On thinking, and Language, and AI

[Stephen3141]

You Don’t Need Words to Think

Brain studies show that language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

www.scientificamerican.com

(c)
Whether or not language is needed for human thought processes, or not, is an important question.

But, I'm not sure that this article is getting to the core of the question.

The author does not seem to differentiate between the surface encoding of human language, such as text, and the MEANING that our minds associate with those notations. While software with some knowledge of a human language (and grammar) may seem to "know" human language, I doubt that they have the sophisticated sort of "thinking" ability using this encoding, that educated human beings have.





In other words, while grammar can tell a machine how to organize words, grammar doesn't have anything to do with the human ability to do complex problem solving, using the interface of language. There is still a leap of power, between being able to make grammatically correct patterns in human language words, and being able to use problem solving methods (or algorithms) to reason about a problem.

Children can (amazingly) learn the grammar of human speech, and so learn human language. But, they can put out grammatically correct sentences, BEFORE they know what the words MEAN.

Then, children have to learn a deeper method of reasoning, as they reason about the meanings of multiple sentences. I doubt that most of the "AI" software applications you will see, are able to reason about the meanings of multiple sentences, in the amazingly complex ways in which human beings (some human beings) can reason about concepts.
---------- ----------

There are different levels of human reasoning. Or, you could say, there are different types of building blocks.

We have words, which bear meanings.
We have phrases, that can associate characteristics with one or more things.
We have "rules" that can express relationships (such as causality).
We have "categories", that can express (somewhat) what is LIKE something else, or what is NOT LIKE something else.

We have basic syllogisms, such as the ancient Aristotelian patterns of statements, or the unlimited modern symbolic logic.

But we have that really difficult to define ability (if we have developed it) that brings to ur consciousness whether or not a concept/definition or rule base or syllogism is actually RELEVANT to solving a specific problem, or whether it is just conspiracy theory slogans that do not quite connect with our shared reality.

And, if we are not a politician, we have a growing ability to detect the characteristics of our shared reality, and when some proposition of system of though matches our shared reality, or whether it is "bearing false witness" (aka lying) about our shared reality. Try building THAT into a modern AI application.

Then, civilized human beings have a functional moral-ethical model, which can instruct us what we morally-ethically OUGHT to do, or OUGHT NOT to do. This is an added layer of logic that should be working, when we face a decision with multiple outcomes. (Such as, do I buy a new jacked up pickup truck, or buy some good foundational books and start a personal library, and read?) Kant would say that we have the ought to perfect ourselves. Trump thinks that getting richer and more powerful, and looking like a really flashy negotiator, is more important than upholding the fair rule of law, and defending human rights.

Without a functional moral-ethical model, humans cannot make moral-ethical decisions about what we should value, what our goals should be, and how we should spend the resources that we have. Without a moral-ethical model we cannot, for example, value keeping to a fair rule of law, due process in a court, and respect and protect of the concepts in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Without a moral-ethical model, we cannot claim rightfully that we are not lawless.

Note that the hard sciences do not even have the vocabulary to express morality-ethics.
---------- ----------
Note that many points brought up here, have never substantially been attempted to be built into the "AI" software that is flooding the market.

According to the inventor/definer of Artificial Intelligence, Computer Science, AI is the emulation of complex human problem solving. And reasoning about morality-ethics involves some of the most complex problem solving that human beings do. By this definition, the modern AI software is really not living up to its label. Having no functional moral-ethical model, this new AI software is the perfect automated tool for criminal gangs to terrorize the Internet, as there are no moral-ethical constraints built into the products.
---------- ----------

Articles like this point out something pretty obvious -- that there are deeper and hidden methods of reasoning than surface language -- but they do not get at the other complex abstract concepts that human beings use to reason.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Off topic a bit, but in "Interview with an Exorcist" by Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea, he had the following paragraph -

9. What language do the demons speak?

Demons, as pure spirits, do not need a language to communicate with each other; they simply communicate at will through the power of thought. Human beings communicate through words, which are symbolic represenations of our thoughts. Spiritual beings, on the other hand, transmit thought in a pure state without the need for mediation or signs.

While the book is about the demonic, the same comment would apply to angels, or spiritual beings in general. Obviously they can speak when they want to - Gabriel is on record as speaking to Mary. Early on in my Christian walk I saw a couple of blokes with deliverance ministries and one of them said the demons would sometimes say "I'm NOT going!", the reason being he still had a hold of some sort on the "patient". But they spoke.

For whatever reason God has not given us that thought transfer ability although sometimes we might be shown what someone else is thinking. But even if we do the thought is shown to us in the form of words.

We're amphibious - spiritual and corporeal. Our corporeal nature slows us down when to comes to pure thought - we generally need to articulate what we are thinking about. Since we also create things, we take time to make them. So our thought and communications have been designed to be used step by step.

Spiritual beings, who don't create things as they don't need them, merely communicate with or without language.

In designing us so that by and large we have to use language, God was playing for time.

 

[Stephen3141]

Off topic a bit, but in "Interview with an Exorcist" by Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea, he had the following paragraph -



While the book is about the demonic, the same comment would apply to angels, or spiritual beings in general. Obviously they can speak when they want to - Gabriel is on record as speaking to Mary. Early on in my Christian walk I saw a couple of blokes with deliverance ministries and one of them said the demons would sometimes say "I'm NOT going!", the reason being he still had a hold of some sort on the "patient". But they spoke.

For whatever reason God has not given us that thought transfer ability although sometimes we might be shown what someone else is thinking. But even if we do the thought is shown to us in the form of words.

We're amphibious - spiritual and corporeal. Our corporeal nature slows us down when to comes to pure thought - we generally need to articulate what we are thinking about. Since we also create things, we take time to make them. So our thought and communications have been designed to be used step by step.

Spiritual beings, who don't create things as they don't need them, merely communicate with or without language.

In designing us so that by and large we have to use language, God was playing for time.

I would leave speculation about how spiritual beings communicate,
well enough alone.

Apart from speculation, fallen angels are still angels.

8 Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and keeping the night watch over their flock. 9 The angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were struck with great fear. 10 The angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 e For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord. 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.” 13 And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying:

14 “Glory to God in the highest
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Lk 2:8–14.

It seems that these spiritual beings have the ability to speak.

 

[Bob Crowley]

.... It seems that these spiritual beings have the ability to speak.

I didn't say they couldn't speak, and made it clear they could when it was appropriate.

When they do though, it's for our benefit. For the shepherds to know what the angels were singing, they were presumably singing in Hebrew or Aramaic which the shepherds understood. I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that angels normally sing in those languages. There are about 7000 languages on earth these days. Even back then not many people would have known Hebrew, and not that many more would have known Aramaic.

We'd also need to know if they were actually vocalising the words (not having vocal apparatus) or transmitting the the songs straight to the shepherds' minds. Whether they actually heard the words or received them by a sort of angelic telepathy, the fact is the shepherds would have used their minds to interpret what they were "hearing".

I'll stick to the exorcist's opinion. He's had a lot of experience in the field, and he would know what he was talking about.

 

[Stephen3141]

My concern with this thread, was more with AI.

Although there are attempts to get AI products to parse queries that
are in human language, and give out answers that are in human language,
I'm still not convinced that these AI products understand human language
in the way that human beings do.