The private language of THE BRAIN.

[sophie]

From the truth thread, it seemed discernable that three particular languages arose out of the discussion. These three languages did not seem to be similar in origin neither in nature. These languages were as follows :

[list=1]
L1 : a private language of the brain. The language of unique representations of understanding of reality.
L2 : the language of consciousness - a semi-private language.
L3 : public languages like English, French and Intel Assembler.
[/list=1]

Having had some interest shown in the first language, the private language of the brain, the one which facilitates unique representations of understanding, this thread has been started.

I will posit that we will be able to deduce the form of the language, the elements of the language and the big picture the language provides, through observation of the brain, but we will be unable to breach the privacy of the language, its particularity from brain to brain, whenever this language encodes an understanding peculiar to someone.

We will be able to discuss this language of the brain but its privacy will remain intact whenever we speak in terms of the usage of the language by an individual...

Ladies & Gentlemen start your engines.

[John Page]

Originally posted by sophie
We will be able to discuss this language of the brain but its privacy will remain intact whenever we speak in terms of the usage of the language by an individual...
Well, if its privacy remains intact, how can we ever know it exists? I don't see how this squares with an epistemological claim that private language is the effective means by which we know and understand things.

Why couldn't the existence of a (hitherto) private language be proven through a demonstration of neurobiologal phenomena?

Cheers, John

[excreationist]

sophie:
I think a related thing is artificial neural networks. They involve electronics or software and use some of the principles we've learnt about neural networks. They learn patterns... but the precise "meaning" of the encoding in large neural networks is fairly unclear to people since the patterns are "smeared" across multiple neurons.
e.g. Apparently neural networks can learn to tell the difference between male and female faces. They would have a series of grey levels as input (from the pictures) and their outputs would be "male" or "female". If the neural network got the answer wrong it would be trained until it got it right. Once it is trained with enough examples, it would be quite good at classifying new pictures. There would be many neurons - perhaps thousands - between the inputs and the two outputs of the system. Because the neurons have multiple inputs which are combined and then multiple outputs, it would be near-impossible to decipher what's going on. Individual neurons could be used to store parts of multiple patterns. Also, the way that a neural network encodes its patterns is unique - it depends on its layout (how the neurons are hooked up, etc) and exactly how it was trained.

Brains would be like that too... except that we have billions of interdependent neurons. During our early years our brain would have learnt patterns in an idiosyncratic way. Individual patterns would be smeared across multiple neurons and vice versa - which would make it extremely difficult for a brain hacker of the future to decipher.

[sophie]

John : Well, if its privacy remains intact, how can we ever know it exists?
Me : We observe the behaviour of its infrastructure.

John : I don't see how this squares with an epistemological claim that private language is the effective means by which we know and understand things.
Me : For you John, and those like you, you will have to wait for further understanding.

John : Why couldn't the existence of a (hitherto) private language be proven through a demonstration of neurobiologal phenomena
Me: Precisely.

John : Cheers, John.
Me : bottoms up.

[sophie]

Excreationist : Brains would be like that too... except that we have billions of interdependent neurons.

Me : Brains MAY be like that too... except that we have billions of interdependent neurons.

I doubt our brains process light images the way it is done with neural networks. Neural networks process data in a 2-dimensional format. It tries to acquire 3-d information from the 2-d format. If our brains did that, girlfriend, we would be living in a sinking mothership.

Other than that I agree with your pervasive explaination of the neural network. However I believe these networks can be fudged from the outside by a bit of wire jigging and manipulation, but please correct me if I am wrong.

[John Page]

Sophie:

Thanks for making me smile. :)
Originally posted by sophie
John : Well, if its privacy remains intact, how can we ever know it exists?
Me : We observe the behaviour of its infrastructure.

So we observe something, but saddling it with the attribute language is premature IMO. Now, I agree that there is some communication occuring but I prefer the view that (whatever it is) is an activity or process from which language can eventually emerge.

I subscribe to the view that language is an activity that can only occur after symbols are extracted and concepts refined from the raw data of reality hitting our senses.
Originally posted by sophie
John : I don't see how this squares with an epistemological claim that private language is the effective means by which we know and understand things.
Me : For you John, and those like you, you will have to wait for further understanding.
:D Actually, I was hoping for a further explanation.
Originally posted by sophie
John : Why couldn't the existence of a (hitherto) private language be proven through a demonstration of neurobiologal phenomena
Me: Precisely.
So, it wouldn't be private any more?
Originally posted by sophie
John : Cheers, John.
Me : bottoms up.
Down the hatch! John

[John Page]

Originally posted by sophie
Neural networks process data in a 2-dimensional format. It tries to acquire 3-d information from the 2-d format. If our brains did that, girlfriend, we would be living in a sinking mothership.
While I do not subscribe to the view that brains are neural networks (as defined in neural network computation experiments), I think our brains do acquire 3-d information from reality-format, simpler devices only extract the 2-d information from reality-format.

