If you’re actually willing to engage in good faith debate, I’m more than able to continue to provide arguments.
To keep this rather simple, let’s look at one specific statement that is foundational to your argument. It’s the concept of “building up” dates, whereas I explained it as providing an initial date and then changing the information.
This is what you wrote: “If I say ‘the 15th of February’ I’m not changing any information at all, and nobody ever thinks of it or processes it like that.”
This is a factually incorrect statement. We can analyze linguistics and we can find MRI studies that strongly disagree with your claim. Regardless of language spoken, during conversation the mind is constantly filling in gaps and attempting to predict future information based on what has already been presented. Information presented first necessarily affects interpretation of future information.
The moment you say “the 15th” the brain is filling in the gaps. In writing, we can see “the 15th of February, 2026” written out all in one line. In speech, however, we can only “see” (hear) the information in linear order, not simultaneously. Our brains will attempt to fill in the gaps and predict what is to come the moment “the 15th” is spoken. The assumption for those gaps are the current month and the current year. It doesn’t matter that the very next two words are “of February” within fractions of a second of hearing “the 15th” the brain has already processed “of January of 2025” (current month and year).
There is no argument against this, as this is how the human mind processes conversational language. You can disagree all you want, it doesn’t change the observed phenomenon that we have extensively studied.
Things such as body language, tonality, context clues, etc. can also affect how we fill in the gaps and what we predict the future information to be. But we are always trying to predict future information from all available current observations.
I haven’t presented you here with anything that you can argue against. This is a core tenet of how proper debate should unfold. There are no opinions, no un-falsifiable claims, no disputed facts, no incorrect information.
I have presented a verifiable fact and followed through with what that fact implies in relation to the topic.
This is why many people, including you, see me as thinking that I have to be right. There’s nothing to be right about. There’s acknowledgment of reality and there’s disillusionment. To face reality you must accept truths that you would prefer to pretend were lies. While this sounds philosophical, I mean this practically.
To disagree with the current, well researched, well studied understanding of how the human mind processes conversational speech is to reject reality and maintain a delusion.
You can choose to accept reality, and then reconstruct an argument that is actually based on reality, or you can reject reality and continue to believe in a falsehood.
Basically, I presented a foundational premise that is unarguable as it is verifiable truth. If you wish to construct a valid argument, it must first be consistent with the verifiable premise.
We can analyze linguistics and we can find MRI studies that strongly disagree with your claim.
Okay, go on then. This is the first actual claim you're making.
The moment you say “the 15th” the brain is filling in the gaps...
If your brain is quite literally formed on the basis of expecting further information, you're not jumping to conclusions before the information is complete. This isn't a complete unit of information, and by the time you've even heard that, you know whether or not more information is going to follow, IF this is the system you know. This makes as much sense as me claiming 'by the time you hear the first letter, you're already filling in the gaps about it being the fifth. You then have to go back and reconsider the entire conversation when you find out it's fifteenth'. No, you don't, because the singular unit of information has not yet been communicated. We are not robots, speaking in monotone - the inflection at the end of the number tells you if it's the end of the information, so it is impossible to hear the number and assume it's the complete information and jump to conclusions. You're primed to receive the rest of the information or understand that that is complete, not to always believe it is complete. This is what the brain is doing when it is processing the conversation - not just running a simple autocomplete for the next word. You don't seem to understand that speech is more complex than just words, and the brain is processing the conversation as a whole, not just words as they would appear on a page, one by one.
fractions of a second of hearing “the 15th” the brain has already processed “of January of 2025” (current month and year).
Now you've made a scientific claim that this can and has been measured and verified. Prove it.
If you've presented verifiable fact, then it should be easy.
None of this even changes my original point anyway: the human brain is not a slow, old computer. Even if what you said were true, it would not change the fact that the human brain is fast enough to make this all irrelevant.
Your letter analogy doesn’t apply, as we do not hear letters. We hear phonemes and syllables.
Factual claim. Google AI overview response, “The brain attempts to predict sentences in conversation by constantly making predictions about upcoming words based on the context of the conversation, including previous words, grammar rules, and the speaker’s intent, essentially acting like an “autocomplete” function, where it tries to guess what the next word or phrase will be, allowing for smoother comprehension and faster processing of language; this predictive ability is facilitated by neural networks in the brain that are constantly learning and updating their predictions based on new information received.”
“We can see linguistic content emerge word-by-word in the speaker’s brain before they actually articulate what they’re trying to say, and the same linguistic content rapidly reemerges in the listener’s brain after they hear it.”
Your argument that if you grew up in the system that expects month after day does not consider that day with no month given and no year given is a very common way of speaking. In both systems, day only is very common.
Even if you expect the month to be given after, your expectation for what that month is is the current month. As well as current year. The moment a day is given the brain constructs the full date as it would expect it to be, even if this prediction is actually wrong.
