[klank]

I was referencing Wittgenstein's "If a lion could speak, we would not understand it." Wittgenstein believed (and I am strongly inclined to agree with him) that our ability to convey meaning through communication was intrinsically tied to (or, rather, sprang forth from) our physical, lived experiences.

Thus, to your point, assuming communication, because "there's nothing really special about speech", does that mean we would be able to understand a lion, if the lion could speak? Wittgenstein would say probably not. At least not initially and not until we had built shared lived experiences.

[Isamu]

If we had a sufficiently large corpus of lion-speech we could build an LLM (Lion Language Model) that would “understand” as well as any model could.

Which isn’t saying much, it still couldn’t explain Lion Language to us, it could just generate statistically plausible examples or recognize examples.

To translate Lion speech you’d need to train a transformer on a parallel corpus of Lion to English, the existence of which would require that you already understand Lion.

[cdrini]

Hmm I don't think we'd need a rosetta stone. In the same way LLMs associate via purely contextual usage the meaning of words, two separate data sets of lion and English, encoded into the same vector space, might pick up patterns of contextual usage at a high enough level to allow for mapping between the two languages.

For example, given thousands of English sentences with the word "sun", the vector embedding encodes the meaning. Assuming the lion word for "sun" is used in much the same context (near lion words for "hot", "heat", etc), it would likely end up in a similar spot near the English word for sun. And because of our shared context living in earth/being animals, I reckon many words likely will be used in similar contexts.

That's my guess though, note I don't know a ton about the internals of LLMs.

[klank]

And even, assuming the existence of a Lion to English corpus, it would only give us Human word approximations. We experience how lossy that type of translation is already between Human->Human languages. Or sometimes between dialects within the same language.

Who knows, we don't really have good insight into how this information loss, or disparity grows. Is it linear? exponential? Presumably there is a threshold beyond which we simply have no ability to translate while retaining a meaningful amount of original meaning.

Would we know it when we tried to go over that threshold?

Sorry, I know I'm rambling. But it has always been regularly on my mind and it's easy for me to get on a roll. All this LLM stuff only kicked it all into overdrive.

[johnisgood]

You might find https://www.lojban.org/files/why-lojban/whylojb.txt interesting. It is not really about your quote of Wittgenstein, but there is:

> In broad terms, the Hypothesis claims that the limits of the language one speaks are the limits of the world one inhabits (also in Wittgenstein), that the grammatical categories of that language define the ontological categories of the word, and that combinatory potentials of that language delimit the complexity of that world (this may be Jim Brown's addition to the complex Hypothesis.) The test then is to see what changes happen in these areas when a person learns a language with a new structure, are they broadened in ways that correspond to the ways the structure of the new language differs from that of the old?

[RedNifre]

That seems a bit extreme, given that a lion also has a mammal brain. I'd expect it to also think in terms of distinct entities that can move around in the environment and possibly talk about things like "hunger" and "prey".

I'd expect incomprehensible language from something that is wildly different from us, e.g. sentient space crystals that eat radiation.

On the other hand, we still haven't figured out dolphin language (the most interesting guess was that they shout 3D images at each other).

[nitwit005]

Observation has proven enough to understand the meaning of animal calls. People proved they correctly identified, for example, an distressed animal call for assistance, by playing it to their peers in the wild. They go look for the distressed animal. Other calls don't provoke the same reaction.

[klank]

Analogies are always possible. I believe in the philosophical context though, understanding the meaning of something is not possible through analogy alone.

Reminds me of the quote:

“But people have an unfortunate habit of assuming they understand the reality just because they understood the analogy. You dumb down brain surgery enough for a preschooler to think he understands it, the little tyke’s liable to grab a microwave scalpel and start cutting when no one’s looking.”

― Peter Watts, Echopraxia

[SJC_Hacker]

Correlate the vocalizations with the subsequent behavior. I believe this has been done for some species in certain situations.

Its also pretty much how humans acquire language. No one is born knowing English or Spanish or Mandarin.

[cdrini]

Hmm I'm not convinced we don't have a lot of shared experience. We live on the same planet. We both hunger, eat, and drink. We see the sun, the grass, the sky. We both have muscles that stretch and compress. We both sleep and yawn.

I mean who knows, maybe their perception of these shared experiences would be different enough to make communication difficult, but still, I think it's undeniably shared experience.

[klank]

That's fair. To me, the point of Wittgenstein's lion thought experiment though was not necessarily to say that _any_ communication would be impossible. But to understand what it truly meant to be a lion, not just what it meant to be an animal. But we have no shared lion experiences nor does a lion have human experiences. So would we be able to have a human to lion communication even if we could both speak human speech?

I think that's the core question being asked and that's the one I have a hard time seeing how it'd work.