Cheers, John

[yguy]

The idea of a private language strikes me as oxymoronic, since language seems to be about communitcation between sentient beings.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by sophie
[list=1]
L1 : a private language of the brain. The language of unique representations of understanding of reality.
L2 : the language of consciousness - a semi-private language.
L3 : public languages like English, French and Intel Assembler.
[/list=1]

Issue with the definition of L1 as 'language': would you please clarify if you mean 'language of the brain' in a metaphorical or literal sense?

As I suggested in the 'Truth' thread, it would perhaps be more practical to discuss the physical functioning of the brain as a 'language' only in a metaphorical sense ---> we can read its physical functions like a language. This doesn't mean that the brain represents understanding to itself (like a public language does)...the brain changes, physically, in reaction to what it learns. If learning is understanding is change, then why do we need to use the imprecise word 'language' to describe what's going on in there?

Having had some interest shown in the first language, the private language of the brain, the one which facilitates unique representations of understanding, this thread has been started.

Yes, the functioning of the brain when it learns or understands does indeed 'facilitate...representations of understanding' (representations which would occur in L2 and L3 as language proper), but this does not justify calling what happens to the brain when it understands/learns a 'language.'

Again, we can read (or understand) what happens to the brain's structure as a language. This does not make changes in the brain a language proper.

Looking at something in comparison to something else (metaphorically) is not the same as an equation (i.e. brain functioning = a language).

I will posit that we will be able to deduce the form of the language, the elements of the language and the big picture the language provides, through observation of the brain, but we will be unable to breach the privacy of the language, its particularity from brain to brain, whenever this language encodes an understanding peculiar to someone.

As I asked in the 'Truth' thread, how can we deduce anything at all about a private language, without undermining its privacy. To claim that we can understand how the brain works without breaching its privacy is a paradox. If we 'decode' the functioning of the brain (which is logically possible through technological advances), then the so-called privacy of the brain's workings will have been made 'public.'

What is 'an understanding peculiar to someone'? Do you mean 'opinions,' or 'subjectivity,' or 'personal point of view'? Do you mean the 'mind'?

We will be able to discuss this language of the brain but its privacy will remain intact whenever we speak in terms of the usage of the language by an individual...

Individuals don't 'use' the language of the brain...the brain constructs the individual...in a metaphorical sense, the brain's workings in relation to experience, learning, understanding, etc. are part of, and give rise to, the individual's sense of self. Perhaps this is what is meant by 'individuality'...

[excreationist]

John Page:
Of course our brains don't work exactly the same as artificial neural networks if that's what you mean. Gas on the Brain (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/ai/gasbrain.jsp) - that article talks about neural nets that work more like our brain. Current artificial neural networks just use some of the same concepts that our brains use or at least they have similar features. (e.g. they can cope with distorted inputs or the loss of quite a lot of neurons [normal computers on the other hand can be more sensitive to data loss]) Though normal artificial neural nets can't work backwards (guess an input based on an output) some can - they're called "Bidirectional Associative Memory".

sophie:
....I doubt our brains process light images the way it is done with neural networks. Neural networks process data in a 2-dimensional format. It tries to acquire 3-d information from the 2-d format. If our brains did that, girlfriend, we would be living in a sinking mothership....
My point isn't that our inputs are similar. My point is the similarity in which we learn from our inputs. Our inputs initially are two 2-D inputs (our eyes) coming from a 3-D world. Through interacting with the world we learn what 3-D is all about. I remember reading that apparently babies intially think that the only things that exist are what they can see before them. Eventually they learn about "object permanence"(?) where unseen objects continue to exist. They can tell whether the baby has this ability by putting objects into a bag and pulling out different numbers of objects and seeing if the baby is surprised. (If it is mature it would expect the number to stay the same). An experiment with babies that is kind of about 3-D is them being put near a chasm that is covered by invisible glass. Some of them will crawl over or can be placed on the glass without getting worried at all. Others (older ones) perceive a fall ahead and are worried about it. I haven't read very much about it, but it seems that humans might learn how to perceive the world in 3-D rather than it being instinctual (like it would be for other or most other animals). Another thing is how people get used to new glasses. Like when I got stronger lenses, the ground seemed like it was much higher - but after a few days the 3-D feel of the world seemed back to normal. That would be some evidence that our perception of 3-D isn't hardwired from our 2 2-D eyes.

