Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DocHickory t1_jagbkc3 wrote

Language is imprecise in that each person weighs what a word means differently, so it is impossible that one person understands exactly what another wishes to convey. Usually 'close enough' will serve, but it is in the nuances between individuals where the train of communications jumps the rails.

91

Hehwoeatsgods t1_jahc5tg wrote

Math is the closest we come to true speech

−3

abottomful t1_jahq8lo wrote

What's the equation for "that's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard"?

11

ReadySouffle t1_jai57qq wrote

My knowledge of math is limited, so forgive me of any ignorance, but there is still some limitation on what math can convey. When it comes to quantity and magnitude math is quite the efficient communicator, but does math contain any structure for conveying feeling? Conveying feeling is something art may be able to do more effectively than mathematics alone. Maybe written language is the effective bridge then between the quantitative and the pictoral, at least where humans are concerned.

6

[deleted] t1_jaj9i4k wrote

[deleted]

4

ReaperX24 t1_jao8y3e wrote

Spot on. He's correct in that math is absolute in its precision, but it's still no more than an abstraction of what's actually going on. More importantly, our cognition is simply not good enough to intuitively comprehend a mathematical description of a highly complex entity or process. Like, it's totally possible to describe a table in purely mathematical terms, but even if you manage to compute that, good luck trying to convey it to other people without using language as a crutch.

And to take it a step further, our ability to use symantic languages is actually one of the main reasons why we're so good at maths. We wouldn't be able to handle anything more than basic algebra and geometry etc. if not for the fact that languages allow us to abstract complex concepts into very simple symbols. Remember that we developed written languages long before we ever considered using algebraic expressions as a mathematical notation. For the longest time, mathematicians relied almost entirely on geometry and vectors to describe mathematics, with a bit of help from symantic languages.

2

apostleofbadfang t1_jat6waa wrote

Another issue with math as precise language is that at that level of logic, only a few people would be able to untangle the symbolic logic. And it would take a long time for them to do, rendering the entire exercise useless as a language, albeit prefect in conveying info.

2

SvetlanaButosky t1_jagrxk2 wrote

This is why we must have Elon Musk's brain chip, it could give us direct telepathy, lol.

could also give us direct insanity. lol

−14

thegoldengoober t1_jagsdll wrote

You're being down voted because you mentioned Elon Musk I'm sure, but brain computer interfacing will surely revolutionize communication.

14

snellickers t1_jah8gpd wrote

Oh totally. It’s an amazing idea to put your consciousness in the hands of plutocrats like Elon Musk. I can’t think of any downsides to this.

7

fenomenomsk t1_jah965a wrote

Brain to brain interface maybe, I can't imagine brain-computer giving anything but the data we already have (words)

2

Catatonic27 t1_jahawa2 wrote

But imagine that, but at the speed of thought instead of the speed of fingers or eyes.

Arguably we already do have brain-to-computer interfaces they're just high latency and low bandwidth.

3

fenomenomsk t1_jahkss8 wrote

I personally have huge concerns regarding man-in-the-middle that is computer. After all, the end goal of such a communication is transfering information from person to person. Having a computer in the middle will lead to such a massive array of problems like tampering with the input, data analysis (this reeks of never before-seen privacy issues), and maybe even mind control. All that simply because there is a programmable interface between two people. I see brain-computer interface only useful as a necessary evil and an intermediary step for brain-brain interface.

4

Catatonic27 t1_jahoxmk wrote

Your concerns are well-founded I think. But I think it's interesting to point out that most of those concerns are already playing out RIGHT NOW sans literal mind control. The difference between a cybernetic implant and carrying an internet-connected phone around all day is merely a difference in speed of access. It takes you a few seconds to pull out your phone and type in a query or respond to a notification, the implant would just do it faster.

And we are absolutely already seeing the issues you mention like tampering or interception of inputs and using massive data analysis to decide who sees which outputs, it's a mess. And the end result isn't exactly mind-control, but I think it's fair to say that human behavior has and almost certainly still is being shaped by our technology and algorithms for better or worse. The difference isn't one of kind, but one of scale.

So optimistically I hope you're right about the brain-to-brain interface being the end-goal, but realistically I really don't see that happening. There's too much to be "gained" by centralization, it's too enticing. It's like trying to get people to stick to walkie-talkies when they already know smartphones exist.

1

AceTrainerStorme t1_jah2hyo wrote

Don't want to be that guy, but I'm pretty sure Elon musk's brain chip has no chance of ever working (according to the founders who quit once it was bought) plus they are basically running out of monkeys to torture test on

13

[deleted] t1_jah42kd wrote

[deleted]

0

AceTrainerStorme t1_jch9i10 wrote

Yes I do know the hundreds claim is false, I do also know however that Elon musk company can no longer acquire more monkeys from the source they did and the company sited "ethical" reasons

1

Canilickyourfeet t1_jah4qoj wrote

I'm curious, was death a direct correlation between chip insertion and time of death? Or is it like Covid reporting, where if someone dies that happens to have the virus, it's deemed a covid death?

If a monkey dies as a result of environmental factors, stress, diet, etc, do they still count it as death brought on by chip insertion?

−5

wow-signal t1_jah18pt wrote

not gonna happen. we have no clue how the mind works

2

DocHickory t1_jaobk1n wrote

The only chip I'd have any interest in is embedded in a cookie.

1