in a greatly different way than yours or mine. When I think, it's in English. I visualize things. Smell, touch and taste are never really involved. It's like they are the lesser of senses and yet that's all she had. It's incredible. Andy Weir in Project Hail Mary and Adrian Tchaikovsky in Children of [Time|Ruin|Memory] do a great job of describing what other forms of consciousness might be like, but still falls flat, I only really think in sight and sound. What is it like to be a bat? I'll never know.

evilduck 2y ago
Blindsight by Peter Watts also discusses what can be intelligent but not conscious. In the current hypefest of LLMs it’s interesting to consider that they may be similar.
- mikewarot 2y ago
  I think that LLMs might go through the reverse journey, being fluent in tokens (words-ish) and working backwards towards the physical reality we all inhabit.
- at_a_remove 2y ago
  "We do not like annoying cousins." Yes, exactly. The, uh, confident fluency of LLM responses, which can at the same time contradict what was said earlier, reminded me exactly of that. I don't know if you've ever met one of those glib psychopaths, but they have this characteristic of non-content communication, where it feels like words are being arranged for you, like someone composing a song using words from a language they do not know. See also: "you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything."
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Hm. The contradictions specifically are a thing I notice in humans that I think are entirely normal[0]. But the early LLMs with the shorter context windows, those reminded me of my mum's Alzheimer's. That said, your analogy may well be perfect, as they are learning to people-please and to simulate things they (hopefully) don't actually experience. (Not that it changes your point, but isn't that Machiavellian rather than psychopathic?) [0] one of many reasons why I disagree with Wittgenstein about: > If there were a verb meaning 'to believe falsely', it would not have any significant first person, present indicative. Just because it's logically correct, doesn't mean humans think like that.
  - ohthehugemanate 2y ago
    The part that really gets ME about that thought, is that those glib psychopaths/sociopaths fill an important role in human society, generally as leaders. I'm sure we can all think of some prominent political figures who are very good at arranging words to get their audience excited, but have a tenuous connection to fact (at best). Actually factual content seems almost irrelevant to their ability to lead, or to their followers' desire to follow. If that's the function which we can now automate at scale, it's not the jobs the machines will ultimately take; it's the leadership.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  I was thinking the same. if there's anything that is what it is like to be an LLM (and I'm not saying that there is - in fact, I doubt it, while supposing that it is a possibility for future machines) I suspect it would be like this, but more so, and inverted: while Keller had some experience of an external world but no experience of language, the entire universe for an LLM is language, without any obvious way to suppose that this language is about an external world.
- qup 2y ago
  Available to read online, I read it last year: https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm
- qbxk 2y ago
  i think the "problem" here is that for all of human history we have always been able to use mastery of language as a signal for intelligence and competence, of which LLMs are neither. it's possible this is even instinctual it's so ingrained in our concepts of "other minds". so we're going to have to get used to the fact that just using language well isn't enough to prove intelligence, certainly not consciousness. which then begs the the question, what is the magic ingredient, on top of use of language, that we have that bestows these qualities? and also the observation that whatever this ingredient is, it must be very difficult to measure or prove which is maybe why we stuck with the crude, but easy to wield, "use-of-language" test for so long.
antonioevans 2y ago
Children of Time/Ruin great two books. Highly recommend them if you like SciFi and animal behavior.
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
I don't think it's that strange. My thoughts and my physical sensations are separate, imaging a different body different senses isn't that much of a stretch. I speak English but I don't think in it, thoughts don't have a language.
- blfr 2y ago
  I think that this is false, as in intersubjectively not true for the human experience. First, because our physical state has a huge influence on our thoughts, not just their content, but direction, "color." Secondly, and more importantly, while some thoughts may not have a language (image memories, mental maps), others certainly do, they're narrative. I only speak two languages but well enough (English is my second language) that I can think in both, and often come to a point where I have to decide which it will be for this train of thought. Shape rotators vs wordcels distinction strikes again, I guess.
  - frabcus 2y ago
    Quite a lot of people have no inner voice, others no inner imagery, others no inner unsymbolized conceptual thinking (cf all of Hurlburts research). We all use very varied modalities of thought! It's as rich as how different we look or how different we cook.
    - blfr 2y ago
      Having no inner voice, imagery, or whatever seems to be poorer rather than richer experience to me. I don't think the existence of deaf people invalidates the importance of music to human experience.
      - filleduchaos 2y ago
        I don't think a deaf person's inability to listen to music with their ears makes them incapable of depth and clarity of thought, no. I don't think people who aren't hard of hearing necessarily have particularly deep or clear thoughts simply because they listen to music with their ears either. It's very easy to confuse correlation with causation. (I've specified "with their ears" because deaf people can perceive music through other means than the cochlea + cochlear nerve.)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

hnick 2y ago

I feel like my grasp of language allows some very complex thoughts, but I often wonder if it is limiting. I seem nearly unable to think without forming phrases in my head, and even if I anticipate the conclusion I feel the need to go through the whole sentence. I know there are people with all their senses intact without any internal monologue, but mine is very much in charge. Rigorous exercise or flow state seems able to quiet it for a bit.

pests 2y ago
This reminds me of some experiment (that I will never be able to find again) that was basically having people count in their head while doing something else, say reading. Some people were very good at it, others horrible. One revealed the method they were using - they didn't count audibly, they visualized a ticker tape moving across their vision with numbers increasing. Or say a rotating scale with the numbers rotating. This let them read or internal monologue as the senses are now separate. I tried to practice for a bit, still impossible to do without thinking about it. Kind of like how people default to counting money in their native way.
- hnick 2y ago
  That's interesting. I read your comment in my head while counting and seemed able to keep up, but something more complex might be hard, such as reading out loud. On another tangent, I've been trying Ritalin after speaking to a doctor. The first thing I noticed when I took it was that it became very difficult to hold multiple trains of thought at the same time. My typical routine (coping mechanism) was to work and have YouTube playing and a little attention on each, because this stopped me getting bored. But it wasn't long before I realised I simply could not hear the videos. It was a strange feeling but nice. A little similar to what you describe in how abilities vary.
  - pests 2y ago
    These questions keep me up at night. That we only get to experience though our own senses. I pretty much can only pay attention to one thing at a time. I've tried to watch movies or YouTube while coding or other things on my PC but I end up realizing I wasn't paying attention at all so now I don't even try.

hoseja 2y ago

Are we absolutely sure she did and it isn't more of a Koko situation?

archermarks 2y ago
Yes. https://youtu.be/jCg7Pda_3Gw?si=c9AuabaYp49Hduwr https://youtu.be/jCg7Pda_3Gw?si=c9AuabaYp49Hduwr