...However I believe these networks can be fudged from the outside by a bit of wire jigging and manipulation, but please correct me if I am wrong.
I'm not sure what you mean. Individual neuron "weights" (the weightings of inputs) in artificial neural networks can easily be altered by outside people, but this would generally just negatively affect the neural nets' knowledge. For it to learn properly it would need to be trained in the usual way with inputs and a corresponding output.

[sophie]

yguy you say that the idea of a private language strikes you as pointedly foolish, since language seems to be about communitcation between sentient beings.

Although language is generally construed as a communication mechanism between sentient beings, it is not restricted as a communication mechanism between sentient beings. A language of communication between two or more non-sentient entities namely computers already exist.

It may be premature to label the private language idea of the brain as unnecessarily foolish.

[sophie]

Luiseach wished clarification if I meant 'language of the brain' in a metaphorical or literal sense?

I mean this in the literal sense. The language would be definable by its elements, its structure and its usage. Its contents would be undefinable at this point.

Its structure would be akin to its nouns, its verbs and its articles. Its elements would be the bits of matter, namely its nature which is used by the structure. Its usage would be definable via observation.

I am probably not clear enough, I am searching in my archives for some literature which explains by example what I am trying to communicate.

[sophie]

John : So, it wouldn't be private any more?

It will remain private, because the language usage for each person will be personal.

To begin to think of what I am describing, let us use an analogy from the ART WORLD of canvas, colors and brush strokes. We know through analogy the language consists of many, many colors and many various types of brush strokes and we are painting on the canvas which is the brain itself.

When the understanding of one of Descartes more famous statements : "I think therefore I am", is painted, John Page may use a heavy brush stroke with a few colors. Jesse on the other hand may use a fine point brush, ten different types of colors, a primer color at first, then proceed to enhance the canvas with multiple "overpaints". On the other hand Sophie may just carelessly use a black and white combination painted with four different sized brushes.

Eventually they all represent ,"I think therefore I am", but each in a private way, each with different highlights, underlines, overlines, strikethroughs although they all use the same basic language of the brain.

Does this neglect to affirm any principle of concept I may not know about?

[sophie]

excreationist, I get your point.

[sophie]

Luiseach : Individuals don't 'use' the language of the brain...

I think this view is incorrect. It seems as if individuals do not use the language of the brain, but when one wants to understand clearly without too much external interference, humans influence the language of the brain BY finding a quiet corner to pursue their understandings via studying.

What seems to be the case is the construction of understandings is better facilitated when the brain is in an unstressed state. Students do not generally seek confusion then embed themselves there to study neuroscience or any other discipline. Far from this, what students generally try to do is influence the language of the brain to WORK BETTER FOR THEM, and they generally achieve this in their own private way.

Personally I find myself able to achieve a high ratio level of time vs understanding creation when I use classical music like Beethoven while I read, absorb, think and reflect.

[yguy]

Originally posted by sophie
yguy you say that the idea of a private language strikes you as pointedly foolish, since language seems to be about communitcation between sentient beings.

Although language is generally construed as a communication mechanism between sentient beings, it is not restricted as a communication mechanism between sentient beings. A language of communication between two or more non-sentient entities namely computers already exist.

It may be premature to label the private language idea of the brain as unnecessarily foolish.

OK, let's redefine it as communication between entities, sentient or otherwise. The point is that one entity ends up with information it didn't have before, i.e., it knows what it formerly did not. How does one tell one's self something one doesn't know?

[excreationist]

It seems that DNA is considered to be a kind of language by many people.... e.g. Google (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=dna+language&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=lr%3Dlang_en) returns 491,000 results in a search for "DNA language".

from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=language):
Language: 2a - "A system of signs, symbols, gestures, or rules used in communicating: the language of algebra."

A "language" could roughly be defined as being a mapping between symbols/codes and their meaning. For languages to be interpreted, they would be decoded - like when DNA is converted into amino acids. Information can be encoded into a language too. With some languages you can represent things like logical reasoning, etc, rather than just refer to basic objects (like amino acids).

[sophie]

Hi all,

It took me some time to dig up the information from my archives.

Here is the link (http://www.notrich.org/SixthSense/PMOTB/Proposedmodelofthebrain.html)

What the proposed model of the brain does is it describes a private language which in all probability is necessary for the brain to function past linear sequences. We may further ask why would this language be private and why would it remain private even though we speak of it...

Additional information can be found through this link (http://www.notrich.org/SixthSense/index.html), where The Time Equations may be found. Appendix A will also be useful.