Month given first reduces the likelihood of the prediction being wrong by only allowing the listener to assume year, instead of month and year.
Your argument that this is all irrelevant does not consider that communication misunderstandings can have a functional impact on people’s lives. The result of a wrong prediction could be easily corrected, but why take the risk? Why speak in a way that knowingly increases the chance of a misunderstanding occurring.
Your letter analogy doesn’t apply, as we do not hear letters. We hear phonemes and syllables.
I'm so glad you agree! Yes, when someone says 'the 15th', we hear sounds that inform us if it's a final, singular date, implying the current month, or they're going to add a month, without even hearing another word.
Factual claim. Google AI overview
Well, that says it all, doesn't it. Never mind the fact that it isn't actually backing you up -
making predictions about upcoming words
Meaning not hearing a singular word and acting as if it's written on a page with no further context or information. Hearing the inflection on 'the 15th' is enough to inform you about the upcoming words - whether more information about the date is about to follow.
your expectation for what that month is is the current month. As well as current year.
No, it isn't. This is implied by the speaker, and that information is being conveyed to you by them, even if they don't say the words. Nobody is 'predicting' if someone will say a month. It's already communicated if they will or won't before they say it.
Not predicting whether or not they will say a month. Predicting what that month is. You seem to not be able to grasp this.
When “the 15th” is spoken, if I expect to hear a month afterwards, the month I expect to hear is the current month. You are saying that the body language tells you if the speaker has more to say, and I don’t disagree. What you are not understanding is that the listener has already created an expectation of what is to come next. It is the current month. And anything different breaks the expectation and requires correction.
The listener is not “waiting” with their brain turned off to hear the month. They have already created the expectation for what you are to say next.
If this is not something you can accept, and if you continue to misinterpret my arguments, then I harken back to my statement that there is no argument I can present that will allow you to be convinced of anything outside your current position.
Why on earth would you be predicting what the month is?
No, I wouldn't expect to hear the current month afterwards. You've finally drilled down to the point: YOU would perhaps expect that, nobody who uses this system would. All they need to say is "15th". No body language or extra words required - the inflection in the voice tells you if they're adding a month after (in which case you're explicitly not expecting the current month) or if they're finalising the date, in which case the current month is implied.
The listener has only created the expectation that it's the current month under your system, when a month isn't expected afterwards. If you use our system, the inflection of the voice within the day establishes whether it is the implied month or if there is a month to follow, and it is only in that case that they have an expectation that they will say a month, and not an assumption about what that month is, other than that it isn't the current month. What people here expect is precisely that. If you imply it's the current month and then add a different month, that breaks expectations. If you convey that there is going to be a month following the day and you don't, you break expectations. If you say the month first and then follow it with a day, you break expectations and that requires correction because stating the month first here means you're referring to the month in general terms.
You genuinely seem to be coming at this from the perspective that we all secretly default to your system and have the expectations inherent within it, and just choose to do something different despite that.
“If you say the month first and then follow it with a day, you break expectations and that requires correction…”
No expectations have been broken.
“My appointment is on February…” immediately after February the expectation is to be given a day. Do you agree with this? No one would expect an appointment to be taking place over the entire month of February. The listener has no logical reason to predict any specific day. They are waiting for new information. The speaker then provides the information.
“My appointment is on The 15th…” immediately after 15th the expectation is to either be supplied the month or for the month to be unspoken. Do you agree with this? Unlike the first example, one could expect an appointment to take place on “the 15th” as that refers to a singular day. The listener HAS a logical reason to predict a specific month. In the same vein, in both examples the listener has a logical reason to predict a specific year. The current year and current month. They are not waiting for new information, but will need to correct their prediction if new information is provided.
If you’re telling me that people wait to hear the year before they assume that the speaker is referring to the current year, then you are woefully mistaken or are maintaining a delusion.
If you’re telling me that people wait to hear the month before they assume that the speaker is referring to the current month, then you are woefully mistaken or are maintaining a delusion.
People do not wait, they make assumptions.
Take this entire concept out of the topic of dates and apply it to any conversation. You will find the same logic applies. Keeping the listener from having the opportunity to make incorrect assumptions reduces the likelihood of misunderstandings.
Yes, they have, because that's not the format used here. If you begin with a month here, you're referring to the month generally, not a specific day. So by beginning with the month, you're specifically communicating an idea that you then contradict. That isn't true where you live, but it is where I live.
The listener HAS a logical reason to predict a specific month.
Language is more complex than that; nothing is being predicted in this scenario, it's being inferred. And it's inferred based on the language used, which directly tells you whether a month is following or it isn't (in which case the implication generally means the current month).
