Skip to main content

The limitation of language

Humans developed language as a means of communicating with other tribe members. Language is one of the most important, if not THE most important, reason humans are so successful as a species. It enables us not only to communicate immediate information (e.g. there is a lion in that direction, don't go there) but also form and communicate intricate ideas (e.g. myths, religions). Yuval Hariri in his massively interesting book "Sapiens" talks about how what he calls "fiction" (i.e. stories we humans tell each other) enabled homo sapiens to co-operate in massive numbers (much more than the Dunbar limit of 150) and made us such a successful species. Language was critical in all of that.

 I believe the advent of language was what gave the biggest boost to cultural evolution in humans. Humans are the only species that significantly evolve culturally as well as naturally. Cultural evolution is exponentially faster than natural evolution - we homo sapiens effectively have the same brain for 50,000-70,000 years so why is it that only in the last few centuries we have made so much progress? It is because of culture. Not that we are in any significant biological way different from a Homo-Sapien 20,000 years ago. But the culture is massively different. Culture is the software that runs on the hardware of our brain. The hardware has not changed, but the software has undergone massive iterations. And the software literally runs on "language" i.e. natural language. So as in a computer program, certain languages are inherently less efficient (and at times inadequate) due to the way the language is structured. e.g. python cannot do everything that C can do and the operations that it can, it does so less efficiently i.e. needing more processing power and memory. So if you want to write a particular program you need to choose the language that is best suited for it. But in terms of the language of our brain, we don't really choose that. With globalisation and interconnectedness of humans it is highly unlikely that new languages will emerge and evolve (in fact languages are going extinct). 


Which brings me to what I really want to explore - that language is actually a limiting factor in the conscious experience and present languages are actually holding us back. We still don't know or understand much about consciousness and how it came about. But we know what it is. We know what it is to be conscious and self-aware. But that experience is limited by the means in which experience and interpret consciousness - which is through language. Language forces us to bundle experiences together depending on the word for it. And this is evident clearly if you speak more than one language. Sometimes there are words for certain feelings or experiences in one language but not in another. And I think that actually has an effect on our feeling those feelings or having those experiences. So it is not just that we cannot describe that experience if our language doesn't have the word for it, but eventually we stop having those experiences and feeling those feelings. Language is the narrow lens through which we interpret our conscious experience of being. That experience is actually vast. But because our lens is small (and different depending on the language you speak and think in), we pay attention to only a small part of that conscious experience. And that becomes the reality of our experience. 


I am not saying current languages by design are limited and we won't be able to process certain ideas or theories in them - the universality of computation as discovered by Turing prevents this (David Deutsch explains this concept very well in his book 'The beginning of infinity'). I am just saying they are terribly inefficient and given our brains are limited in terms of computing power and memory - they prevent us from being the most efficient. It is like running a heavy data-crunching software written in php - it can be done and if we can just upgrade the processing power and memory of the computers it won't make a difference. But we can't (yet) do that for our brains. And that is why the languages we speak currently are limiting and inefficient. So what do we do about it right now? I can see 2 options -


1. improve the capacity of our brains (like memory and processing power) through implants and augmentations. I think we are a long long way before this can be achieved.


2.  improve the language that the brain runs on i.e make language better. And this, in itself, will accelerate our progress towards (1).


And it is surprising that we don't do (2). Why do we stick with something that evolved in a much different world than ours and not make any conscious improvements to it? Perhaps we should come up with a universal language that is the most efficient for processing thoughts, feelings, ideas, experiences. That is researched and continuously improved. 


Now I can imagine how this idea would be blasphemous to some - they would say this would be killing the beauty and art in languages as we know them, which in itself gives us meaningful conscious experiences. But what I am saying that conscious experiences are irrespective of language and with a better language we can actually experience them better. But if you still wish to experience the other conscious experiences that can be provided by, say, english poetry - you can still do that. I am not calling for elimination of current languages. It is almost like paintings and photography. With current languages we experiencing consciousness and thought through paintings - it is inefficient. I want a digital camera which is fast, easy and extremely efficient. That is not to say that paintings have no place in the world - art adds colour to our lives. But when it comes to practicality and progress, in the same way we need digital cameras and accurate measuring instruments for scientific experiments that advance humanity, we need a better, accurate and efficient language to process ideas, thoughts and experiences in our brain.