[Starboy]

sophie, If you are looking for a representation of the brain perhaps you should be studying amino acids. If the brain had a program DNA would be it.

I have seen a few of your posts now. Are you related to Emily Litella?

Starboy

[Peter Kirby]

I would suggest that natural language (e.g. Chinese) is the language that the brain uses to think about all things or ideas that are not thought by animals without similarly complex language (e.g. my cat). Ideas such as "2 apples and 2 apples make 4 apples" and "I will die sometime in the next 120 years" are possible because of the language of enunciated words (symbols), which are now sotto voce but did not start that way (i.e., at one time man talked to himself about how to kill the antelope, or how to attract a mate, using spoken language developed by the group, but there were advantages to making those thoughts more private). Now if there were a way to test the hypothesis...

On the other hand, one could refer to the way that certain activities of neurons result in certain behaviors and call that the "private language" (i.e. coding) of the brain.

best,
Peter Kirby

[sophie]

Starboy : sophie, If you are looking for a representation of the brain perhaps you should be studying amino acids. If the brain had a program DNA would be it.I think you have failed to grasp the point. The model is based on a representation scheme, a meta-representation of information.

What I have postulated is the necessity of representation using combinatorics to fully avoid positional encoding schemes. You may or may not know that bit patterns which store information in computers are position dependent. This means if you do not start with the 1st bit, the meaning of the representation is lost.

In the combinatorial scheme of representation there is absolutely no requirement for positional dependence. The only necessity to recognise is the quantity of the various distincts which were initially used to form the encoding.


It would be big of you to admit you did not understand.

[sophie]

Peter Kirby : On the other hand, one could refer to the way that certain activities of neurons result in certain behaviors and call that the "private language" (i.e. coding) of the brain.Peter, I believe this is closer to the position I am trying to rationalise.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by sophie
I think you have failed to grasp the point. The model is based on a representation scheme, a meta-representation of information.

sophie, I think you have failed to grasp my point. Unless you contend that for every language there exists some other language in which that language is created and if you contend that such languages within languages do not go on ad infinitum then at some point is must stop and such languages must be the result of things without language.

Starboy

[Godless Wonder]

I've recommended this book before, and will do so again: What makes you tick, The brain in plain English (http://www.psych-books.com/What_Makes_You_Tick_The_Brain_in_Plain_English_0471371009.html) by Thomas B. Czerner
Released: 15 January, 2001
ISBN: 0471371009

Before I read that book, I didn't realize we had found out quite so much about the brain.

[sophie]

It may become clearer why I am positing a private language of the brain even though while I am describing this language after this post.

It should be clear to some of us that information which exists outside the head needs to be represented in some manner inside the brain in order that the information be processed. To start with a computer analogy which stores information as ascii bit patterns these patterns are meaningless once the corresponding bit positions are muddled.

What I have stated is if the brain is to have any real processing power then its mechanism to process information should be more along the lines of a parallel processing machine and have the ability to process information in a non-sequential manner. In order to facilitate this sort of processing power the natural representative mechanism cannot be based on sequential encodings. This is why I postulate that minimally the brain represents its information using combinatioral factors.

What this means, to give a small example, is if we have r's and g's to represent some form of information and we have a quantity of 2 r's and 2 g's, then the only unique representations possible would be { r, g, 2r, 2g, g-2r, r-2g, 2r-2g}. Once encoded using this representative scheme the recognition is not dependent on position. This means 2 r's and 2 g's make up one representation and not the permutation of 2 r's and 2 g's. Any mathematician would be able to note that a lot of possible encodings are lost using a unique combinatorial encoding scheme rather than a permutation.

In this scheme of things the r's and the g's are described as distincts, the basics of the encodings and decodings. It should be clear that to facilitate a scheme of this sort would entail a very large amount of distincts.


To follow on with why if using this scheme the particular language of the brain is private, we would only have to realise that the particular encodings of a bit of information would necessarily depend on the group of distincts used at the time of encoding. This would mean my representation of 'understanding' would be different from any other representation of 'understanding' by virtue of the state of my mind at the time this information is recieved.

Therefore we can speak of the language of the brain while it still remains private.

[sophie]

Godless Wonder : your link leads to nowhere in particular. Perhaps you can modify it.

[John Page]

Originally posted by sophie
It may become clearer why I am positing a private language of the brain even though while I am describing this language after this post.

It should be clear to some of us that information which exists outside the head...
sophie:

What information that exists outside the head (brain/mind etc.)?

