It seems talking in gestures is a proto-step towards full-blown language.
6/ Gestures have an amazing communicative capacity.
You'll be surprised to know that there are colleges like @gallaudetu where ONLY sign language is allowed to be used.
Even poetry is taught in sign language.
7/ And of course, sign language uses the same brain area that spoken language does.
To me, it's a very compelling argument that before we had full-blown language, we had gestures.
But how could we have understood what gestures meant?
8/ The same gesture could be interpreted in many different ways, so removing that ambiguity is important.
That's where mirror neurons come. These neurons in our mind mimic whatever we see.
9/ So imagine if hunger causes an automatic gesture of touching stomach.
Mirror neurons ensure that whenever anyone else sees that gesture, they mentally simulate hunger as well.
In this way, arbitrary gestures gets grounded.
You need a theory of mind for languages to work.
10/ Okay, so gestures were the first language.
How and why did modern languages evolve?
11/ Gestures take a lot of energy/effort + when you're engaged in doing gestures you can't do anything else + gestures require sight and don't communicate far away.
Evolution loves constraints like these, so we gradually evolved to use primarily our faces for gestures.
12/ From face gestures to finally throat gestures, which is what language really is.
Vocal language travels far and frees up body to use tool and do other things.
But it's no wonder, facial expressions and body language still play a big role in communication.
It's historical.
13/ Why do we have so many languages?
Here's something Micheal said that I did not expect at all.
Languages are like ciphers. Diversity prevents other groups from intercepting what your group is talking about.
14/ It's a competitive advantage for you if your rival group can't understand your group's communication.
Mind blown! 💣
15/ I guess that's it.
Hope you enjoyed the podcast.
If you did, don't forget to 🖱️ subscribe to the channel.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
- how 🧪 science happens
- why small teams do big scientific breakthroughs
- similarities between startups and 🔭 scientific endeavors
- what research shows about the path to success
1/ @profjamesevans is the Director of Knowledge Lab, and faculty at the Sociology department at the University of Chicago.
He uses machine learning to understand how scientists think and collectively produce knowledge.
Watch the entire podcast here:
2/ Here's all the topics we cover in this interview:
Been thinking about computationalism - that our universe is a computer and/or that we're in a simulation.
There seems to be a contradiction in the argument (below).
Can someone help answer?
Since a simulation of water doesn't wet anything or simulation of a black hole doesn't create a black hole, why do we believe that a simulation of consciousness will itself be conscious?
If a simulation can't be conscious, is computationalism false?
In other words:
I get that consciousness can be a property of certain arrangement of physical systems, but what I don't get is how it can be property of certain computations (since the same computation can be implemented in many ways - microchips, pulleys, vacuum tubes, etc.)
Some people like bigger cars, others like efficient cars and then there are some who like premium cars.
That is, markets aren’t homogeneous. They consist of different sets of people who value different aspects in a solution.
2/ Because different segments value different aspects, an improvement in one aspect will only be appreciated by that segment and get ignored by everyone else in the market.