3 ms·

Would that suggest our language is connected to our vision?

gmkoliver 14y ago
Or tool use.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
Isn't it fairly well accepted that language affects perception and even explicitly vision? Cultures that have words or expressions that other cultures don't have. Groups of people that have more granular colors and then recognize more distinct shades of those colors than those of us that have always just known "that's red or pink" rather than more distinct points between there.
- 178 14y ago
  Yep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguishing_blue_from_green_in_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguishing_blue_from_green_...
  - icelancer 14y ago
    I hate reading stuff like this. It makes me question my grip on reality.
twiceaday 14y ago
This will blow your mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect
- njharman 14y ago
  > This will blow your mind Truth in advertising!
- anonymous 14y ago
  So, in effect, they're saying that we use lip-reading to distinguish between very similar phonemes? That's... yes? I'm not seeing what's so remarkable about it, I've been aware of it since forever - it's how I can understand what people next to me are saying at loud concerts and the like. Even further, sometimes I have trouble recognising what someone's telling me if I can't see their lips and no, my hearing is perfectly fine. Guess it's one of those things where you think everybody senses the world the same way.
- hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
  Mind blown.
Dn_Ab 14y ago
It almost certainly is. You can consider it from a logical perspective without even going into brain science. When a computer looks at a scene it sees in terms of learned rules or operations on high dimensional elements of a vector space intended to cluster pixels. Scenes have semantics. When we see a scene we see not just things regardless of color or orientation but That thing BY a thing ON TOP of that other thing. We use not just co-occurence patterns of blobs of pixels but context. No doubt context rules can be brute forced by looking at statistics of large amount of images. But it can be more readily learned by a system with a good language model and rules expressed in terms of it. Language is more important than vision for making sense of the world. You can also look at it in terms of the brain. That the parts related to sensory integration and processing are also key to language. And that those sections activate as a coprocessor not a single processor. There is a part of the brain called the Temporal lobe. The Temporal lobe processes audio, speech and semantics. A section of that, intersecting the parietal lobe (linked to visuospatial integration, symbols, math ability), is the Superior temporal sulcus. It is identified as key in theory of mind, processing motion, social cues, faces as well as integrating audio and visual information. What's interesting is that it shows task related activation. It doesn't do all these things alone but activates differently in conjunction with what networks are currently active. Recently a paper also made a strong argument that the STS is a part of brain that interprets stimuli specifically, regardless of modality (sound, visual) obviously key to recognizing objects. http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/47/16629.abstract http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/47/16629.abstract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporoparietal_junction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporoparietal_junction http://www.indiana.edu/~panlab/papers/SraJtw_inverse.pdf http://www.indiana.edu/~panlab/papers/SraJtw_inverse.pdf
petercooper 14y ago
RadioLab did an episode about this: http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/ http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/ - A couple of the bits refer to people with communicative issues who didn't have cognition of certain objects or concepts until they learnt words for them.

Or tool use.

Isn't it fairly well accepted that language affects perception and even explicitly vision? Cultures that have words or expressions that other cultures don't have. Groups of people that have more granular colors and then recognize more distinct shades of those colors than those of us that have always just known "that's red or pink" rather than more distinct points between there.

178 14y ago
Yep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguishing_blue_from_green_in_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguishing_blue_from_green_...
- icelancer 14y ago
  I hate reading stuff like this. It makes me question my grip on reality.

twiceaday 14y ago

This will blow your mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect

njharman 14y ago
> This will blow your mind Truth in advertising!
anonymous 14y ago
So, in effect, they're saying that we use lip-reading to distinguish between very similar phonemes? That's... yes? I'm not seeing what's so remarkable about it, I've been aware of it since forever - it's how I can understand what people next to me are saying at loud concerts and the like. Even further, sometimes I have trouble recognising what someone's telling me if I can't see their lips and no, my hearing is perfectly fine. Guess it's one of those things where you think everybody senses the world the same way.
hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
Mind blown.

Dn_Ab 14y ago

It almost certainly is. You can consider it from a logical perspective without even going into brain science. When a computer looks at a scene it sees in terms of learned rules or operations on high dimensional elements of a vector space intended to cluster pixels. Scenes have semantics. When we see a scene we see not just things regardless of color or orientation but That thing BY a thing ON TOP of that other thing. We use not just co-occurence patterns of blobs of pixels but context. No doubt context rules can be brute forced by looking at statistics of large amount of images. But it can be more readily learned by a system with a good language model and rules expressed in terms of it. Language is more important than vision for making sense of the world. You can also look at it in terms of the brain. That the parts related to sensory integration and processing are also key to language. And that those sections activate as a coprocessor not a single processor. There is a part of the brain called the Temporal lobe. The Temporal lobe processes audio, speech and semantics. A section of that, intersecting the parietal lobe (linked to visuospatial integration, symbols, math ability), is the Superior temporal sulcus. It is identified as key in theory of mind, processing motion, social cues, faces as well as integrating audio and visual information. What's interesting is that it shows task related activation. It doesn't do all these things alone but activates differently in conjunction with what networks are currently active. Recently a paper also made a strong argument that the STS is a part of brain that interprets stimuli specifically, regardless of modality (sound, visual) obviously key to recognizing objects. http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/47/16629.abstract http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/47/16629.abstract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporoparietal_junction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporoparietal_junction http://www.indiana.edu/~panlab/papers/SraJtw_inverse.pdf http://www.indiana.edu/~panlab/papers/SraJtw_inverse.pdf

petercooper 14y ago

RadioLab did an episode about this: http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/ http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/ - A couple of the bits refer to people with communicative issues who didn't have cognition of certain objects or concepts until they learnt words for them.