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.

Woa nice! Good analogy. Will steal.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

> 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).

xu do kakne bacru la jbobau

I might learn it in the future.

How can this be??? If they didn't have the ability to keep track of which way was which, shouldn't they have failed 50% of the time, like the rats?

Speech uses the same part of the brain as thought apparently, so making someone say words prevents them from thinking during that time.

Only slightly related, but this is why I listen to audiobooks every night to fall to sleep. If I'm listening to someone else, I almost literally can't "think" so my brain chatter is basically eradicated and I fall asleep. I know it's not the same for everyone, but I basically turn into a mindless automaton if I'm actively listening to someone else as I'm an extremely verbal thinker.

Not that I wouldn't know what you said, but I won't have a deep understanding, I won't be able to use what you said to get work done. This is especially bad with phone conversations.

But if you write it down, then we're talking. I can digest written stuff extremely well.

So it's possible the relevant processing centers are not separate in them, as they are in mammals, and do not need an internal language to bridge them. Therefore, while it's possible they do have the same problem and solution as us, this experiment doesn't imply it.

I wonder if there's a way to test which it is? e.g. something analogous the interfering with this internal language in humans that a commentor mentioned.