Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bossy gets fucked by Noam Chomsky

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 6:03:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Hopefully he's learned his lesson.

Bossy: I would argue that the poverty of the stimulus argument does nothing but cast doubt on some classic arguments for behaviourism, but, in itself, does not have the force necessary to debunk behaviourist theories of language as a whole, given that there exists explanations of tabula rasa learning which remain unscathed.

The analogy to vision doesn't work unless it's already accepted that the ability to learn language is innate - it would be equally absurd to say that we do not learn how to grow crops because some of our attributes do happen to be innate.

I don't understand the relevance of chimps here. Unless *any* structure of the mind which could give rise to language is considered an example of language being hard-wired in, it's perfectly plausible to posit that the minds of chimps don't have the capacity to learn language without compromising tabula rasa.

I think a distinction has to be drawn between qualities of the mind which allow one to potentially build a language, another class of language, or no language at all, and qualities of the mind which directly lead one down a predetermined (or consistent) path to a very specific type of language. No one would disagree with the former - it's self-evident that any mind must be a mind of a particular kind - but the latter introduces the idea of predisposition *in addition to* the effects of stimulus.

I'm not trying to make an argument against nativism, but rather an argument against an argument for it - or at least an argument which seems to be meant to disprove its only alternative.

Chomsky's response: The POS argument has nothing at all to do with behaviorism. Rather, it identifies crucial properties of language that can readily be explained by quite simple and plausible assumptions about the biological endowment for the language faculty, but remain as complete mysteries otherwise because there is virtually no -- sometimes zero -- evidence available to the child.

One of the best-studied cases is structure-dependence of rules, the one and only case where there has been an effort by computational cognitive scientists and others to try to show how this universal property of language could be acquired by a child -- all irremediable failures, as demonstrated in print.

But it's only one of innumerable examples that have been presented, never with any response.

The analogy to vision and the reference to chimps are quite appropriate.

To spell it out a little more, take a human infant and a chimp, with approximately the same auditory system. Presented with the same data, the infant instantly selects language-relevant data from the environment and then proceeds on a regular course, acquiring the ability that you and I are now using, and demonstrably going far beyond the evidence available. Very much like development of the visual system, which also, as is well-known is influenced in its growth by visual environment.

The chimp hears only noise, and even with very extensive training efforts, can achieve essentially nothing.

There are two possible explanations, excluding magic. One is that there is an innate component to the human language faculty. The other is that the acquisition of language relies on other human cognitive capacities, which also have an innate component.

The latter proposal runs into two major problems. One is the total failure to explain elementary properties of language in these terms, as just mentioned. The second is the fact, long established and now supported by a great deal of evidence, that the language faculty is (doubly) dissociated from other relevant cognitive capacities.

So the POS arguments remain very powerful, and untouched.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,844
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 7:42:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 6:03:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Hopefully he's learned his lesson.


Bossy: I would argue that the poverty of the stimulus argument does nothing but cast doubt on some classic arguments for behaviourism, but, in itself, does not have the force necessary to debunk behaviourist theories of language as a whole, given that there exists explanations of tabula rasa learning which remain unscathed.

The analogy to vision doesn't work unless it's already accepted that the ability to learn language is innate - it would be equally absurd to say that we do not learn how to grow crops because some of our attributes do happen to be innate.

I don't understand the relevance of chimps here. Unless *any* structure of the mind which could give rise to language is considered an example of language being hard-wired in, it's perfectly plausible to posit that the minds of chimps don't have the capacity to learn language without compromising tabula rasa.

I think a distinction has to be drawn between qualities of the mind which allow one to potentially build a language, another class of language, or no language at all, and qualities of the mind which directly lead one down a predetermined (or consistent) path to a very specific type of language. No one would disagree with the former - it's self-evident that any mind must be a mind of a particular kind - but the latter introduces the idea of predisposition *in addition to* the effects of stimulus.

I'm not trying to make an argument against nativism, but rather an argument against an argument for it - or at least an argument which seems to be meant to disprove its only alternative.

Chomsky's response: The POS argument has nothing at all to do with behaviorism. Rather, it identifies crucial properties of language that can readily be explained by quite simple and plausible assumptions about the biological endowment for the language faculty, but remain as complete mysteries otherwise because there is virtually no -- sometimes zero -- evidence available to the child.

One of the best-studied cases is structure-dependence of rules, the one and only case where there has been an effort by computational cognitive scientists and others to try to show how this universal property of language could be acquired by a child -- all irremediable failures, as demonstrated in print.

