5 ms·

How human brains process thoughts is non-uniform across population. There’s imagery, written language, sound, speech, tactile, etc. Not everything that you thin

by wruza 2y ago

How human brains process thoughts is non-uniform across population. There’s imagery, written language, sound, speech, tactile, etc. Not everything that you think about is readily expressible in your language. There are definitely people with and without “internal screen”, and probably few more types with/without X, where X is a set of things we’ve never talked about, either assuming everyone has it or not realizing that it’s a non-mandatory part of how you think.

famouswaffles 2y ago
That's not really what I'm saying. What I'm saying is how does the brain look when you do both ? Is there a clear difference ? There's no 'thinking mode' followed by a 'language processing mode'. Language processing is thinking as far the brain is concerned and there's no evidence that these are 2 cleanly separated processes whether you 'think' in words or not.
- foobarqux 2y ago
  That's not true, the Moro experiments show they use different capacities as do similar experiments on people who have certain severe cognitive deficiencies that don't impact language processing (e.g. the subject "Chris")
  - famouswaffles 2y ago
    My argument is that “thinking” and “language processing” are not two sequential or clearly separated modes in the brain but deeply intertwined. Language is a lot more than parsing syntax, whatever your thoughts are on the matter, even LLMs are clearly doing more than that. Are there any experiments where subjects had severe cognitive deficiencies and language in its full breadth or maybe i should say communication ? came out unscathed ? The chris experiments don't seem to go into much detail in that front.
    - foobarqux 2y ago
      I just gave one: "Chris". Here's Chomsky describing the "Chris"-experiments ([1]) as part of a broader answer about how language is distinct from general cognition which I paraphrased above. > That doesn't contradict the argument that “thinking” and “language processing” are not two sequential or clearly separated modes in the brain but deeply intertwined. It's not an argument, it's an assertion, that is, in fact, contradicted by the experimental evidence I described (Moro and "Chris"). Of course they are "deeply intertwined" but because of the evidence it's probably an interface between two distinctive systems rather than one general system doing two tasks. https://youtu.be/Rgd8BnZ2-iw?si=_UdBfG1InmpjbDPB&t=6735 https://youtu.be/Rgd8BnZ2-iw?si=_UdBfG1InmpjbDPB&t=6735
      - famouswaffles 2y ago
        Like i said, these experiments stop at a vague 'Chris can still learn languages'. No comment on actual proficiency or testing. For all i know i can't have a meaningful conversation with this guy beyond syntactically correct speech. Or maybe the best proficiency he's ever managed is still pretty poor compared to the average human. I have no idea. There's no contradiction because i never argued/asserted the brain didn't have parts tuned for language, which is really all this experiment demonstrates.
        foobarqux 2y ago
        It's irrelevant to the experiment: he could learn synthetic language with human-like grammar and could not learn synthetic languages with non-human-like grammar. Regular people could solve the non-human-like languages with difficulty. Because his language ability is much higher than his general problem solving ability it gives strong evidence that 1. human language capacity a special function, not a general purpose cognitive function and 2. it obeys a certain structure. > There's no contradiction because i never argued/asserted the brain didn't have centers tuned for language, which is really all this experiment demonstrates. I don't know what you are trying to say then.
        2y ago

by wruza 2y ago

famouswaffles 2y ago

That's not really what I'm saying. What I'm saying is how does the brain look when you do both ? Is there a clear difference ? There's no 'thinking mode' followed by a 'language processing mode'. Language processing is thinking as far the brain is concerned and there's no evidence that these are 2 cleanly separated processes whether you 'think' in words or not.

foobarqux 2y ago
That's not true, the Moro experiments show they use different capacities as do similar experiments on people who have certain severe cognitive deficiencies that don't impact language processing (e.g. the subject "Chris")
- famouswaffles 2y ago
  My argument is that “thinking” and “language processing” are not two sequential or clearly separated modes in the brain but deeply intertwined. Language is a lot more than parsing syntax, whatever your thoughts are on the matter, even LLMs are clearly doing more than that. Are there any experiments where subjects had severe cognitive deficiencies and language in its full breadth or maybe i should say communication ? came out unscathed ? The chris experiments don't seem to go into much detail in that front.
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    I just gave one: "Chris". Here's Chomsky describing the "Chris"-experiments ([1]) as part of a broader answer about how language is distinct from general cognition which I paraphrased above. > That doesn't contradict the argument that “thinking” and “language processing” are not two sequential or clearly separated modes in the brain but deeply intertwined. It's not an argument, it's an assertion, that is, in fact, contradicted by the experimental evidence I described (Moro and "Chris"). Of course they are "deeply intertwined" but because of the evidence it's probably an interface between two distinctive systems rather than one general system doing two tasks. https://youtu.be/Rgd8BnZ2-iw?si=_UdBfG1InmpjbDPB&t=6735 https://youtu.be/Rgd8BnZ2-iw?si=_UdBfG1InmpjbDPB&t=6735
    - famouswaffles 2y ago
      Like i said, these experiments stop at a vague 'Chris can still learn languages'. No comment on actual proficiency or testing. For all i know i can't have a meaningful conversation with this guy beyond syntactically correct speech. Or maybe the best proficiency he's ever managed is still pretty poor compared to the average human. I have no idea. There's no contradiction because i never argued/asserted the brain didn't have parts tuned for language, which is really all this experiment demonstrates.
      - foobarqux 2y ago
        It's irrelevant to the experiment: he could learn synthetic language with human-like grammar and could not learn synthetic languages with non-human-like grammar. Regular people could solve the non-human-like languages with difficulty. Because his language ability is much higher than his general problem solving ability it gives strong evidence that 1. human language capacity a special function, not a general purpose cognitive function and 2. it obeys a certain structure. > There's no contradiction because i never argued/asserted the brain didn't have centers tuned for language, which is really all this experiment demonstrates. I don't know what you are trying to say then.
        2y ago