3 ms·

Language is literally an abstraction of sensory inputs and cognitive processes. One can make similar arguments about image generation. These abstractions might

Language is literally an abstraction of sensory inputs and cognitive processes. One can make similar arguments about image generation. These abstractions might characterize the higher cognitive abilities of humans, but it makes no sense to ignore "lower level" cognition. Embodiment is the foundation of our rich internal world models, in particular spacetime, causality, etc. Current generative models merely mimic the output, with a fuzzy abstract linguistic mess in place of any physical/causal models. It's unsurprising that their capacity to "reason" is so brittle.

dinfinity 1y ago
> Language is literally an abstraction of sensory inputs and cognitive processes. Language can exist entirely independently from senses and cognition. It is an encoding of patterns in the world where the only thing that matters is if anybody or anything wielding it can map the encodings to and from the patterns they encode for (which is more of a sociological/synchronisation challenge). Does C, or Java, 'make no sense' because it 'ignores lower level cognition'? There are many parts of non-programming languages that similarly have nothing to do with embodiment. Some of them are even about incredibly abstract things impossible in our universe. One could argue that for many fields genius lies in being able to mentally model what is so foreign to the intuition our embodiment has imbued us with or to be able to find a mapping to facilitate that intuition. Said otherwise: the experience our embodiment has given us might limit how well we can understand the world (Quantum Mechanics anyone?). Again, embodiment is interesting and worth pursuing, but far from a requirement for far-reaching intelligence.
- pjmorris 1y ago
  > Does C, or Java, 'make no sense' because it 'ignores lower level cognition'? It makes sense in context, but that context includes the machine on which the compiled code runs. Without the underlying machine, there's no real purpose for C or Java. I'm open to the idea that 'lower level cognition' may be as relevant to language as the machine is to C or Java.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > Without the underlying machine, there's no real purpose for C or Java. They do express algorithms, don't they?
- yencabulator 1y ago
  > Language can exist entirely independently from senses and cognition. Helen Keller begs to disagree. Language and cognition were clearly linked for her. > It wasn't until April 5, 1887, when Anne took Helen to an old pump house, that Helen finally understood that everything has a name. Sullivan put Helen’s hand under the stream and began spelling “w-a-t-e-r” into her palm, first slowly, then more quickly. > Keller later wrote in her autobiography, “As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten–-a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that ‘w-a-t-e-r’ meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free! There were barriers still, it is true, but barriers that could in time be swept away.”
  - dinfinity 1y ago
    I said language can exist independently, not that all language exists independently. "one plus one equals two" can be understood and worked with without ever feeling water over your hand. It is a priori knowledge (see Hume's fork for an explanation). You have to understand that the richness of language linked to cognition is due to your experience with that part of language and resulting romantization of it. It doesn't mean that it is a core defining feature of language, even though it feels that way (and as touching as that anecdote is).
    - computably 1y ago
      > "one plus one equals two" can be understood and worked with without ever feeling water over your hand. It is a priori knowledge "Understood" and "worked with" are completely different. The complete absence of embodiment is several degrees removed from "feeling water over your hand." LLMs have no sensory apparatus to relate the word "one" to actual, discrete, singular objects. The most rudimentary calculator can represent and compute "1+1=2", but I doubt any philosophical tradition or even an educated layperson would claim calculators "understand what 1+1=2 means." The "understanding" part has nothing to do with the accuracy or truthfulness of the computation; it comes from the relation of the abstract statement to counting of actual objects.
- computably 1y ago
  > Language can exist entirely independently from senses and cognition. Maybe? Are you just outlining the thesis, or saying this should be self-evident? > It is an encoding of patterns in the world where the only thing that matters is if anybody or anything wielding it can map the encodings to and from the patterns they encode for (which is more of a sociological/synchronisation challenge). Yes, and my point is, current genAI utterly fails in unpredictable / bizarre ways because it only mimics the abstract encodings, ignorant of patterns in the world. Obviously some people argue "next token prediction is all you need," but that's a claim that is far from self-evident. > There are many parts of non-programming languages that similarly have nothing to do with embodiment. Some of them are even about incredibly abstract things impossible in our universe. One could argue that for many fields genius lies in being able to mentally model what is so foreign to the intuition our embodiment has imbued us with or to be able to find a mapping to facilitate that intuition. I would say this misses the point. The meaningfulness of abstractions, even ones that are unintuitive or unphysical or illogical, come from our embodied experience. Our enjoyment of even the most absurd fiction comes from our ability to simultaneously comprehend what it is "about" and what is "possible." Both relate to experience-of-reality and mean nothing in a vacuum. > Said otherwise: the experience our embodiment has given us might limit how well we can understand the world (Quantum Mechanics anyone?). I agree that we are limited in some ways by our particular embodiment. e.g. There's a huge spectrum of sensory experiences - colors, sounds, smells ... - which we know other animals have that we do not. As I understand, where we disagree is on the why. I would say our capacity for understanding comes from our embodiment, therefore it's only natural that the limits of our embodiment also limit our understanding. After all we could imagine that if we had direct sensory experience of quantum effects, we would understand QM better or at least easier. In some fuzzy way, (no embodiment => poor understanding) and (embodiment => better understanding) is evidence for (embodiment <=> understanding). I suppose your argument is a counterfactual that we might be able to imagine a (no embodiment & some understanding) so (no embodiment =/> poor understanding), but I don't see the evidence that this is not just imaginable but actually possible in reality.

