←back to thread

549 points orcul | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.328s | source
1. wnmurphy ◴[] No.41896918[source]
I think the argument is in whether "thought" only applies to conscious articulation or whether non-linguistic, non-symbolic processes also qualify.

We only consciously "know" something when we represent it with symbols. There are also unconscious processes that some would consider "thought", like driving a car safely without thinking about what you're doing, but I wouldn't consider those thoughts.

I find an interesting parallel to Chain of Thought techniques with LLMs. I personally don't (consciously) know what I think until I articulate it.

To me this is similar to giving an LLM space to print out intermediary thoughts, like a JSON array of strings. Language is our programming language, in a sense. Without representing something in a word/concept, it doesn't exist.

"Ich vermute, dass wir nur sehen, was wir kennen." - Nietzsche, where "know" refers to labeling something by projecting a concept/word onto it.