But it's only one of innumerable examples that have been presented, never with any response.

The analogy to vision and the reference to chimps are quite appropriate.

To spell it out a little more, take a human infant and a chimp, with approximately the same auditory system. Presented with the same data, the infant instantly selects language-relevant data from the environment and then proceeds on a regular course, acquiring the ability that you and I are now using, and demonstrably going far beyond the evidence available. Very much like development of the visual system, which also, as is well-known is influenced in its growth by visual environment.

The chimp hears only noise, and even with very extensive training efforts, can achieve essentially nothing.

There are two possible explanations, excluding magic. One is that there is an innate component to the human language faculty. The other is that the acquisition of language relies on other human cognitive capacities, which also have an innate component.

The latter proposal runs into two major problems. One is the total failure to explain elementary properties of language in these terms, as just mentioned. The second is the fact, long established and now supported by a great deal of evidence, that the language faculty is (doubly) dissociated from other relevant cognitive capacities.

So the POS arguments remain very powerful, and untouched.

Wait, he actually talked to Noam Chomsky?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 7:45:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 7:42:36 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 3/11/2016 6:03:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Hopefully he's learned his lesson.


Bossy: I would argue that the poverty of the stimulus argument does nothing but cast doubt on some classic arguments for behaviourism, but, in itself, does not have the force necessary to debunk behaviourist theories of language as a whole, given that there exists explanations of tabula rasa learning which remain unscathed.

The analogy to vision doesn't work unless it's already accepted that the ability to learn language is innate - it would be equally absurd to say that we do not learn how to grow crops because some of our attributes do happen to be innate.

I don't understand the relevance of chimps here. Unless *any* structure of the mind which could give rise to language is considered an example of language being hard-wired in, it's perfectly plausible to posit that the minds of chimps don't have the capacity to learn language without compromising tabula rasa.

I think a distinction has to be drawn between qualities of the mind which allow one to potentially build a language, another class of language, or no language at all, and qualities of the mind which directly lead one down a predetermined (or consistent) path to a very specific type of language. No one would disagree with the former - it's self-evident that any mind must be a mind of a particular kind - but the latter introduces the idea of predisposition *in addition to* the effects of stimulus.

I'm not trying to make an argument against nativism, but rather an argument against an argument for it - or at least an argument which seems to be meant to disprove its only alternative.

Chomsky's response: The POS argument has nothing at all to do with behaviorism. Rather, it identifies crucial properties of language that can readily be explained by quite simple and plausible assumptions about the biological endowment for the language faculty, but remain as complete mysteries otherwise because there is virtually no -- sometimes zero -- evidence available to the child.

One of the best-studied cases is structure-dependence of rules, the one and only case where there has been an effort by computational cognitive scientists and others to try to show how this universal property of language could be acquired by a child -- all irremediable failures, as demonstrated in print.

But it's only one of innumerable examples that have been presented, never with any response.

The analogy to vision and the reference to chimps are quite appropriate.

To spell it out a little more, take a human infant and a chimp, with approximately the same auditory system. Presented with the same data, the infant instantly selects language-relevant data from the environment and then proceeds on a regular course, acquiring the ability that you and I are now using, and demonstrably going far beyond the evidence available. Very much like development of the visual system, which also, as is well-known is influenced in its growth by visual environment.

The chimp hears only noise, and even with very extensive training efforts, can achieve essentially nothing.

There are two possible explanations, excluding magic. One is that there is an innate component to the human language faculty. The other is that the acquisition of language relies on other human cognitive capacities, which also have an innate component.

The latter proposal runs into two major problems. One is the total failure to explain elementary properties of language in these terms, as just mentioned. The second is the fact, long established and now supported by a great deal of evidence, that the language faculty is (doubly) dissociated from other relevant cognitive capacities.

So the POS arguments remain very powerful, and untouched.

Wait, he actually talked to Noam Chomsky?

Yes.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,844
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 7:46:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 7:45:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/11/2016 7:42:36 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 3/11/2016 6:03:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Hopefully he's learned his lesson.


Bossy: I would argue that the poverty of the stimulus argument does nothing but cast doubt on some classic arguments for behaviourism, but, in itself, does not have the force necessary to debunk behaviourist theories of language as a whole, given that there exists explanations of tabula rasa learning which remain unscathed.

