←back to thread

549 points orcul | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.659s | source
Show context
habitue ◴[] No.41889815[source]
Language may not be essential for thought, (most of us have the experience of an idea occurring to us that we struggle to put into words), but language acts as a regularization mechanism on thoughts.

Serializing much higher dimensional freeform thoughts into language is a very lossy process, and this kinda ensures that mostly only the core bits get translated. Think of times when someone gets an idea you're trying to convey, but you realize they're missing some critical context you forgot to share. It takes some activation energy to add that bit of context, so if it seems like they mostly get what you're saying, you skip it. Over time, transferring ideas from one person to the next, they tend towards a very compressed form because language is expensive.

This process also works on your own thoughts. Thinking out loud performs a similar role, it compresses the hell out of the thought or else it remains inexpressible. Now imagine repeated stages of compressing through language, allowing ideas to form from that compressed form, and then compressing those ideas in turn. It's a bit of a recursive process and language is in the middle of it.

replies(3): >>41890360 #>>41890458 #>>41890579 #
pazimzadeh ◴[] No.41890458[source]
Communication of thought is a whole different question. Either way you're making a lot of strong claims without support?

> this kinda ensures that mostly only the core bits get translated

The kinda is doing a lot here. Many times the very act of trying to communicate a thought colors/corrupts the main point and gives only one perspective or a snapshot of the overall thought. There's a reason why they say a picture is worth a thousand words. Except the mind can conjure much more than a static picture. The mind can also hold the idea and the exceptions to the idea in one coherent model. For me this can be especially apparent when taking psychedelics and finding that trying to communicate some thoughts with words requires constant babbling to keep refining the last few sentences, ad libidum. There are exceptions of course, like for simple ideas.

replies(1): >>41890984 #
1. habitue ◴[] No.41890984[source]
> Many times the very act of trying to communicate a thought colors/corrupts the main point and gives only one perspective or a snapshot of the overall thought. There's a reason why they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Yeah! Sometimes the thought isnt compressible and language doesnt help. But a lot of times it is, and it does

replies(1): >>41892110 #
2. pazimzadeh ◴[] No.41892110[source]
Does language actually 'help', or is it just the best we have? e.g. would running a thought through language have any benefit in a world where telepathy existed
replies(1): >>41899264 #
3. habitue ◴[] No.41899264[source]
Yeah, I think it would. I think if we coudl seamlessly transmit thought from one person to another in full fidelity, we would be less smart. Abstraction results from boiling out unnecessary parts and retaining the essence of something. If you have a very high bandwidth connection (unlike language) you dont need to abstract as much and I would guess humans wouldnt be as advanced as they are.