[Godless Wonder]

Originally posted by sophie
Godless Wonder : your link leads to nowhere in particular. Perhaps you can modify it. Oops, sorry. Meant to be a link to amazon. Well, you can cut-n-paste the ISBN 0471371009 into google, amazon or many other places with good results. Sorry about the bad link.

[John Page]

Originally posted by sophie
In this scheme of things the r's and the g's are described as distincts, the basics of the encodings and decodings. It should be clear that to facilitate a scheme of this sort would entail a very large amount of distincts.
Not necessarily. Within the mind one might find a "basic distinct" and a "compound distinct". For example a basic distinct could be the comparison of light/no-light excitations at the sensory layer (the sensory layer being the border between mind and no-mind). A compound distinct could be the form or category of "car", this being the intersection of the characteristics "motorized passenger-carrying vehicles".

Such categories, forms, axiomatic concepts or distincts (for we may have more than one word label for and described form) thus have an implicit hierarchy that results from the way that the brain/mind constructs these distincts.

I believe this model reflects back into our understanding (or lack thereof) as to how and why systems of logic work. Please see link here on an ontology to unify how the mind works (Comparison Detection) and axioms of logic (http://www.reconciliationism.org/ontologic.htm) complemented by a diagram to exemplify the perception of an object's existence (http://www.reconciliationism.org/ontologic-diagram.htm) .

Comments welcome.
Cheers, john

[sophie]

John Page : What information that exists outside the head (brain/mind etc.)?All the information which resides in the Universe. The sun, moon and stars. Heat and light. You should remark that most of the information we have stored in our heads came from the big bad bold Universe.

Or do you disagree?

[sophie]

John Page : Not necessarily. Within the mind one might find a "basic distinct" and a "compound distinct". Very necessarily John, it is dependent on the mathematics of combinatorics as the unique representation scheme.

You must find basic distincts for this scheme to work. As a matter of fact the distinct would be basic. A compound distinct in this scheme of things would be a group of distincts acting together say to encode the emotional part of an experience.

Let us not confuse what I term distincts, with your interpretation of what it is.

[John Page]

Originally posted by sophie
All the information which resides in the Universe. The sun, moon and stars. Heat and light. You should remark that most of the infoprmation we have stored in our heads came from the big bad bold Universe.

Or do you disagree?
I think I disagree. Could you define for me the point at which you consider a physical effect becomes information?

[sophie]

John, It is reasonable to assume that the Universe contains information. If this were not the case then we are sensing from the absurd. All our thoughts and ideas would be based on the absurd if the Universe did not contain real information.

If this were true, that we were sensing from the absurd, then it would have been almost impossible to corellate sensed information amoung humans.

This not being the case, it is reasonable to assume we are sensing the universe directly and the information we recieve and label is a direct effect of the universe broadcasting its information.

[John Page]

Originally posted by sophie
Very necessarily John, it is dependent on the mathematics of combinatorics as the unique representation scheme.

You must find basic distincts for this scheme to work. As a matter of fact the distinct would be basic. A compound distinct in this scheme of things would be a group of distincts acting together say to encode the emotional part of an experience.

Let us not confuse what I term distincts, with your interpretation of what it is.
:confused: I didn't disagree with distincts.

What I drew was a distinction ;) between basic and compound by concluding that some distincts (for example the concept "distinct") cannot be formulated/encoded without other, underlying, distincts. IMO this is why reality appears to us as having structure and categories. I am assuming that you hold structure appears as a result of combinatorics (which is the compounding of distincts).

Are you comfortable that I understand your concept of distinct?

Cheers, John

[John Page]

Originally posted by sophie
John, It is reasonable to assume that the Universe contains information........it is reasonable to assume we are sensing the universe directly and the information we recieve and label is a direct effect of the universe broadcasting its information.
sophie:

Here is my question again "Could you define for me the point at which you consider a physical effect becomes information?" You are responding that we sense the universe directly - I'm puzzled how, for example, we can experience the sun directly when the physical effect on us is merely through the sun's rays and not the matter of which it comprises.

Also, it seems you are anthropomorphize the universe to be "broadcasting it information". No big deal but the universe, for me, is a compound distinct, a mental entity that refers to the whole of existence.

Look forward to your answer.

Cheers, John

[sophie]

I am assuming that you hold structure appears as a result of combinatorics (which is the compounding of distincts).I am not exactly sure what you may mean by structure at this level. At this point I am only willing to posit representations using unique encodings through combinatorics. This is the private language of the brain.

Structure I believe is a mental act enacted upom representations.


Are you comfortable that I understand your concept of distinct?If my concept of distincts is correct, then it will be found at some physical layer within the brain and actively occupied by the mind.