The analogy to vision doesn't work unless it's already accepted that the ability to learn language is innate - it would be equally absurd to say that we do not learn how to grow crops because some of our attributes do happen to be innate.

I don't understand the relevance of chimps here. Unless *any* structure of the mind which could give rise to language is considered an example of language being hard-wired in, it's perfectly plausible to posit that the minds of chimps don't have the capacity to learn language without compromising tabula rasa.

I think a distinction has to be drawn between qualities of the mind which allow one to potentially build a language, another class of language, or no language at all, and qualities of the mind which directly lead one down a predetermined (or consistent) path to a very specific type of language. No one would disagree with the former - it's self-evident that any mind must be a mind of a particular kind - but the latter introduces the idea of predisposition *in addition to* the effects of stimulus.

I'm not trying to make an argument against nativism, but rather an argument against an argument for it - or at least an argument which seems to be meant to disprove its only alternative.

Chomsky's response: The POS argument has nothing at all to do with behaviorism. Rather, it identifies crucial properties of language that can readily be explained by quite simple and plausible assumptions about the biological endowment for the language faculty, but remain as complete mysteries otherwise because there is virtually no -- sometimes zero -- evidence available to the child.

One of the best-studied cases is structure-dependence of rules, the one and only case where there has been an effort by computational cognitive scientists and others to try to show how this universal property of language could be acquired by a child -- all irremediable failures, as demonstrated in print.

But it's only one of innumerable examples that have been presented, never with any response.

The analogy to vision and the reference to chimps are quite appropriate.

To spell it out a little more, take a human infant and a chimp, with approximately the same auditory system. Presented with the same data, the infant instantly selects language-relevant data from the environment and then proceeds on a regular course, acquiring the ability that you and I are now using, and demonstrably going far beyond the evidence available. Very much like development of the visual system, which also, as is well-known is influenced in its growth by visual environment.

The chimp hears only noise, and even with very extensive training efforts, can achieve essentially nothing.

There are two possible explanations, excluding magic. One is that there is an innate component to the human language faculty. The other is that the acquisition of language relies on other human cognitive capacities, which also have an innate component.

The latter proposal runs into two major problems. One is the total failure to explain elementary properties of language in these terms, as just mentioned. The second is the fact, long established and now supported by a great deal of evidence, that the language faculty is (doubly) dissociated from other relevant cognitive capacities.

So the POS arguments remain very powerful, and untouched.

Wait, he actually talked to Noam Chomsky?

Yes.

Wow, that's awesome.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 7:49:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 6:03:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Hopefully he's learned his lesson.


Bossy: I would argue that the poverty of the stimulus argument does nothing but cast doubt on some classic arguments for behaviourism, but, in itself, does not have the force necessary to debunk behaviourist theories of language as a whole, given that there exists explanations of tabula rasa learning which remain unscathed.

The analogy to vision doesn't work unless it's already accepted that the ability to learn language is innate - it would be equally absurd to say that we do not learn how to grow crops because some of our attributes do happen to be innate.

I don't understand the relevance of chimps here. Unless *any* structure of the mind which could give rise to language is considered an example of language being hard-wired in, it's perfectly plausible to posit that the minds of chimps don't have the capacity to learn language without compromising tabula rasa.

I think a distinction has to be drawn between qualities of the mind which allow one to potentially build a language, another class of language, or no language at all, and qualities of the mind which directly lead one down a predetermined (or consistent) path to a very specific type of language. No one would disagree with the former - it's self-evident that any mind must be a mind of a particular kind - but the latter introduces the idea of predisposition *in addition to* the effects of stimulus.

I'm not trying to make an argument against nativism, but rather an argument against an argument for it - or at least an argument which seems to be meant to disprove its only alternative.

Chomsky's response: The POS argument has nothing at all to do with behaviorism. Rather, it identifies crucial properties of language that can readily be explained by quite simple and plausible assumptions about the biological endowment for the language faculty, but remain as complete mysteries otherwise because there is virtually no -- sometimes zero -- evidence available to the child.

One of the best-studied cases is structure-dependence of rules, the one and only case where there has been an effort by computational cognitive scientists and others to try to show how this universal property of language could be acquired by a child -- all irremediable failures, as demonstrated in print.

But it's only one of innumerable examples that have been presented, never with any response.

The analogy to vision and the reference to chimps are quite appropriate.

