'(·) on Twitter: "@SOXCITEDTOTWEET Sure if you're conscious, you'll experience a dumbed-down version of the whole machinery, but why would that experience necessarily be words instead of, say, some form of proprioception? Suppose you grab an apple, do your limbs beam words at you instead of a feeling of weight?" / Twitter

Replying to

imagine believing that constraining your thinking to the well-worn, socially-mediated bounds of natural language is good lmfao

2

1

7

Replying to

imagine believing there's such a thing as a language whose bounds aren't socially mediated 🙊

2

You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more

Replying to

"since babies can think before they can speak" I follow you this far, good example "there presumably exists some primitive language" you lost me again

1

You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more

Replying to

the part where I didn't follow was the presupposition that the baby brain thinks in any language at all; sure (assuming a computable brain) you can formalize it as a turing machine of some sort programmed in some sort of language, but it's not clear whether it's interpretable

1

Replying to

and

(interpretable as in "interpretability problem") and even then, you'd need to distinguish between the formal description and what the program/process experiences, for example suppose you're doing image recognition, that program won't be experiencing its own code

1

Replying to

and

Sure if you're conscious, you'll experience a dumbed-down version of the whole machinery, but why would that experience necessarily be words instead of, say, some form of proprioception? Suppose you grab an apple, do your limbs beam words at you instead of a feeling of weight?

11:38 AM · Sep 16, 2018Twitter Web Client

Conversation