Hacker News Reader

Comment by wyager | Hacker News Reader

>which implies to the researcher we use language to connect different disparate parts of the brain

I've always felt this was the case in my own mind. Language is the serialization format for abstract concepts.

This is why I'm very interested in constructed languages. I think it might help human cognition if we had a more efficient serialization format for internal concept transport.

View on HN

> Language is the serialization format for abstract concepts.

Woa nice! Good analogy. Will steal.

it's a definition, not an analogy.

language is just our best tool for sharing feelings, concepts, etc. funny to think it's (probably) ultimately not the best tool for that. :)

Not that I disagree with your point, but I don't think spoken/written language is our best tool for sharing feelings. I'd say body-language is better for that. Or certain forms of art (such as visual art or music). All forms of communication, obviously.

Language probably is our best way of communicating abstract concepts, however (now, are feelings abstract or concrete? ;-).

if your definition of "feelings" stops at "happy" and "sad", sure. but feelings quickly become too complicated to express without language.

example: i want to go out to dinner tonight, but i feel like we went out to dinner too many times this week.

example: i am happy that the Yankees won, but i am unhappy with Derek Jeter's performance.

communicating these feelings clearly will, without better technology, require words.

more importantly, interpreting body language is simply prone to error. assuming two honest parties, it is much harder to misinterpret words.

That's not quite how I meant to use the word feeling above; I'd characterise what you describe as sentiment. I suppose I might have used the term emotion rather than feeling.

you're right, feelings seems like a mischaracterization on my part. in that case i agree body language is can be a better tool for communicating feeling than verbal language.

not to take this off the deep end, but i'll try to clarify my point.

language (body or verbal) is just our current best attempt at getting your brain to feel what my brain feels (feelings, sentiments, concepts, anything). my hunch they are both terribly insufficient compared to some technology we may be able to develop in the future.

that is, why serialize the data at all? a literal data transfer seems more reliable. for now, it's because we have no other choice.

Well, it is 'a sentence is a formatted thought' from a different angle.

> Language is the serialization format for abstract concepts.

For you maybe, but some people work with images only and most people use a mix of language and images. Autistic people tend to work exclusively with images, or exclusively with words. Some also use music or numbers. You don't need to speak any audible language to invent or understand things. Your own internal language is enough. You'll just be so isolated that you're unlikely to be understood by the masses, that's all.

Whether or not autistic people use imagery is irrelevant, he said "language is the serialization," not "for everybody the only way they think of abstract concepts is via serialization with language."

> > Language is the serialization format for abstract concepts.

> For you maybe, but some people work with images only and most people use a mix of language and images.

There must be some variation across the population in this regard (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5256057). Though I can think in images, concepts, words, sounds, smells, and tastes, I've said before on HN that my thoughts don't seem "official" until they've been serialized as a stream of words (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5256126).

> This is why I'm very interested in constructed languages

xu do kakne bacru la jbobau

No, but it's cool how I was able to find a mechanical parser (not something based on machine learning) that translated that for me.

I might learn it in the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com