Ask Lemmy

100% in this case.

It's not using advanced vocabulary, and I'm currently too busy to be high as shit during it.

From a technical perspective, you might wanna look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy-channel_coding_theorem

It basically says, that even when your channel over which you're transmitting the data is noisy (i.e. does not transport the information exactly as you want it), you can still establish a clear communication over it. It's fascinating, and i highly suspect that something similar is happening in our spoken language. The words in itself are ambiguous, but through relentless redundancy, somehow, the information still comes through clearly.

It is probably one of the reason why i have a habit of always saying the same sentence 2 or 3 times in a row, with slightly different wordings. I guess it is because i'm utterly aware of that information can get lost during talking, especially in a noisy situation, and that repeating the information helps splendidly with making it more clear. Other people, however, seem to be a bit annoyed by it :p

Maybe you're all just figments of my imagination and I'm actually locked up in a rubber room, totally oblivious.

Words are a sequence of sounds, that’s why we learn those sequences from a young age because it is easier to adapt to these new sounds and take key elements to try and create a relational? Dataset / database. That’s one of the beauty of different languages in life.

Because you are conveying this “illusionary” convo in the stated database that is familiar to some, we are able to convey those same sounds back to you to form a conversation.

To an individual who has not learnt the “English” language all our words sounds gibberish.

This is my opinion

Probably about 7. Give or take 10lbs.

Your question is related to a very difficult interdisciplinary research problem: "how does 'meaning' occur in human conversations?" You can approach it from e.g. philosophical, psychological, linguistic, or sociological disciplines, and fields as diverse as literary critical theory, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence also have a lot to say about it.

So to answer your question: nobody knows for sure, but if you're interested in academic pursuits you're headed in a great direction.

Where did you get 80% from - is that based on something more than anecdotal?

A friend of mine, back when we got stoned a lot, had an idea that language, or words, are magic. Stringing together incantations to share thoughts is a neat way of thinking about it. Especially because we're just jello trapped in a mecha made of bone and meat. It's surprising there's not more hallucinations to be honest.

A̵̧̲̞̭͖̟͛̑͋͌̓̈́̕͝͝l̴̢̢̡͈̙̬̝͇̙̼͎̂̉͑̓̄͌̒̀̇̐̀̔̚͜͝ͅļ̷̡̟͎̱̗͉̟̬̖̟͖̦̏̄͋̒͐̏͝ ̵̯͇͎̼̪̳̭̞̫̹͗̒̊̄̽͛̏̈́̓͘͝͝͝͝͡c̸̭̠͔̤̣͚̭͌̈̂̇o̵͙͚̜͉̞̰̎͐n̷̡̘̘̻̦͋͆v̴̡̢̙̱̟̦̞͉̣̟̲̼̪̱̋̄̊̓̒̔̄̂̏͠͠o̷̢͓̥͕̞̹͓͗͗̉͐̐̅̍̋̉̍̈͑͟͜ş̸͉̗̱̦͎́̈́̾͟a̷̧̧̛̱͖̠͕͓̫̻̠̝̦̬̳͑͑͋͂̀̅̽͂͘͘͝ͅt̵͍̹͇̼̩̲̙͉̻̤̻͊̅̎̐͟i̵̢̦͇̪̫͕͎̱̣̹̟̼̫̙͍͗͌͒͊̊̾ͅo̸̡̹̱͙͉͓̩̙͝͝n̷̥̫̄̆͘̚ş̶̨̮̭͖̤͎͓̺͕͇̟̥̄̉̄̃̈̌͒̔̐͡ ̵̛̟̣͔͍̈́̇̉̿̈́̿̈́͜͟͡ͅg̸̺͇͈̗̙͇̜͓͍͓͛͊̽͗͑̑̽͆̿͗̉ō̴̱̭̹̯͎̬̺̗͒̍̈́̈́̈̐͡ ̶̯̯̼͇̱̖̮̠̭̳̗̪̳̈́̍̉̎̈́̓͂̿̑̒̐̅̚s̷̖̮͖͕̗͙̗̈̋̄͋͜o̶͎͙̭͉̠̱͔̞̦̱̯̳͉̫͒͆́́̍͗̌̐̅̕͘m̸̧̢̭̳̱͕̖̜̬̺͕͎̲͛̆͛̑͑ę̵̫̗̳̠̓̾̓̈͘͟w̷̨̧̧̘̯͍͉̩͕͎̫͓͇̥̱̄̂̒͌̀̑̕͟͡ḩ̸̞̬͉͕̖̜͖̭̹͚͉̂͟͜ẻ̴̢̧͕̘͇͍̱̲̣̗͙̫̞̹̹̈́͆͊r̷̡̢̛̛̳̤̖͍̟͔͛̈̄̃̽̏͛̔͌͑̀͡e̷͈̙̲͓̼̥̟̭͕̭̫̯̯̅̈́̿̈́̑̎̄͑̒͐͜͟͝͝.̷̛͉̺͇́̈̂͊̋̓̈́̔

Depends on how you define hallucination

Misremembering details, false assumptions about what is said, assuming intentionality incorrectly, projection of emotions onto others, bias, etc mean that the same words are said but we walk away with potentially wildly different interpretations of the experience

“Getting on the same page” is a challenge

I think it would depend on our previous interactions.  Think of texting. When you barely know someone and you text them, it’s usually straight forward ’who, what, when, where, how’ sorts of info. But when you text an old friend you may allude to old inside jokes or other ’insider’ references that would be ambiguous to a stranger. You ‘hallucinate’ to fill in the meaning from previous context.

Thus a text from a good friend entails more ‘hallucination’ than a text from a new work colleague.

Usually you dont need 100% of the information to get across and also sgouldnt expect it. When you want to make a point, you dont need every tiny nuance stored in your mind for that. The 80% is what you actually want understood, the last 20% are negligible.

But yes, the concept is interesting and in some cases a conversation is interpreted wildly differently between people, especially when you dont know the other person very well (e.g. someone might be intimidated by a stranger talking to them interpreting what they say in a negative way while the other person is trying to be friendly and wouldnt know how it is percieved)

TL;DR: Natural language is ambiguous. How much of it do we misunderstand?

There are many tools to reduce misunderstanding: feedback, rephrasing, definitions, etc., but it would be really cool if a standardized logical language (like loglan/lojban but actually well done lol) became the worldwide second language and lingua franca. That would help a lot in our increasingly vocal interactions with computers.

A rule referred to as Zipf's Law is the foundation of all communication. Anything that corresponds to anything follows it. Knowing it can allow someone to mark something's significance. It's how archaeologists can determine lost truths with absolutely nothing to go by. Once the basics are understood, then each thing that imperfectly corresponds to something else is compared with other things with the same meaning. You could compare this to triangulation. From there, the rest can be achieved.