3 ms·

Abstract conceptual thinking cannot be separated from our language ability, both of which are dependent on our access to mind. [Our brains are the tuners we use

Abstract conceptual thinking cannot be separated from our language ability, both of which are dependent on our access to mind. [Our brains are the tuners we use to select which realms of thought we are attempting to focus on. Some people choose to tune into universal compassion, some prefer pack-mentality behaviors such as racism or religious bigotry (including against those who haven't any), some just choose to make money or pursue greater pleasure, the list goes on and on.] Our bodies are mammalian in the basic pattern, but we are clearly distinct in ability. It wasn't 6000 frickin years ago, but there was a creation event where we instantaneously diverged from pure animal life. Mitochondrial Eve traces us to our root. Thanks again, science!

nkrisc 2y ago
The word "instantaneously" seems a bit strong, even assuming you don't mean it literally. Many different kinds of animals apparently exhibit many of the prerequisites or precursor traits that seem necessary for language, even if they don't posses all of them in order to make the leap humans apparently did. Communication is not unique to humans. Vocalization is not unique to humans. Awareness of self is likely not unique to humans. We are clearly unique in some way, but it still seems plausible that it was a gradual (if relatively rapid) process that could have occurred from the confluence of many unrelated circumstances and abilities that has simply only happened once on this planet (as far as we're aware). Language, and everything derived from it, is also a positive feedback loop that only accelerates its own advancement once it occurs. And by looking at the world today, it also seems to preclude similar advancements happening in other species once it's occurred in one.
a_gray 2y ago
> Abstract conceptual thinking cannot be separated from our language ability 1. Clearly false (what words do you use when you plan to throw a ball to a target?) 2. There is no reason to believe other animals are incapable of abstract thinking (although we can clearly see they are far less intelligent) 3. I don't know what your long screed about bigotry and religion has to do with language ability Just imagine how slow university-level maths would be if you had to do all the thinking in words in your head. Sorry if I sound rude, but this is such a common misconception people believe in, and it's so blatantly not true so I'm baffled people keep on claiming it is 'scientific' to believe that language is identical to intelligence. No wonder some people insist LLMs are just weeks away from becoming AGIs.
- visarga 2y ago
  > Clearly false (what words do you use when you plan to throw a ball to a target?) If a monkey can do it, it's not very abstract.
  - Tor3 2y ago
    When I drive to and from work I drive through several places where I have to mentally imagine what several other drivers plan to do, and, depending on what they actually do, (and what problems they may run into due to the slippery road) what the traffic picture will look like in a few moments. Which will let me decide if I stop right here, for example, so that the car which will otherwise be blocked by me and itself will block the traffic coming the other way can pass in front of me and resolve the (future) situation.. things like that. I have to do the whole thought experiment in my brain in a second or two. There are no words at all involved in that. And LLMs can't do such things as of now. I doubt a monkey could either. At work I do a lot of design thinking. I don't use words for that either, that comes later when I document the thing.
    - MrMcCall 2y ago
      Spacial dynamics don't need abstract thinking because they're concrete. For example: throwing a ball, or catching a ball. Understanding the physics or logic behind complex moving pieces does require abstract thinking, but that's not what your brain does to perform physical feats. We saw them, practiced dealing with them, then became proficient, or not.
      - Tor3 2y ago
        I'm talking about the time analyzing, not the time executing. And that's definitely abstract. And, as I mentioned, this applies to my design work too. And when programming. No words involved, until I write the documentation.
        MrMcCall 2y ago
        > I'm talking about the time analyzing, not the time executing. I see, and I agree. > And when programming. No words involved, until I write the documentation. Your variable names must be horrible ;-) I do get your point about visualizing software relationships in the design phase, though. I'd still say, as a 40+ year programmer, that we can never escape the concept-words that are the foundation of programming, e.g. types, variables, functions, classes, encapsulation, pipeline, executable, etc. Even if we are not consciously thinking of the terms, my guess is that, at a certain level of proficiency, we are using them at a kindof subconscious level. It's an interesting meta-topic, and I won't say you're wrong, but we've certainly stumbled into a mostly unexplored land where no map yet exists. That's why programming is so challenging, difficult, and fascinating. Peace be with you, friend.
wbl 2y ago
The invention of writing in Ur has an uncanny alignment with the Jewish calendar.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  Writing is far older than that.
- mcswell 2y ago
  Huh? How so?