To spell it out a little more, take a human infant and a chimp, with approximately the same auditory system. Presented with the same data, the infant instantly selects language-relevant data from the environment and then proceeds on a regular course, acquiring the ability that you and I are now using, and demonstrably going far beyond the evidence available. Very much like development of the visual system, which also, as is well-known is influenced in its growth by visual environment.

The chimp hears only noise, and even with very extensive training efforts, can achieve essentially nothing.

There are two possible explanations, excluding magic. One is that there is an innate component to the human language faculty. The other is that the acquisition of language relies on other human cognitive capacities, which also have an innate component.

The latter proposal runs into two major problems. One is the total failure to explain elementary properties of language in these terms, as just mentioned. The second is the fact, long established and now supported by a great deal of evidence, that the language faculty is (doubly) dissociated from other relevant cognitive capacities.

So the POS arguments remain very powerful, and untouched.

That is very cool. I don't know a whole lot about linguistics (like, I'm no expert in it), and it's very interesting to see things like that.

Chomsky should join DDO.... though I doubt he has time. He would pretty much be the best member ever.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 7:57:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 7:49:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/11/2016 6:03:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Hopefully he's learned his lesson.


Bossy: I would argue that the poverty of the stimulus argument does nothing but cast doubt on some classic arguments for behaviourism, but, in itself, does not have the force necessary to debunk behaviourist theories of language as a whole, given that there exists explanations of tabula rasa learning which remain unscathed.

The analogy to vision doesn't work unless it's already accepted that the ability to learn language is innate - it would be equally absurd to say that we do not learn how to grow crops because some of our attributes do happen to be innate.

I don't understand the relevance of chimps here. Unless *any* structure of the mind which could give rise to language is considered an example of language being hard-wired in, it's perfectly plausible to posit that the minds of chimps don't have the capacity to learn language without compromising tabula rasa.

I think a distinction has to be drawn between qualities of the mind which allow one to potentially build a language, another class of language, or no language at all, and qualities of the mind which directly lead one down a predetermined (or consistent) path to a very specific type of language. No one would disagree with the former - it's self-evident that any mind must be a mind of a particular kind - but the latter introduces the idea of predisposition *in addition to* the effects of stimulus.

I'm not trying to make an argument against nativism, but rather an argument against an argument for it - or at least an argument which seems to be meant to disprove its only alternative.

Chomsky's response: The POS argument has nothing at all to do with behaviorism. Rather, it identifies crucial properties of language that can readily be explained by quite simple and plausible assumptions about the biological endowment for the language faculty, but remain as complete mysteries otherwise because there is virtually no -- sometimes zero -- evidence available to the child.

One of the best-studied cases is structure-dependence of rules, the one and only case where there has been an effort by computational cognitive scientists and others to try to show how this universal property of language could be acquired by a child -- all irremediable failures, as demonstrated in print.

But it's only one of innumerable examples that have been presented, never with any response.

The analogy to vision and the reference to chimps are quite appropriate.

To spell it out a little more, take a human infant and a chimp, with approximately the same auditory system. Presented with the same data, the infant instantly selects language-relevant data from the environment and then proceeds on a regular course, acquiring the ability that you and I are now using, and demonstrably going far beyond the evidence available. Very much like development of the visual system, which also, as is well-known is influenced in its growth by visual environment.

The chimp hears only noise, and even with very extensive training efforts, can achieve essentially nothing.

There are two possible explanations, excluding magic. One is that there is an innate component to the human language faculty. The other is that the acquisition of language relies on other human cognitive capacities, which also have an innate component.

The latter proposal runs into two major problems. One is the total failure to explain elementary properties of language in these terms, as just mentioned. The second is the fact, long established and now supported by a great deal of evidence, that the language faculty is (doubly) dissociated from other relevant cognitive capacities.

So the POS arguments remain very powerful, and untouched.

That is very cool. I don't know a whole lot about linguistics (like, I'm no expert in it), and it's very interesting to see things like that.

Chomsky should join DDO.... though I doubt he has time. He would pretty much be the best member ever.

Bossy was trying to get Chomsky to debate him on DDO, but he immediately gave up after the above response.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 4:12:37 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
I actually gave bossy a few tips as to how he could respond to Chomsky's reply, in PM... though I'm not sure if he'll continue the debate :P
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 3:48:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
He showed me that, lol.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 3:48:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 7:49:13 PM, YYW wrote:
Chomsky should join DDO.... though I doubt he has time. He would pretty much be the best member ever.