dinfinity 1y ago

> Language is literally an abstraction of sensory inputs and cognitive processes. Language can exist entirely independently from senses and cognition. It is an encoding of patterns in the world where the only thing that matters is if anybody or anything wielding it can map the encodings to and from the patterns they encode for (which is more of a sociological/synchronisation challenge). Does C, or Java, 'make no sense' because it 'ignores lower level cognition'? There are many parts of non-programming languages that similarly have nothing to do with embodiment. Some of them are even about incredibly abstract things impossible in our universe. One could argue that for many fields genius lies in being able to mentally model what is so foreign to the intuition our embodiment has imbued us with or to be able to find a mapping to facilitate that intuition. Said otherwise: the experience our embodiment has given us might limit how well we can understand the world (Quantum Mechanics anyone?). Again, embodiment is interesting and worth pursuing, but far from a requirement for far-reaching intelligence.

pjmorris 1y ago
> Does C, or Java, 'make no sense' because it 'ignores lower level cognition'? It makes sense in context, but that context includes the machine on which the compiled code runs. Without the underlying machine, there's no real purpose for C or Java. I'm open to the idea that 'lower level cognition' may be as relevant to language as the machine is to C or Java.
- motorest 1y ago
  > Without the underlying machine, there's no real purpose for C or Java. They do express algorithms, don't they?
yencabulator 1y ago
> Language can exist entirely independently from senses and cognition. Helen Keller begs to disagree. Language and cognition were clearly linked for her. > It wasn't until April 5, 1887, when Anne took Helen to an old pump house, that Helen finally understood that everything has a name. Sullivan put Helen’s hand under the stream and began spelling “w-a-t-e-r” into her palm, first slowly, then more quickly. > Keller later wrote in her autobiography, “As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten–-a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that ‘w-a-t-e-r’ meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free! There were barriers still, it is true, but barriers that could in time be swept away.”
- dinfinity 1y ago
  I said language can exist independently, not that all language exists independently. "one plus one equals two" can be understood and worked with without ever feeling water over your hand. It is a priori knowledge (see Hume's fork for an explanation). You have to understand that the richness of language linked to cognition is due to your experience with that part of language and resulting romantization of it. It doesn't mean that it is a core defining feature of language, even though it feels that way (and as touching as that anecdote is).
  - computably 1y ago
    > "one plus one equals two" can be understood and worked with without ever feeling water over your hand. It is a priori knowledge "Understood" and "worked with" are completely different. The complete absence of embodiment is several degrees removed from "feeling water over your hand." LLMs have no sensory apparatus to relate the word "one" to actual, discrete, singular objects. The most rudimentary calculator can represent and compute "1+1=2", but I doubt any philosophical tradition or even an educated layperson would claim calculators "understand what 1+1=2 means." The "understanding" part has nothing to do with the accuracy or truthfulness of the computation; it comes from the relation of the abstract statement to counting of actual objects.
computably 1y ago
> Language can exist entirely independently from senses and cognition. Maybe? Are you just outlining the thesis, or saying this should be self-evident? > It is an encoding of patterns in the world where the only thing that matters is if anybody or anything wielding it can map the encodings to and from the patterns they encode for (which is more of a sociological/synchronisation challenge). Yes, and my point is, current genAI utterly fails in unpredictable / bizarre ways because it only mimics the abstract encodings, ignorant of patterns in the world. Obviously some people argue "next token prediction is all you need," but that's a claim that is far from self-evident. > There are many parts of non-programming languages that similarly have nothing to do with embodiment. Some of them are even about incredibly abstract things impossible in our universe. One could argue that for many fields genius lies in being able to mentally model what is so foreign to the intuition our embodiment has imbued us with or to be able to find a mapping to facilitate that intuition. I would say this misses the point. The meaningfulness of abstractions, even ones that are unintuitive or unphysical or illogical, come from our embodied experience. Our enjoyment of even the most absurd fiction comes from our ability to simultaneously comprehend what it is "about" and what is "possible." Both relate to experience-of-reality and mean nothing in a vacuum. > Said otherwise: the experience our embodiment has given us might limit how well we can understand the world (Quantum Mechanics anyone?). I agree that we are limited in some ways by our particular embodiment. e.g. There's a huge spectrum of sensory experiences - colors, sounds, smells ... - which we know other animals have that we do not. As I understand, where we disagree is on the why. I would say our capacity for understanding comes from our embodiment, therefore it's only natural that the limits of our embodiment also limit our understanding. After all we could imagine that if we had direct sensory experience of quantum effects, we would understand QM better or at least easier. In some fuzzy way, (no embodiment => poor understanding) and (embodiment => better understanding) is evidence for (embodiment <=> understanding). I suppose your argument is a counterfactual that we might be able to imagine a (no embodiment & some understanding) so (no embodiment =/> poor understanding), but I don't see the evidence that this is not just imaginable but actually possible in reality.