Language has many side-effects (or unintended consequences) that are critical to recognize if we seek to understand general intelligence.
One side effect that we frequently don't realize is that the use of symbols affords the user the ability to not think. Symbols and the abstractions that they refer to implies that thinking is deferred.
What this also implies is that many people use words without understanding the meaning of those words. In commerce there are a lot of buzzwords and salesmen have the ability to decorate their language with buzzwords without actually understanding what they mean.
We also see this in "management speak" where there is a propensity to use words that are associated with leadership and motivation. 'Lip service' is a kind of language that has nothing actionable and is non-commital, but just resonates to its receptive audience.
In fact, one can't be very skilled in language and be completely stupid (i.e. GPT-3). Many in today's modern society are extremely language competent but use language that has little semantic grounding.
They are trapped in a conceptual world of word salad. They are unable to break out of their conceptual bubble because they don't have the language to break out of it.
Humans are linguistic bodies and as a consequence, our thinking is encapsulated in what we can express. What we can express however is based on the meaning of what is being expressed. Unfortunately, that meaning is decoupled from the words that we might use.
In many scientific endeavors, we are trapped inside the lingo of the field. Unable to make progress simply because we aren't equipped with the language to express how to think differently from everyone else.
Intuition is not magical thinking, but rather thinking habits that we have developed as a consequence of the language we have been immersed in. The great artist like Picasso spent decades learning the language of painting before he could creatively break out from that language.
Thinking differently does not imply not knowing anything about this world. It however implies understanding (i.e. grounding) the language used in this world and seeing beyond the meaning of that language.
By seeing beyond language, we create a new language. A new language that can generatively explore a new way of thought. Every revolution in biology and in society is a consequence of the creation of a new vocabulary and thus a new language to perceive the world differently.
To see the world differently, we should take not of the straight jacket that modern languages affords us. David Bohm noticed this when he proposed Rheomode. A language that emphasized verbs over nouns.
When one does this, 'process thinking' becomes explicit and thus more obvious. However, if one isn't introduced to this idea, the language of many process thinkers will read to you as either gibberish or mystical. That is simply because you lack the semantic grounding.
We do not come into this world with the semantic grounding to understand complexity. Complexity is an entirely different language that has to be learned through a language that is distinct from everyday language.
The difficulty of explaining complexity is simply because a majority of the audience does not have the semantic grounding to understand it and the language that is used to explain it is alien to most listeners.
Our success or failure as a civilization now hinges in the ability of our population to understand complexity. Unfortunately, this might be high an obstacle to overcome.
There is a theory out there that the collapse of bee colonies is a consequence of information overload. It is no surprise that the catalyst of today's civilization collapse are those who employ disinformation for profit.
Disinformation leads to false semantic grounding that leads to a language and thus an intuition that leads to a death spiral. Our intuition cannot save us because our intuition has been compromised. We are no different from ants walking in a circle that leads to their demise.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Carlos E. Perez

Carlos E. Perez Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @IntuitMachine

14 Sep
How does it feel to understand something?
To feel that you understand something implies that it is conveyed to you in a language that you have previously understood.
Language is more than syntax and it includes semantics. Our natural language is full of metaphors and we understand what is spoken to us through our previous understanding of these metaphors.
Read 27 tweets
12 Sep
I am surprised to discover that 'mental affordances' is a new thing. Isn't intuition the same as mental affordances? That is intuition defined as automated mental processes that are learned through experience. academic.oup.com/mind/article-a…
That said, humans are equipped with innate affordances that aid in our ability to learn. For example, we automatically see the intentions of another and thus are able to mimic that behavior with the added knowledge of why that behavior was performed.
Related to this are mental affordances available also to other social species. The ability to recognized indexical expressions and the ability to coordinate actions.
Read 8 tweets
8 Sep
What should be baffling for so many but isn't mentioned enough is how a neural network that is based on continuous mathematics leads to things like GPT-3 that works on discrete tokens.
3 years ago, I wrote a rebuttal blog post that argued why Deep Learning could be applied to NLP. This was in response to a post making the rounds that it was impossible. medium.com/intuitionmachi…
The argument against Deep Learning was that it is based on continuous function and thus cannot be applied to non-continuous things like words: linkedin.com/pulse/google-h…
Read 18 tweets
8 Sep
Ben Goertzel @bengoertzel has a new paper that formalizes the notion of 'Occam's Razor'. I certainly agree with this notion that we have to think of Occam's Razor in more general terms. arxiv.org/abs/2004.05269
My hypothesis is that it is not only general intelligences but also all of life evolves through a principle that is a general form of Occam's Razor. I am glad Goertzel has taken a stab at formalizing this.
The three most common invocations of Occam's Razor that he writes is: (1) Grounded in Physics (i.e. least energy) (2) Grounded via Cognitive Theory (i.e. simple models) and (3) Grounded via Computing (i.e. short descriptions).
Read 17 tweets
7 Sep
History will reveal that there were scientists that willfully ignored knowledge for in the pursuit of their own standing in society. One case is that of Bertrand Russell and how he publicly dismissed the work of C.S. Peirce. arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/a…
Indeed also interesting that when Nobert Wiener was under the tutelage of Russell, he strongly argued against his work. Ultimately, Russell's grand plan would crumble with the arrival of Godel.
However, the effect of Russell a longer-lasting consequence of burying the work of C.S. Peirce. Thus leaving humanity with decades of ignorance of how logic should be properly framed!
Read 13 tweets
4 Sep
There are a lot of processes in this world that are computationally irreducible (Wolfram sense). Consciousness is perhaps one of them, but this shouldn't imply that anything that is computationally irreducible is the same as Consciousness.
IIT employs its own idea of an irreducible measure. I suspect that it is ill-defined. But nevertheless, it is senseless to define Consciousness on an ill-defined measure. Defining something based on something else that is ill-defined gets you nowhere.
It is also reckless to begin one's investigation of consciousness based on introspecting one's feel of consciousness. This is because the biological motivation of having consciousness is to deceive the mind into believing the importance of survival.
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!