Chomsky literally considered...no kidding.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 3:49:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 4:12:37 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I actually gave bossy a few tips as to how he could respond to Chomsky's reply, in PM... though I'm not sure if he'll continue the debate :P

I recommended that he ask you :P
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 4:05:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 3:49:09 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:12:37 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I actually gave bossy a few tips as to how he could respond to Chomsky's reply, in PM... though I'm not sure if he'll continue the debate :P

I recommended that he ask you :P

Ahhhhh, that explains it. No wonder why I got two Chomsky PMs in a row. :P
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 4:05:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 3:59:25 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Did you just bypass the impassable swear filter?

https://33.media.tumblr.com...

It's been demonstrated several times that the past inflection somehow allows the user to bypass it.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 5:35:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 4:05:19 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/12/2016 3:49:09 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:12:37 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I actually gave bossy a few tips as to how he could respond to Chomsky's reply, in PM... though I'm not sure if he'll continue the debate :P

I recommended that he ask you :P

Ahhhhh, that explains it. No wonder why I got two Chomsky PMs in a row. :P

My first Chomsky PM was completely irrelevant to this...like, I literally PM'd you about it before he told me.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 5:48:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
testing:

fucked,
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 6:04:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 4:12:37 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I actually gave bossy a few tips as to how he could respond to Chomsky's reply, in PM... though I'm not sure if he'll continue the debate :P

Where do you stand on POS? Also, what evidence was Chomsky alluding to when he argued that the language faculty is "doubly dissociated" from everything else?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 6:13:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Well then
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 6:27:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 5:35:22 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:05:19 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/12/2016 3:49:09 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:12:37 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I actually gave bossy a few tips as to how he could respond to Chomsky's reply, in PM... though I'm not sure if he'll continue the debate :P

I recommended that he ask you :P

Ahhhhh, that explains it. No wonder why I got two Chomsky PMs in a row. :P

My first Chomsky PM was completely irrelevant to this...like, I literally PM'd you about it before he told me.

Wow... that's an interesting coincidence...

*must believe it's a statistical outlier - no, there are no such things as miracles*
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 6:31:16 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 6:04:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:12:37 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I actually gave bossy a few tips as to how he could respond to Chomsky's reply, in PM... though I'm not sure if he'll continue the debate :P

Where do you stand on POS?
For, but I know many of the arguments against it (tend to disagree though). Around 1/3 of my term essay for one of my courses last semester was about POS, so I'm familiar with the major arguments from both sides.

Also, what evidence was Chomsky alluding to when he argued that the language faculty is "doubly dissociated" from everything else?
Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia is the most famous, most classical one. Then there are SLI and the linguistic idiot savant Christopher or William's syndrome patients, or the experiments where they temporarily disabled a part of your brain. However, some scientists still deny a double disassociation (e.g. Elizabeth Bates) and others still believe a double disassociation, while strongly suggesting modularity, does not logicall imply it (e.g. Max Coltheart).
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 6:56:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 6:31:16 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:04:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:12:37 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I actually gave bossy a few tips as to how he could respond to Chomsky's reply, in PM... though I'm not sure if he'll continue the debate :P

Where do you stand on POS?
For, but I know many of the arguments against it (tend to disagree though). Around 1/3 of my term essay for one of my courses last semester was about POS, so I'm familiar with the major arguments from both sides.

Also, what evidence was Chomsky alluding to when he argued that the language faculty is "doubly dissociated" from everything else?
Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia is the most famous, most classical one. Then there are SLI and the linguistic idiot savant Christopher or William's syndrome patients, or the experiments where they temporarily disabled a part of your brain. However, some scientists still deny a double disassociation (e.g. Elizabeth Bates) and others still believe a double disassociation, while strongly suggesting modularity, does not logicall imply it (e.g. Max Coltheart).

That's what I thought the evidence would look like, except I was more thinking of severe autism. One possible objection immediately jumps out at me, namely dyslexia. No one would claim that we are directly "hard wired" to read text on a page, given that written language is a pretty recent invention, even more recent if you restrict it to when most people started to acquire and use the ability. So it really couldn't have influenced our evolution because it hasn't been around or that long. Clearly, our capacity to read text on a page exploits more general mental capacities that evolved for other purposes. According to the argument used in support of POS, the fact that someone could have great difficulty reading but remain unimpaired in other areas including verbal communication would presumably "demonstrate" that our ability to read reflects some aspect of our brains' structure that's dedicated for exactly that purpose. But that's clearly not true.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 7:19:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 6:56:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:31:16 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:04:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:12:37 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I actually gave bossy a few tips as to how he could respond to Chomsky's reply, in PM... though I'm not sure if he'll continue the debate :P

Where do you stand on POS?
For, but I know many of the arguments against it (tend to disagree though). Around 1/3 of my term essay for one of my courses last semester was about POS, so I'm familiar with the major arguments from both sides.

