| > There's a view that suggests that language is intelligence.
I think you find the limits when you dig in. What are you calling language? Can you really say that Eliza doesn't meet your criteria? What about a more advanced version? I mean we've been passing the Turing Test for decades now. > That language is a requirement for understanding.
But this contradicts your earlier statement. If language is a requirement then it must precede intelligence, right?I think you must then revisit your definition of language and ensure that it matches to all the creatures that you consider intelligent. At least by doing this you'll make some falsifiable claims and can make progress. I think an ant is intelligent, but I also think ants do things far more sophisticated than the average person thinks. It's an easy trap, not knowing what you don't know. But if we do the above we get some path to aid in discovery, right? > that you might not be able to hold an idea in your head until it has been named
Are you familiar with Anendophasia?It is the condition where a person does not have an internal monologue. They think without words. The definition of language is still flexible enough that you can probably still call that language, just like in your example, but it shows a lack of precision in the definition, even if it is accurate. > Perhaps it is why other animals on this planet seem to us lacking intelligence
One thing to also consider is if language is necessary for societies or intelligence. Can we decouple the two? I'm not aware of any great examples, although octopi and many other cephalopods are fairly asocial creatures. Yet they are considered highly intelligent due to their adaptive and creative nature.Perhaps language is a necessary condition for advanced intelligence, but not intelligence alone. Perhaps it is communication and societies, differentiating from an internalized language. Certainly the social group can play an influence here, as coalitions can do more than the sum of the individuals (by definition). But the big question is if these things are necessary. Getting the correct causal graph, removing the confounding variables, is no easy task. But I think we should still try and explore differing ideas. While I don't think you're right, I'll encourage you to pursue your path if you encourage me to pursue mine. We can compete, but it should be friendly, as our competition forces us to help see flaws in our models. Maybe the social element isn't a necessary condition, but I have no doubt that it is a beneficial tool. I'm more frustrated by those wanting to call the problem solved. It obviously isn't, as it's been so difficult to get generalization and consensus among experts (across fields). |
| |
| ▲ | the_gipsy a day ago | parent [-] | | > It is the condition where a person does not have an internal monologue. These people are just nutjobs that misinterpreted what internal monologue means, and have trouble doing basic introspection. I know there are a myriad of similar conditions, aphantasia, synaesthesia, etc. But someone without internal monologue simply could not function in our society, or at least not pass as someone without obvious mental diminishment. If there really were some other, hidden code in the mind, that could express "thoughts" in the same depth as language does - then please show it already. At least the tiniest bit of a hint. | | |
| ▲ | godelski a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I know some of these people. We've had deep conversations about what is going on in our thought processes. Their description significantly differs from mine. These people are common enough that you likely know some. It's just not a topic that frequently comes up. It is also a spectrum, not a binary thing (though full anendophasia does exist, it is just on the extreme end). I think your own experiences should allow you to doubt your claim. For example, I know when I get really into a fiction book I'm reading that I transition from a point where I'm reading the words in my head to seeing the scenes more like a movie, or more accurately like a dream. I talk to myself in my head a lot, but I can also think without words. I do this a lot when I'm thinking about more physical things like when I'm machining something, building things, or even loading dishwasher. So it is hard for me to believe that while I primarily use an internal monologue that there aren't people that primarily use a different strategy. On top of that, well, I'm pretty certain my cat doesn't meow in her head. I'm not certain she has a language at all. So why would it be surprising that this condition exists? You'd have to make the assumption that there was a switch in human evolution. Where it happened all at once or all others went extinct. I find that less likely than the idea that we just don't talk enough about how we think to our friends. Certainly there are times where you think without a voice in your head. If not, well you're on the extreme other end. After all, we aren't clones. People are different, even if there's a lot of similarities. | | |
| ▲ | lovecg 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m like that more often than not. Words and language always seemed like a “translation layer” to express myself to other people, not something essential that needs to happen in my head. Especially when thinking deeply about some technical problem there’s no language involved, just abstract shapes and seeing things “in my mind’s eye”. We might just be rehashing that silly internet meme about “shape rotators”, but there could be a correlation here where people whose minds work this way are more dismissive of LLMs. | |
| ▲ | the_gipsy a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I suggest you revisit the subject with your friends, with two key points: 1. Make it clear to them that with "internal monologue" you do not mean an actual audible hallucination 2. Ask them if they EVER have imagined themselves or others saying or asking anything If they do, which they 100% will unless they lie, then you have ruled out "does not have an internal monologue", the claim is now "does not use his internal monologue as much". You can keep probing them what exactly that means, but it gets washy. Someone that truly does not have an internal dialogue could not do the most basic daily tasks. A person could grab a cookie from the table when they feel like it (oh, :cookie-emoji:!), but they cannot put on their shoes, grab their wallet and keys, look in the mirror to adjust their hair, go to the supermarket, to buy cookies. If there were another hidden code that can express all huge mental state pulled by "buy cookies", by now we would at least have an idea that it exists underneath. We must also ask, why would we translate this constantly into language, if the mental state is already there? Translation costs processing power and slows down. So why are these "no internal monologue" people not geniuses? I have no doubt that there is a spectrum, on that I agree with you. But the spectrum is "how present is (or how aware is the person of-) the internal monologue". E.g. some people have ADHD, others never get anxiety at all. "No internal monologue" is not one end of the spectrum for functioning adults. The cat actually proves my point. A cat can sit for a long time before a mouse-hole, or it can hide to jumpscare his brother cat, and so on. So to a very small degree there is something that let's it process ("understand") very basic and near-future event and action-reactions. However, a cat could not possibly go to the supermarket to buy food, obviating anatomical obstacles, because: it has no language and therefore cannot make a complex mental model. Fun fact: whenever animals (apes, birds) have been taught language, they never ask questions (some claim they did, but if you dig in you'll see that the interpretation is extremely dubious). | | |
| ▲ | godelski 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 1. Make it clear to them that with "internal monologue" you do not mean an actual audible hallucination
What do you mean? I hear my voice in my head. I can differentiate this from a voice outside my head, but yes, I do "hear" it.And yes, this has been discussed in depth. It was like literally the first thing... But no, they do not have conversations in their heads like I do. They do not use words as their medium. I have no doubt that their experience is different from mine. > 2. Ask them if they EVER have imagined themselves or others saying or asking anything
This is an orthogonal point. Yes, they have imagined normal interactions. But frequently those imaginary conversations do not use words. > The cat actually proves my point.
Idk man, I think you should get a pet. My cat communicates with me all the time. But she has no language. > Fun fact: whenever animals (apes, birds) have been taught language, they never ask questions (some claim they did, but if you dig in you'll see that the interpretation is extremely dubious).
To be clear, I'm not saying my cat's intelligence is anywhere near ours. She can do tricks and is "smart for a cat" but I'm not even convinced she's as intelligent as the various wild corvids I feed. | | |
| ▲ | the_gipsy 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's pretty self explanatory: there's actual voice heard with your ears, there's the internal monologue, and then there's a hallucination. > Yes, they have imagined normal interactions. But frequently those imaginary conversations do not use words. And you did not dig in deeper? How exactly do you imagine a conversation without words? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Mikhail_Edoshin a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is us a book written by a woman who suffered a stroke. She lost the ability to speak and understand language. Yet she remained conscious. It took her ten years to fully recover. The book is called "A stroke of insight". | | |
| ▲ | the_gipsy a day ago | parent [-] | | Conscious, like an animal or a baby. She could not function at all like a normal adult. Proves my point. |
|
|
|