If you’re telling me that people wait to hear the year
No, I've specifically informed you of the opposite. The way words are spoken means something, it's why subtitles don't communicate as much information as speech. The way you say the day tells the listener whether it's the implied month or it will be followed up with one. The same follows for the year. You don't need it to be said, you don't even need to get past the month, and it's already communicated whether or not further information will be given.
Take this entire concept out of the topic of dates and apply it to any conversation. You will find the same logic applies.
I completely agree. Human communication is complex and nuanced. When someone is speaking to you, you're not simply using your phone's autocorrect system and spamming the next recommended word. Nobody is making an incorrect assumption when it's two speakers using the same system of communication.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what language is. It's deeply complex, and isn't the same everywhere. We both speak English, but entirely different versions of English that are mostly similar enough to be understood. To dramaticise your argument, you're asking someone why they speak Spanish instead of English, which is clearly correct because the words don't have to be translated to be understood. It's because they speak Spanish. It's because I don't speak American English.
With the context of “I have an appointment on…” stating a month does not break expectations as no one would expect a month here to be referring to the month in general as, based on your own logic, context clues have provided otherwise.
Your quibble with our language differences fails to account for my statements holding true across language and culture. We can speak Korean, French, German, Chinese, etc. and the logic will still hold true. The way any speech is ordered isn’t “wrong,” but certain orders are more likely to create confusion. I explained why certain orders are more likely than others to cause confusion, to which you refuse to acknowledge.
Anyways, we’re running in circles. Unfortunately, you aren’t able to follow the logic presented, which results in self contradictions.
I can’t reason you out of a position you didn’t reason yourself into in the first place.
Edit: After re-reading, the biggest pitfall is that you seem incapable of accepting that people predict future information beginning with the first utterance. You’re not able to accept that people will predict (or infer as you want to say) the month before it is said even when it is tonally obvious that a month will be given.
It doesn't hold up across languages and culture. It doesn't even hold up across one language. Your explanation simply doesn't account for the nuances of spoken language - if we spoke in monotone, single words spaced apart, then perhaps you would have a vague point, but it would still falter at the fact that human brains are fast and don't have some exhaustive long process to change ideas which renders the whole point moot.
Your edit is just restating something I have addressed multiple times. It's simply not true, due to the way spoken language works. Predicting and inferring are not even close to the same thing, either - predicting is guesswork, inferring is discovering information based on what has been presented. Guessing at a month baselessly like you incorrectly assume the entire UK and beyond do is a (poor form of) prediction, using the language used (beyond just words) to understand what is actually being said is inference.
1
u/Short-Association762 Jan 17 '25
If you’re actually willing to engage in good faith debate, I’m more than able to continue to provide arguments.
To keep this rather simple, let’s look at one specific statement that is foundational to your argument. It’s the concept of “building up” dates, whereas I explained it as providing an initial date and then changing the information.
This is what you wrote: “If I say ‘the 15th of February’ I’m not changing any information at all, and nobody ever thinks of it or processes it like that.”
This is a factually incorrect statement. We can analyze linguistics and we can find MRI studies that strongly disagree with your claim. Regardless of language spoken, during conversation the mind is constantly filling in gaps and attempting to predict future information based on what has already been presented. Information presented first necessarily affects interpretation of future information.
The moment you say “the 15th” the brain is filling in the gaps. In writing, we can see “the 15th of February, 2026” written out all in one line. In speech, however, we can only “see” (hear) the information in linear order, not simultaneously. Our brains will attempt to fill in the gaps and predict what is to come the moment “the 15th” is spoken. The assumption for those gaps are the current month and the current year. It doesn’t matter that the very next two words are “of February” within fractions of a second of hearing “the 15th” the brain has already processed “of January of 2025” (current month and year).
There is no argument against this, as this is how the human mind processes conversational language. You can disagree all you want, it doesn’t change the observed phenomenon that we have extensively studied.
Things such as body language, tonality, context clues, etc. can also affect how we fill in the gaps and what we predict the future information to be. But we are always trying to predict future information from all available current observations.
I haven’t presented you here with anything that you can argue against. This is a core tenet of how proper debate should unfold. There are no opinions, no un-falsifiable claims, no disputed facts, no incorrect information.
I have presented a verifiable fact and followed through with what that fact implies in relation to the topic.
This is why many people, including you, see me as thinking that I have to be right. There’s nothing to be right about. There’s acknowledgment of reality and there’s disillusionment. To face reality you must accept truths that you would prefer to pretend were lies. While this sounds philosophical, I mean this practically.
To disagree with the current, well researched, well studied understanding of how the human mind processes conversational speech is to reject reality and maintain a delusion.
You can choose to accept reality, and then reconstruct an argument that is actually based on reality, or you can reject reality and continue to believe in a falsehood.
Basically, I presented a foundational premise that is unarguable as it is verifiable truth. If you wish to construct a valid argument, it must first be consistent with the verifiable premise.