Further  - 

Natural languages do not always evolve towards efficiency ("efficiency" in languages is not just information rate, but I believe more complex than that due to the nature of the human brain wherein present experiences affect its future working broadly i.e. not just limited to future experiences similar to the present one). I don't deny that there is pressure to be more efficient at times (though not always) but there are lot of other factors that contribute to evolution of languages and grammar. The forces that cause languages to change are not survival forces.

So I don't think languages necessarily evolve in the same way that ideas evolve or natural selection works. I think language "changes" would be a better term to use rather than "evolve" ( since the world evolve brings with it expectations of changing for the better, though I know that this is not what natural evolution is either - at times it is detrimental to the species since it is actually the "selfish gene" that drives it).  Many times these changes in languages go in cycles. Since there isn't any selection pressure to choose the more "efficient" change on a broader level or even a granular level. And the reason for that is because present languages suffice very well in doing what they are meant to do - help human beings communicate with each other. There is no "selection pressure" on languages to be more efficient for more complex tasks (since the number of people involved in these complex tasks is a very very small percentage of the population). Actually, even if you can argue that languages do evolve towards efficiency, I still think it is a slow process like natural selection, and we need to speed that up (like we will do with augmenting our brains, or we do now wearing warm clothes).


My thesis is primarily that present natural languages are inherently inefficient for the processing that goes on in our brains especially when it comes to creativity in general and specifically creativity in coming up with complex innovative conjectures (which a very very small percentage of the population engages in). This inefficiency is not evident on a day to day basis since the brain's processing power and memory is not tested for most tasks even though the language is inefficient. But for extremely complex creative tasks, the brain's processing power and memory might get maxed out and that is where an efficient language will make a difference.


Given the limited processing power and memory of our brains, wouldn't it make sense that the language be made as efficient as possible for this purpose? We could be more creative if we think in a much more "efficient" language. We don't really need more efficient languages for simple day to day life and for this the language one speaks or thinks in would make no difference. But it is when the task at hand reaches the limits of the brain, that is when a more efficient language would add value. 



for e.g. I think the English language itself has a major role to play in why the British Enlightenment happened in Britain. The English language is in some way more efficient than others, and hence the brain that thinks in English has an advantage. Same could be said for some other languages e.g. German. I am not sure what this "efficiency" is or have no idea how to measure or quantify it (it is not merely the rate of information processed. I think it is a combination of information efficiency, grammar, vocabulary - and the reason for this is that due to the way our brain works, these factors also affect how much of memory and processing power of the brain gets engaged for a particular task). Language affects the conscious experiences of the brains, and not just current but also future experiences as well since present conscious experiences change the neural wirings in the brain as well in particular ways which affect future experiences. And that, I think, in turn affects the brain's "creativity". One could argue that language is part of the broader "culture", but I think that doesn't suffice. It goes deeper than that like I have postulated above.


So not just in terms of being efficient for the computation that goes on in the brain, I think language also has a profound impact on creative thought in general, the origins of which in consciousness, we still do not understand.


e.g. My mother tongue is a language called Marathi and I am generally a lot funnier when I speak and think in Marathi. However I think I can process complex ideas and am more creative in English. And my theory is that this is not just a subjective fact (due to my formal education being primarily in English), but there is some objective input in this which has its roots in the language itself. 


All this is just conjecture from my English speaking mind, and I have no data and I think I have not even formulated it systematically yet. 


Language changing - 

https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/english-changing

Efficiency of computer languages -

https://jaxenter.com/energy-efficient-programming-languages-137264.html



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

True Essence

My yoga teacher, who knows a lot about me and my story, recently asked me "what do you like about yourself, what is your true essence?". I gave the usual answer that I have been giving myself for most of my life - that I am kind, generous, helpful etc. etc. That was not the answer he was looking for. He said those things are in relation to other people i.e. these traits are what I think other people perceive me as. But what is really MY true essence and what do I like about MYSELF. He gave me a week to think about it. That did get me thinking. I talked to some friends about it over the week. I realised how much of my self-perception is dictated by other people. And it has been like that all my life. What I think of myself is really what I think others think of me. Or what I want others to think of me. But if I take other people out of the equation, what am I? What is my true essence? The more I thought, the more I realised that my true essence is creativity. Looking back...