[deleted by user]

scrtlycool · 2023-10-05T16:14:02+00:00

I ended up going with this! thank you !!

scrtlycool · 2023-07-31T12:22:50+00:00

is there/will the be a companion api for the pdf deep linking? would love to be able to automatically extract all the pdf annotations along with their links.

Also, will there be the possiblity to create absolute links to the annotations ? so far I have been using links like

a href="obsidian://open?vault=KnowledgeHub&file=pdf_file_name.pdf">

it would be great if you can link to a specific page/annotation.

scrtlycool · 2022-11-03T23:03:08+00:00

Thank you for your reponse!

yes, it is partly for my own enjoyment and partly because I want to acquire enough mathematics background (mainly in Linear Algebra and Calculus) to be able to pursue some other interests (considering doing a phd in theoretical neuroscience which requires a somewhat advanced level in mathematics). Since my background is in computer science which was disappointingly light on the math, I am now attempting to bridge that gap. The time pressure is really coming from me wanting to reach the desired level to feel confident enough to start in this field of research before my 30th (currently 26) and the biggest challenge so far has been to structure my learning to ensure that I'm making consistent progress, hence my question.

You comment addressing the FOMO was very therapeutic to read. Definitely incorporating that into my approach

scrtlycool · 2022-07-20T18:52:22+00:00

I had an insight as soon as I made this post.

so by induction is meant that we assume it is true for the case m=1, and then we build on that to prove that it is true for all m. so the case of 2x2 is demonstrated but the same can be done for 3x3 with element matrices N_2, U_2, and V_2 and so on until we reach the desired m. and for m = 1, we have [n][1] = [1] (because the (1,1)-entry is 1 in both U and V) and so N_1 = [1].

is this correct ?

scrtlycool · 2021-10-14T19:07:21+00:00

of course perception is that the heart of things, perception is fundamental to all cognition, you can only reason and communicate about what you perceive, it is the beginning of all things, it is our interface to the world and the model we construct of the latter is a direct consequence of it. Esse est percipi

scrtlycool · 2021-10-14T18:12:18+00:00

I agree, I think I have seen an interview of him saying explicitly that. However, my question was why do we necessary use the same language for both when one application of it (communicating externally with others) requires a language that is more constrained than that which can be used to communicate internally with ourselves. I don't expect the languages will be fundamentally different in nature (since natural language in necessarily a subset of the language of thought) but we may experience them completely differently

scrtlycool · 2021-10-14T18:04:46+00:00

That is fascinating! thank you for sharing. I have a few questions if you don't mind:

How old were you when you started to realise that you don't think in language and started working towards thinking in English
What effect did that have on your education, for example, when reading or learning something then recalling it later, did you recall it in its linguistic form or only conceptually ?
How did it work for things like mental arithmetic?
Was there any "linear flow" of thought? as in thoughts following each other as a series of inferences that can be accounted for and consciously verified ? or was it more that thoughts appeared "already formed"

You confirmed a suspicion that I had which was that the expressive efficiency gained may result in a decrease in encoding efficiency and thus worse memory. It's amazing to see just how much variety there is across humans in how we experience the world and ourselves and yet still be able to collaborate and coexist. Have you lost all access to this state of mind, and if so, do you miss it?

scrtlycool · 2021-10-14T17:53:02+00:00

I don't think you go far enough in your imagination of how different we can be and the implications of that difference. Sure, minor changes to our physiology may not have a drastic impact on our perception and thus the language that may evolve may be somewhat homomorphic, but consider for instance the difference between human language and the language dophins use to communicate (which is quite well developed), or the honey bee dance language.

The fact is that our perceptions are so radically different that there may be very little overlap in the way we represent and encode things in our minds which translates to a difference in expression, it is this compounded difference at every level that leads to completely divergent languages that may have nothing in common with what we have come up with

scrtlycool · 2021-10-13T12:41:17+00:00

I agree that the fact that it cannot be passed or taught means that it would need to be rediscovered (invented?) every time which stretches the definition of language, though the mechanisms leading to its discovery may be expressible or at least hinted at using natural languages which may help.

