5 ms·
Well, the text-to-thought direction feels less sci-fi, and combining both would amount to kind of telepathy. But sure, you're right. Reading is not a determini
by moritzwarhier 1mo ago
Well, the text-to-thought direction feels less sci-fi, and combining both would amount to kind of telepathy.
But sure, you're right. Reading is not a deterministic mapping of text to thoughts.
Apart from the trouble of defining what a thought is, independent from the person who thinks it.
Me thinking of grabbing a mug of coffee is a different thought from you doing the same... defining "thought" pulls in a whole jungle of epistemology (maybe I should say philosophy, more broadly, I'm not in the field).
Is there an abstract concept of "the thought of raising your left index finger"? Or "the thought of remembering severe pain"? Etc etc
- stanleykm 1mo agohow is whatever “thought to text” or “text to thought” are different from writing and reading?
- moritzwarhier 1mo agoIn the case of "thought to text", it's clearly the context, and the intent. When I write something, I deliberately curate my thoughts in order to convey an idea, often heavily depending on the context. Context encompasses the whole slice of the world that is connected to my individual life, who I want to address, and what I want to convey. As a simpler counterexample: it's possible to write down lies, deceptively. The definition of a lie means that I know better than what I say. So, "honest thought" != "fact": where does this take us? People who lie not only try to deceive others about facts, the core of most lies is deceiving about intent. I used the word "idea" here, and I think it is nothing more than a rephrasing of Platonic ideas, but I ought to be careful, because we are more than two thousand years in the future from there.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]