4 ms·

Language is just a way of encoding semantic meaning. If your brain already knows that it is time to wake up or that it hates that guy, what's the point of encod

by uniq7 2y ago

Language is just a way of encoding semantic meaning. If your brain already knows that it is time to wake up or that it hates that guy, what's the point of encoding a description of that feeling into spoken language and replay it? That sounds inefficient. I have an inner monologue, but most of the time (and especially when I want to work fast), I "disable" it. Then my mind simply works in the "meaning space", where it can leverage other modalities (e.g., visual 3D representations of system behaviors). When I write or talk in formal environments I "enable" it just to double check and polish what I want to say.

JohnMakin 2y ago
Language is just a way of encoding semantic meaning - this is a perfect explanation and im going to use it from now on, thanks. yea this is like me too. curious, did you start reading at a very early age? I started around 3. this is what I personally think it is. It’s not like I dont have the ability to hear a narrative in my head, I just dont do it. I’ve suspected that since I began reading so early, it has something to do with it - and if you’re not capable of reading /comprehending as fast as I can, like if you’re literally sounding out every word in your head you’d never be able to keep up with whatever it is I do. I’d be enormously frustrated by that process. But to me this is what “narrative voice people” must do in their heads. or maybe it has to do (for me) being on the spectrum (high functioning)
- uniq7 2y ago
  > curious, did you start reading at a very early age? I started around 3 I did! I also learnt to read at 3. Your observation was really impressive. I've never thought about it being the cause of my weird quirks, I thought it was actually another consequence/symptom of being wired a bit different, but maybe you are right. Have you ever met anyone else who learnt to read early? Do they also behave like that? I don't know if I'm in the spectrum (I suspect I do, but I don't want to know). In any case, if I do, then I'm also a functioning one. > if you’re literally sounding out every word in your head you’d never be able to keep up with whatever it is I do Another possibility is that they overestimate how much they use their inner monologue without realizing. For example, I really doubt they think "time to move the left leg, now the right leg, now the left..." whenever they walk. Maybe they just don't enter into that "mode" as often as us
the_gipsy 2y ago
Language can encode information very densely. There is no point in describing "hate that guy". But it can be very efficient to have an inner monologue of "I hate that guy, but I must greet him friendly, or else I will be in trouble". If you'd just let yourself guide by feelings, you would be angry, or afraid, or genuinely happy to see that guy you hate. We already know how to encode and decode it language, because we must communicate with others. It could be useful to also use this code internally, to create very complex scenarios fast.
- uniq7 2y ago
  My point is that "I hate that guy, but I must greet him friendly, or else I will be in trouble" is already being concluded by the brain at the semantic space way before running the language encoder and playing the inner voice. That voice already knows what is going to say before saying it. The brain can extract those conclusions in mere milliseconds and act in consequence, and that doesn't mean being guided by feelings. I'd argue that skipping the language lets you think in more complex scenarios where visualizing something is required, like when playing a sport, painting, or composing a melody. Removing the noise of language also allows you to think in parallel and solve problems faster. In my case I'd say I can run a couple of "threads" only, but I wouldn't be surprised if top chess players could run a dozen.
  - the_gipsy 2y ago
    Consider the possibility that the brain has not necessarily "concluded" what is being put into words, internally. That the monologue is the conclusion, which we are processing. So we have two points of view, perspectives, or explanations. Yours is that there is some internal-mind code that is NOT language, which we are able to convert instantly to language to communicate with others. Most people then also have an internal monologue for unknown or orthogonal reasons, while some don't have it, without making any significant difference, because it is something like a side effect. Mine is that the internal monologue is the thought itself. There is no other, hidden, code that can express the same complexity as the language that we use both to communicate with others and our own mind. That we don't need this internal monologue for a lot of things (consider driving a car), but it's a crucial mechanism for planning long term tasks, solving new problems, and what generally separates us from other intelligent life forms.

by uniq7 2y ago

JohnMakin 2y ago

Language is just a way of encoding semantic meaning - this is a perfect explanation and im going to use it from now on, thanks. yea this is like me too. curious, did you start reading at a very early age? I started around 3. this is what I personally think it is. It’s not like I dont have the ability to hear a narrative in my head, I just dont do it. I’ve suspected that since I began reading so early, it has something to do with it - and if you’re not capable of reading /comprehending as fast as I can, like if you’re literally sounding out every word in your head you’d never be able to keep up with whatever it is I do. I’d be enormously frustrated by that process. But to me this is what “narrative voice people” must do in their heads. or maybe it has to do (for me) being on the spectrum (high functioning)

uniq7 2y ago
> curious, did you start reading at a very early age? I started around 3 I did! I also learnt to read at 3. Your observation was really impressive. I've never thought about it being the cause of my weird quirks, I thought it was actually another consequence/symptom of being wired a bit different, but maybe you are right. Have you ever met anyone else who learnt to read early? Do they also behave like that? I don't know if I'm in the spectrum (I suspect I do, but I don't want to know). In any case, if I do, then I'm also a functioning one. > if you’re literally sounding out every word in your head you’d never be able to keep up with whatever it is I do Another possibility is that they overestimate how much they use their inner monologue without realizing. For example, I really doubt they think "time to move the left leg, now the right leg, now the left..." whenever they walk. Maybe they just don't enter into that "mode" as often as us

the_gipsy 2y ago

Language can encode information very densely. There is no point in describing "hate that guy". But it can be very efficient to have an inner monologue of "I hate that guy, but I must greet him friendly, or else I will be in trouble". If you'd just let yourself guide by feelings, you would be angry, or afraid, or genuinely happy to see that guy you hate. We already know how to encode and decode it language, because we must communicate with others. It could be useful to also use this code internally, to create very complex scenarios fast.

uniq7 2y ago
My point is that "I hate that guy, but I must greet him friendly, or else I will be in trouble" is already being concluded by the brain at the semantic space way before running the language encoder and playing the inner voice. That voice already knows what is going to say before saying it. The brain can extract those conclusions in mere milliseconds and act in consequence, and that doesn't mean being guided by feelings. I'd argue that skipping the language lets you think in more complex scenarios where visualizing something is required, like when playing a sport, painting, or composing a melody. Removing the noise of language also allows you to think in parallel and solve problems faster. In my case I'd say I can run a couple of "threads" only, but I wouldn't be surprised if top chess players could run a dozen.
- the_gipsy 2y ago
  Consider the possibility that the brain has not necessarily "concluded" what is being put into words, internally. That the monologue is the conclusion, which we are processing. So we have two points of view, perspectives, or explanations. Yours is that there is some internal-mind code that is NOT language, which we are able to convert instantly to language to communicate with others. Most people then also have an internal monologue for unknown or orthogonal reasons, while some don't have it, without making any significant difference, because it is something like a side effect. Mine is that the internal monologue is the thought itself. There is no other, hidden, code that can express the same complexity as the language that we use both to communicate with others and our own mind. That we don't need this internal monologue for a lot of things (consider driving a car), but it's a crucial mechanism for planning long term tasks, solving new problems, and what generally separates us from other intelligent life forms.