As an always-subvocalizer, I’m not even sure what it would mean to read something without subvocalizing it. For me, that would be like the Chinese room thought experiment—maybe something is understanding that sentence, but it’s not ‘me.’
(Edit: also my reading speed is ~240wpm when I actively try to read fast, depending, obviously, upon the material. I suspect my typical is more like 200wpm.)
I wonder if it’s similar to the Chinese room for most people—as in, “I don’t normally subvocalize, and it would make sense that the Chinese room is not sentient” vs “I always subvocalize and Chinese room makes no sense”.
Yes, but my comprehension and speed decreases. (Or it feels that way, I haven’t actually tested this. This also doesn’t feel like the right test to me—I can ‘squeeze’ counting in between reading, so it’s not necessarily the case that one isn’t blocking the other, it might just be that I’m alternating between them quickly.)
Edit: And I didn’t mean anything deep when I used the Chinese Room as an example! It was just meant to illustrate the enormous gulf in my mind between ‘comprehending through subvocalization’ versus ‘comprehending despite not subvocalizing.’ I tried several other metaphors before settling on that. I would be surprised to hear that there was a significant correlation between subvocalization and acceptance of the Chinese Room results and did not mean to imply that, though I suppose it is an interesting question regardless.
Maybe this metaphor makes my meaning clearer: asking me to read without subvocalizing would be like asking me to look at a painting without ever experiencing the qualia of seeing it. If I shut down that qualia somehow (and I don’t think could), then it’s still possible that some portions of my mind are becoming aware of what was on that picture and maybe you could discover that through some clever experiments. But that part of my brain that would have learned that doesn’t feel like it could be ‘me’ in the same way that it doesn’t feel like it could be ‘me’ that understands some read text without subvocalization.
I still have the qualia of reading, just not the qualia of sound (hence impossible to imagine that i am listening to it being read in an accent, while counting). It’s hard to describe. I can talk about an arbitrary subject while reading, and right now I am typing this message while reading what you wrote.
I have simultaneously the qualia of “hearing myself think” (or the qualia of talking if i count), and the qualia of reading, basically.
There was a hypothesis that people’s different opinions on questions involving consciousness have largely to do with personal experiences that differ between people. People who always subvocalize may be unable to imagine that distinct ways of processing the language can exist.
Thanks for the clarification! This reminds me of Galton’s research on mental imagery, and I can see how people who do or don’t subvocalize could potentially have different intuitions about various aspects of consciousness. However, I think I’m still not understanding your suggestion.
For context, here are the major responses to the Chinese Room thought experiment that I’m aware of (do you know of others?):
such a system is not possible (i.e. it wouldn’t work—you couldn’t get correct answers to questions this way)
such a system is possible, and it would be sentient
such a system is possible, and it wouldn’t be sentient, nor would any other artificial thinking process
such a system is possible, and it wouldn’t be sentient, but other artificial thinking processes could be, depending on how they work
My own first guess is that if there is a connection between subvocalization and intuitions about the CR, it would be that subvocalizers are more likely to think explicit internal monologue is necessary for consciousness, and so would be more likely to choose #4 over #2, if they are already reductionists.
Was your suggestion that those who don’t subvocalize would be more inclined to choose 1, 3, or 4 above, or something else? And likewise for those who do subvocalize.
As an always-subvocalizer, I’m not even sure what it would mean to read something without subvocalizing it. For me, that would be like the Chinese room thought experiment—maybe something is understanding that sentence, but it’s not ‘me.’
(Edit: also my reading speed is ~240wpm when I actively try to read fast, depending, obviously, upon the material. I suspect my typical is more like 200wpm.)
Can you read while counting out loud?
I wonder if it’s similar to the Chinese room for most people—as in, “I don’t normally subvocalize, and it would make sense that the Chinese room is not sentient” vs “I always subvocalize and Chinese room makes no sense”.
Yes, but my comprehension and speed decreases. (Or it feels that way, I haven’t actually tested this. This also doesn’t feel like the right test to me—I can ‘squeeze’ counting in between reading, so it’s not necessarily the case that one isn’t blocking the other, it might just be that I’m alternating between them quickly.)
Edit: And I didn’t mean anything deep when I used the Chinese Room as an example! It was just meant to illustrate the enormous gulf in my mind between ‘comprehending through subvocalization’ versus ‘comprehending despite not subvocalizing.’ I tried several other metaphors before settling on that. I would be surprised to hear that there was a significant correlation between subvocalization and acceptance of the Chinese Room results and did not mean to imply that, though I suppose it is an interesting question regardless.
Maybe this metaphor makes my meaning clearer: asking me to read without subvocalizing would be like asking me to look at a painting without ever experiencing the qualia of seeing it. If I shut down that qualia somehow (and I don’t think could), then it’s still possible that some portions of my mind are becoming aware of what was on that picture and maybe you could discover that through some clever experiments. But that part of my brain that would have learned that doesn’t feel like it could be ‘me’ in the same way that it doesn’t feel like it could be ‘me’ that understands some read text without subvocalization.
I still have the qualia of reading, just not the qualia of sound (hence impossible to imagine that i am listening to it being read in an accent, while counting). It’s hard to describe. I can talk about an arbitrary subject while reading, and right now I am typing this message while reading what you wrote.
I have simultaneously the qualia of “hearing myself think” (or the qualia of talking if i count), and the qualia of reading, basically.
Do you mean those two options the other way around? I don’t normally subvocalize but I don’t find the Chinese room argument at all compelling.
I’m confused as to why the two would be related at all.
There was a hypothesis that people’s different opinions on questions involving consciousness have largely to do with personal experiences that differ between people. People who always subvocalize may be unable to imagine that distinct ways of processing the language can exist.
Thanks for the clarification! This reminds me of Galton’s research on mental imagery, and I can see how people who do or don’t subvocalize could potentially have different intuitions about various aspects of consciousness. However, I think I’m still not understanding your suggestion.
For context, here are the major responses to the Chinese Room thought experiment that I’m aware of (do you know of others?):
such a system is not possible (i.e. it wouldn’t work—you couldn’t get correct answers to questions this way)
such a system is possible, and it would be sentient
such a system is possible, and it wouldn’t be sentient, nor would any other artificial thinking process
such a system is possible, and it wouldn’t be sentient, but other artificial thinking processes could be, depending on how they work
My own first guess is that if there is a connection between subvocalization and intuitions about the CR, it would be that subvocalizers are more likely to think explicit internal monologue is necessary for consciousness, and so would be more likely to choose #4 over #2, if they are already reductionists.
Was your suggestion that those who don’t subvocalize would be more inclined to choose 1, 3, or 4 above, or something else? And likewise for those who do subvocalize.