<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
On 22/04/2023 11:01, Gordon Swobe wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.513.1682157665.847.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 2:43 AM Ben Zaiboc via
extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> (you think that pointing is not a language? I suspect
many deaf people would disagree)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
Fine with me. Sign language is also a form of language. <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> This is why referring to linguistics is not helping. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
? Because we are going to include sign language in our
definition of language, linguistics is not helping? Linguists
consider sign language also to be a form of language. <br>
<br>
In our primitive caveman example, in which he points at let us
say an animal, his first "words" in sign language translate to
something like "Look over there! See what I see?" Based on how
frantic or calm is his gesturing, his interlocutor might also
know if his friend perceives the animal as a threat or as
food. Now he has two words. Before long, Fred and Barney are
also grunting identifiable noises as their sign language
evolves into more complex verbal language.<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>As I said earlier, it's the wrong discipline here. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
Language models model language and linguistics is the science
of language. <br>
<br>
> Referents, being internal conceptual models, <i>are made
of language</i>. They must be, because there's nothing else
to work with, in the brain.<br>
<br>
Really? My brain has visual perceptions and sounds and
imaginations and non-verbal thoughts and music and many things
going on that can be <i>described</i> with language but are
not language.<br>
<br>
I understand what you are trying to say about the "language of
the brain" but I would say you are conflating neurology and
language. <br>
<br>
The statement "referents are made of language" is simply false
on the definition of referent. Only a tiny subset of words in
the English language have language as referents. Linguists
call them meta-words. They are parts of speech and similar.
For example, the word "nouns" refers to the set of all
nouns. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No no, you've completely shimmied past what I'm saying, there.<br>
<br>
Partly my own fault:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> This is why referring to linguistics is not helping. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
? Because we are going to include sign language in our definition of
language, linguistics is not helping? Linguists consider sign
language also to be a form of language.<br>
<br>
<br>
No, I was referring to your whole reply. I'm looking at the
fairground ride, trying to see how it works, how it compares to the
way we work, and what that means for the future. You're analysing
the cash flow.<br>
Yeah, ok, forget the strained analogy.<br>
<br>
I'm not conflating neurology and linguistics (which is what I assume
you mean when you say 'language' here), I'm saying that neurology is
the relevant discipline for analysing this, and linguistics is not.<br>
<br>
<br>
> My brain has visual perceptions and sounds and imaginations and
non-verbal thoughts and music and many things going on that can be <i>described</i> with
language<br>
<br>
Precisely.<br>
<br>
> but are not language<br>
<br>
They are constructed with a specific language. My whole point is, as
the brain can experience visual perceptions and sounds and
imaginations and non-verbal thoughts and music and many things, when
all it has to use are neural spike trains, which are binary signals,
then all those experiences must necessarily be made from the brain's
language of binary signals.<br>
<br>
> Language models model language and linguistics is the science
of language.<br>
<br>
If that was all they did, they wouldn't be very interesting or
useful. Except to linguists.<br>
<br>
I don't know much about linguistics, but I understand it to be the
study of human languages. Not the study of AI. Just because "Large
Language Models" has the word 'language' in it, doesn't mean that
studying human languages is relevant. As I said before, we could
call them Large Means of Communication Models. Would that make
Communication Studies the relevant discipline?<br>
<br>
You might find this guy's posts interesting:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://seantrott.substack.com/p/humans-llms-and-the-symbol-grounding-fc4">https://seantrott.substack.com/p/humans-llms-and-the-symbol-grounding-fc4</a><br>
<br>
Ben<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>