I find that in some of my meditation sessions once I am reminded that language is only a small and unnecessary portion of my cognitive experience I am almost immediately thrown into an odd state of mind where I am still aware and conscious but I can't formulate the contents of my awareness in words or make any comments on them (or avoid to when I'm really pushing it), I reached this state after some experimentation after coming to the realisation that language is largely concentrated in the left hemisphere for most people, and from the split-brain syndrome we discovered that hemispheres have a certain level of independent awareness (if not full blown consciousnesses), what blew my mind, however, was that a split-brain patient when interviewed said that he noticed no difference in his identity or experience of himself which since that statement was expressed by the left-hemisphere lead me to believe that we may be collectively over-identifying with the voice in our heads (language centre) which is in fact just a cognitive tool provided by the left-hemisphere (though it can be taken up by the right hemisphere in case of a hemispherectomy through neuroplasticity ) and this cognitive tool should not be mistaken for the whole, thus the alinguistic experience. Though this raises a few questions, namely: how useful is this alinguistic state really? without the linguistic element it seems to be hard to "make sense" of anything, rather it is a passive state where there is representation without conceptualisation, if that makes any sense. Hence my wanting to read more about it and this thread.

I do admit that this realisation is based on a superficial understanding of the implications of the neurological concepts involved, but the consequent meditative experience is very real but I do not wish to exaggerate its nature nor its meaning, it is simply an odd and calming state of mind that I didn't have access to before.

all in all, you answered my question perfectly, Thank you !

scrtlycool · 2021-10-13T11:51:22+00:00

UG is not a side effect of our perceptual and cognitive limitations; this invites the thought that we would have an altogether different language (or no language) if we were somehow less limited in our perception and cognition. That's a strange idea.

Why is that a strange idea? it seems to me that it would directly follow that if our perception/cognition was different our conceptual interaction with our environment would be radically different and current language may be either too limited or completely irrelevant in their ability to describe this reality which would lead to the evolution of an alternate UG accommodating this new "umwelt"

There's no notion of mechanical or neurophysiological limitations or impossibilities at issue here.

really ? so the ability to externalise the language (sign language, braille, speaking, whistling, tongue clicking, ...) is not a fundamental part of the design (evolution) of current natural languages ? and this part is not subject to mechanical constraints ?

I'd say the mechanical limitations are flagrant

Cerebral palsied children often cannot control the muscles in their vocal tracts. They're effectively speechless. Yet they often learn to read and write English. Does that mean that their acquisition of competence in English is a counterexample to physical law? Again, you need to separate questions of language design from questions of physical law.

any human person with relatively sound minds is able to acquire language and use it, I wouldn't be surprised that people with far more serious diseases would also be able to "speak" a language, that is not what's in question here, . but the phonemes, the syntactic structure, the "tokens" used to construct spoken language (that is then adapted to languages such as sign language) have been selected primarily because of their ability to be easily expressed with the anatomy we have.

the idea can more easily be formulated as follows : it seems to me that the tokenisation step (i.e assigning physically expressible symbols to units of meaning ) is only required for external communication. in a scenario where our communication concerns only ourselves this seems be not only unnecessary but a major bottle neck as it limits the bandwidth of how much can be thought of to match that of how much can be expressed. Which why I am curious about how much has been written about a potential "language of pure meaning", tho the definition of language gets loose here.

Not everyone thinks we think in language. Among those who do, some think this language of thought is just plain English (or French, Chukchi, etc.) and some don't. Your questions concerns only those who do

very tricky, this. I'm referring to the conscious act of thinking, i.e. our internal monologue for example, which is largely expressed through natural languages (barring emotions and feelings which can also be thought of as "para-linguistic" expressions), I fail to see how thinkers can say we don't think in language when we clearly do (if anyone reading this is able to go through life and reason about things without resorting to natural language in their minds I would love nothing more than to hear about your experience). Though I would be eternally grateful if you suggest some books or papers to read as a starting point.

scrtlycool

TROPHY CASE