【Hacker News搬运】语言对思维背后的认知过程不是必不可少的

hackernews

Title: Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

语言对思维背后的认知过程不是必不可少的

Text:

Url: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/you-dont-need-words-to-think/

很抱歉，作为一个文本处理和生成的AI，我无法直接访问外部链接或网页内容。因此，我无法阅读或分析您提供的Scientific American文章《你不需要词语来思考》的具体内容。

不过，我可以根据文章标题和一般的科学知识来提供一些可能的总结。

文章标题《你不需要词语来思考》可能探讨的是以下主题：

1. **思维的本质**：文章可能探讨了人类思维的本质，以及是否所有的思维活动都需要语言或词语作为媒介。

2. **直觉和感知**：文章可能讨论了在不需要词语的情况下，我们如何通过直觉和感知来理解和反应世界。

3. **神经科学视角**：从神经科学的角度来看，文章可能分析了大脑在没有语言参与的情况下如何处理信息。

4. **跨文化思维**：文章可能探讨了不同文化中思维方式的差异，以及这些差异是否意味着某些文化或社群在无需语言的情况下进行思考。

5. **人工智能与思维**：文章可能讨论了人工智能在模仿无需语言进行思考的能力方面的进展。

如果您需要将文章内容翻译成中文，您可以使用在线翻译工具或联系专业的翻译服务。如果您有文章的具体内容，我可以帮助您进行总结或分析。

Post by: orcul

Comments:

dang: All: please don't comment based on your first response to an inevitably shallow title. That leads to generic discussion, which we're trying to avoid on HN. Specific discussion of what's new or different in an article is a much better basis for interesting conversation.Since we all have language and opinions about it, the risk of genericness is high with a title like this. It's like this with threads about other universal topics too, such as food or health.

dang: 全部：请不要；不要根据你对一个不可避免的肤浅标题的第一反应发表评论。这导致了一般性的讨论，我们；我们尽量避免在HN上。具体讨论什么；文章中的新内容或不同之处是有趣对话的更好基础 由于我们都有自己的语言和观点，因此这样的标题具有很高的通用性风险。它；关于其他普遍话题的帖子也是这样，比如食物或健康。

Animats: This is an important result.The actual paper [1] says that functional MRI (which is measuring which parts of the brain are active by sensing blood flow) indicates that different brain hardware is used for non-language and language functions.
This has been suspected for years, but now there's an experimental result.What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs. It's not clear what that something else is. But, as the paper mentions, the low-end mammals and the corvids lack language but have some substantial problem-solving capability. That's seen down at squirrel and crow size, where the brains are tiny. So if someone figures out to do this, it will probably take less hardware than an LLM.This is the next big piece we need for AI. No idea how to do this, but it's the right question to work on.[1] <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07522-w.epdf?sharing_token=1BwycCwx1wQ2Sfnub1-o0NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MYYopL5qENCL5gCQ3HDKyBWf6AQLs-HC3fMMzU9skb40K1DK-HWblYUyHTAQuuliWeLXeg5lXVNFOTa3fVek1R0et9kPjIgQljFd2wX1hSlqWjpOKSrRjz8t2mUDQ6Vr6DlhIlAndISxjxnRU2FPd2XMQFK5UDTh5Osiq6IYOksvy1nGE68d0y9YuJvr4Zrok%3D&tracking_referrer=www.scientificamerican.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07522-w.epdf?shar...</a>

Animats: 这是一个重要的结果 实际的论文[1]说，功能性MRI（通过感知血流来测量大脑的哪些部分是活跃的）表明，不同的大脑硬件用于非语言和语言功能。多年来人们一直怀疑这一点，但现在有了；这是一个实验结果 对于人工智能来说，这告诉我们的是，除了LLM之外，我们还需要其他东西。它；我们不清楚那是什么。但是，正如论文所提到的，低端哺乳动物和科动物缺乏语言，但有一些实质性的解决问题的能力。那；我们可以看到松鼠和乌鸦的大小，那里的大脑很小。因此，如果有人想办法做到这一点，它可能比LLM需要更少的硬件 这是我们需要人工智能的下一个重要部分。不知道如何做到这一点，但它；这是一个值得研究的正确问题。[1]<a href=“https://www.nature.com”文章=s41586-024-07522-w.pdf？sharing_token=1BwycCwx1wQ2Sfnub1-o0NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MYYopL5qENCL5gCQ3HDKyBWf6AQLs-HC3fMMzU9skb40K1DK-HWblYUyHTAQuuliWeLXeg5lXVNFOTa3fVek1R0et9kPjIgQljFd2 wX1hSlqWjpOKSrRjz8t2mUDQ6Vr6DlhIlandISxjxnRU2FPd2XMQFK5UDTh5Osiq6IYOKSVy1nGE68d0y9YuJvr4Zrok%3D&amp；tracking_referrer=www.scientificamerican.com“rel=”nofollow“>https:&#x2F；www.nature.com；文章#x2F；s41586-024-07522-w.pdf？沙尔</一

