This could do with an Artificial Intelligence tag.
I hope this doesn’t seem too far-fetched, but I’m going to suggest that it’s highly likely that such semantic vectors are used to convey meaning and transfer information between different representations inside the human brain, particularly in the areas of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) that implement higher-level thinking. I’m going to go even further, and make the prediction that the PFC implements something analogous to the registers found in a microprocessor. Semantic registers which are used to buffer, store and transfer vectors of neural activations that encode meaning, concepts or ideas.
No thanks to the arm chair neuroscience. I think it’s great to try to simulate the brain with the tools we have, but to go the other way and try to claim the brain simulates our tools is just silly. Neuroscience is complicated, nuanced, and most analogies that make it to pop science are gross simplifications.
There is obviously still a lot we don’t know about the human brain, or the way in which it implements higher-level thinking, and the neurons in artificial neural networks are very loose approximations of their biological cousins. Still, bees, bats and birds use wings to fly. These are different kinds of wings, with different properties, which have evolved independently, but they are all wings nonetheless. All three have come to evolve a similar solution to the problem of flight because this solution is natural and efficient. In the same vein, I think you could make the argument that a register is a natural concept when it comes to shuffling and operating on data.
God, I miss real sophists! These shitty ones we have right now are not even trying. We know A is not related to B, but C, D and E all use F so we can also say that A and G use H which must be a natural concept? For real? Let’s throw in some purposeful evolution and tautological evaluation of natural things that are natural, for good measure…
How about “artificial ignorance”?