3 ms·
The great thing about this hypothesis, even if it happens to be false for homo sapiens, is that it separates the concepts of "intelligence" and "consciousness".
by nova 12y ago
The great thing about this hypothesis, even if it happens to be false for homo sapiens, is that it separates the concepts of "intelligence" and "consciousness". Jaynes shows that it is at least logically possible for a being to be intelligent, but not conscious.
I think this has clear implications to AI.
- mantrax5 12y agoDid we honestly need this to know both aren't related? We have plenty of proof in the AI scene. Also, it hits me as some awful mutation to be using your "external protocol" (voices) for internal communication. Is the claim they were literally hearing voices? Can't be right. First you'd constantly be getting startled or confused whether someone in your head said something, or someone outside your head said something. Second there's an inherent lag in converting speech to information and back, when the brain is interconnected well enough with much more efficient ways of communicating internally. Speech is also highly inaccurate. Same sentence can have multiple meanings. Imagine the hilarious misunderstandings between you and your internal voice. Which brings another point. How do you answer back? Do you speak out loud, or does the mind have a dedicated "internal speaker" for you to say things into? Another awkward redundant apparatus.
- mbrock 12y agoAll of these obvious questions are quite well addressed by the actual book in question, as would be expected from a serious and respected work, since its entire raison is to explain why this seemingly counterintuitive idea does in fact make sense and fits much evidence. Here's a simple intuition pump to get you started: Do you think that you don't hear voices? Do you know about the concept of "internal monologue?"
- SAI_Peregrinus 12y agoMost of my "internal monologue" is visual. I see things. Language enters into it when needed, but it's much less common for me.