fjfaase: As some who has a dis-harmonic intelligence profile, this has been obvious for a very long time. In the family of my mother there are several individuals struggling with language while excelling in the field of exact sciences. I very strongly suspect that my non-verbal (performal) IQ is much higher (around 130) than my verbal IQ (around 100). I have struggled my whole life to express my ideas with language. I consider myself an abstract visual thinker. I do not think in pictures, but in abstract structures. During my life, I have met several people, especially among software engineers, who seem to be similar to me. I also feel that people who are strong verbal thinkers have the greatest resistance against idea that language is not essential for higher cognitive processes.

fjfaase: 作为一些智力水平参差不齐的人，这在很长一段时间内都是显而易见的。在我母亲的家庭中，有几个人在语言方面苦苦挣扎，同时在精确科学领域表现出色。我非常强烈地怀疑我的非言语（表演）智商（约130）比言语智商（约100）高得多。我一生都在努力用语言表达我的想法。我认为自己是一个抽象的视觉思考者。我不是用图片思考，而是用抽象的结构思考。在我的一生中，我遇到了几个人，尤其是软件工程师，他们似乎和我很相似。我也觉得，那些善于语言思考的人对语言对高级认知过程不是必不可少的这一观点有最大的抵制。

orwin: I will add an anecdata, then ask a question.I could enter what we all here call the "Zone" quite often when i was young (once while doing math :D). I still can, but rarely on purpose, and rarely while coding. I have a lot of experience in this state, and i can clearly say that a marker of entering the zone is that your thoughts are not "limited" by language anymore and the impression of clarity and really fast thinking. This is why i never thought that language was required for thinking.Now the question: would it be possible to scan the brain of people while they enter the zone? I know it isn't a state you can reach on command, but isn't it worth to try? understand the mechanism of this state? And maybe understand where our thought start?

orwin: 我将添加一个轶事数据，然后问一个问题 我可以输入我们大家所说的&quot；区域&quot；我年轻的时候经常这样（有一次在做数学时：D）。我仍然可以，但很少是故意的，也很少是在编码的时候。我在这种状态下有很多经验，我可以清楚地说，进入该区域的一个标志是，你的想法不是&quot；有限&quot；再加上语言清晰、思维敏捷的印象。这就是为什么我从未想过思考需要语言 现在的问题是：当人们进入该区域时，是否有可能扫描他们的大脑？我知道这不是；这不是一个你可以按命令到达的状态，但不是；不值得一试吗？了解这种状态的机制吗？也许你能理解我们的想法是从哪里开始的？

YeGoblynQueenne: >> They’re basically the first model organism for researchers studying the neuroscience of language. They are not a biological organism, but until these models came about, we just didn’t have anything other than the human brain that does language.I think this is completely wrong-headed. It's like saying that until cars came about we just didn't have anything other than animals that could move around under its own power, therefore in order to understand how animals move around we should go and study cars. There is a great gulf of unsubstantiated assumptions between observing the behaviour of a technological artifact, like a car or a statistical language model, and thinking we can learn something useful from it about human or more generally animal faculties.I am really taken aback that this is a serious suggestion: study large language models as in-silico models of human linguistic ability. Just putting it down in writing like that rings alarm bells all over the place.

YeGoblynQueenne: &gt&gt；它们基本上是研究语言神经科学的研究人员的第一个模型生物。它们不是一个生物有机体，但在这些模型出现之前，除了人类大脑之外，我们什么都没有 我认为这是完全错误的。它；就像说，在汽车出现之前，我们只是没有；除了动物，我们没有其他东西可以靠自己的力量移动，因此，为了了解动物是如何移动的，我们应该去研究汽车。在观察汽车或统计语言模型等技术工件的行为与认为我们可以从中学习到关于人类或更普遍的动物能力的有用信息之间，存在着巨大的未经证实的假设鸿沟 我真的很惊讶，这是一个严肃的建议：将大型语言模型作为人类语言能力的计算机模型来研究。就这样写下来，到处都敲响了警钟。