nkrisc 2y ago

The word "instantaneously" seems a bit strong, even assuming you don't mean it literally. Many different kinds of animals apparently exhibit many of the prerequisites or precursor traits that seem necessary for language, even if they don't posses all of them in order to make the leap humans apparently did. Communication is not unique to humans. Vocalization is not unique to humans. Awareness of self is likely not unique to humans. We are clearly unique in some way, but it still seems plausible that it was a gradual (if relatively rapid) process that could have occurred from the confluence of many unrelated circumstances and abilities that has simply only happened once on this planet (as far as we're aware). Language, and everything derived from it, is also a positive feedback loop that only accelerates its own advancement once it occurs. And by looking at the world today, it also seems to preclude similar advancements happening in other species once it's occurred in one.

a_gray 2y ago

> Abstract conceptual thinking cannot be separated from our language ability 1. Clearly false (what words do you use when you plan to throw a ball to a target?) 2. There is no reason to believe other animals are incapable of abstract thinking (although we can clearly see they are far less intelligent) 3. I don't know what your long screed about bigotry and religion has to do with language ability Just imagine how slow university-level maths would be if you had to do all the thinking in words in your head. Sorry if I sound rude, but this is such a common misconception people believe in, and it's so blatantly not true so I'm baffled people keep on claiming it is 'scientific' to believe that language is identical to intelligence. No wonder some people insist LLMs are just weeks away from becoming AGIs.

visarga 2y ago
> Clearly false (what words do you use when you plan to throw a ball to a target?) If a monkey can do it, it's not very abstract.
- Tor3 2y ago
  When I drive to and from work I drive through several places where I have to mentally imagine what several other drivers plan to do, and, depending on what they actually do, (and what problems they may run into due to the slippery road) what the traffic picture will look like in a few moments. Which will let me decide if I stop right here, for example, so that the car which will otherwise be blocked by me and itself will block the traffic coming the other way can pass in front of me and resolve the (future) situation.. things like that. I have to do the whole thought experiment in my brain in a second or two. There are no words at all involved in that. And LLMs can't do such things as of now. I doubt a monkey could either. At work I do a lot of design thinking. I don't use words for that either, that comes later when I document the thing.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    Spacial dynamics don't need abstract thinking because they're concrete. For example: throwing a ball, or catching a ball. Understanding the physics or logic behind complex moving pieces does require abstract thinking, but that's not what your brain does to perform physical feats. We saw them, practiced dealing with them, then became proficient, or not.
    - Tor3 2y ago
      I'm talking about the time analyzing, not the time executing. And that's definitely abstract. And, as I mentioned, this applies to my design work too. And when programming. No words involved, until I write the documentation.
      - MrMcCall 2y ago
        > I'm talking about the time analyzing, not the time executing. I see, and I agree. > And when programming. No words involved, until I write the documentation. Your variable names must be horrible ;-) I do get your point about visualizing software relationships in the design phase, though. I'd still say, as a 40+ year programmer, that we can never escape the concept-words that are the foundation of programming, e.g. types, variables, functions, classes, encapsulation, pipeline, executable, etc. Even if we are not consciously thinking of the terms, my guess is that, at a certain level of proficiency, we are using them at a kindof subconscious level. It's an interesting meta-topic, and I won't say you're wrong, but we've certainly stumbled into a mostly unexplored land where no map yet exists. That's why programming is so challenging, difficult, and fascinating. Peace be with you, friend.

wbl 2y ago

The invention of writing in Ur has an uncanny alignment with the Jewish calendar.

MrMcCall 2y ago
Writing is far older than that.
mcswell 2y ago
Huh? How so?