Also, what evidence was Chomsky alluding to when he argued that the language faculty is "doubly dissociated" from everything else?
Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia is the most famous, most classical one. Then there are SLI and the linguistic idiot savant Christopher or William's syndrome patients, or the experiments where they temporarily disabled a part of your brain. However, some scientists still deny a double disassociation (e.g. Elizabeth Bates) and others still believe a double disassociation, while strongly suggesting modularity, does not logicall imply it (e.g. Max Coltheart).

That's what I thought the evidence would look like, except I was more thinking of severe autism. One possible objection immediately jumps out at me, namely dyslexia. No one would claim that we are directly "hard wired" to read text on a page, given that written language is a pretty recent invention, even more recent if you restrict it to when most people started to acquire and use the ability. So it really couldn't have influenced our evolution because it hasn't been around or that long. Clearly, our capacity to read text on a page exploits more general mental capacities that evolved for other purposes. According to the argument used in support of POS, the fact that someone could have great difficulty reading but remain unimpaired in other areas including verbal communication would presumably "demonstrate" that our ability to read reflects some aspect of our brains' structure that's dedicated for exactly that purpose. But that's clearly not true.
Chomsky mentioned double disassociation because if we accept that children achieve mature linguistic competence based on impoverished stimulus, then only two alternatives, both innatist, remain. POS supports innatism; double disassociation supports modularity. In dyslexia's case, there may be a double disassociation but there is obviously no POS, since babies don't have an innate propensity to pick up writing, so I don't think it's comparable. Moreover, IIRC nobody has identified areas of the brain devoted entirely to reading, while this has been done for spoken language.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 7:44:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 7:19:39 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:56:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:31:16 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:04:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2016 4:12:37 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I actually gave bossy a few tips as to how he could respond to Chomsky's reply, in PM... though I'm not sure if he'll continue the debate :P

Where do you stand on POS?
For, but I know many of the arguments against it (tend to disagree though). Around 1/3 of my term essay for one of my courses last semester was about POS, so I'm familiar with the major arguments from both sides.

Also, what evidence was Chomsky alluding to when he argued that the language faculty is "doubly dissociated" from everything else?
Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia is the most famous, most classical one. Then there are SLI and the linguistic idiot savant Christopher or William's syndrome patients, or the experiments where they temporarily disabled a part of your brain. However, some scientists still deny a double disassociation (e.g. Elizabeth Bates) and others still believe a double disassociation, while strongly suggesting modularity, does not logicall imply it (e.g. Max Coltheart).

That's what I thought the evidence would look like, except I was more thinking of severe autism. One possible objection immediately jumps out at me, namely dyslexia. No one would claim that we are directly "hard wired" to read text on a page, given that written language is a pretty recent invention, even more recent if you restrict it to when most people started to acquire and use the ability. So it really couldn't have influenced our evolution because it hasn't been around or that long. Clearly, our capacity to read text on a page exploits more general mental capacities that evolved for other purposes. According to the argument used in support of POS, the fact that someone could have great difficulty reading but remain unimpaired in other areas including verbal communication would presumably "demonstrate" that our ability to read reflects some aspect of our brains' structure that's dedicated for exactly that purpose. But that's clearly not true.
Chomsky mentioned double disassociation because if we accept that children achieve mature linguistic competence based on impoverished stimulus, then only two alternatives, both innatist, remain. POS supports innatism; double disassociation supports modularity. In dyslexia's case, there may be a double disassociation but there is obviously no POS, since babies don't have an innate propensity to pick up writing, so I don't think it's comparable. Moreover, IIRC nobody has identified areas of the brain devoted entirely to reading, while this has been done for spoken language.

I'm not objecting to POS (not that I accept it in the case of spoken language; I would have to do more research before I decided). Chomsky admits that there are two ways that our innate capacity for language could be rooted in our brain's structure. The first, which is the one he advocates, is that our brains are designed specifically for language, while the other is that our more general mental capacities are co-opted for the use of language. That is, the reason we and not other creatures are able to acquire and use language so easily is that we are just generally smarter, not because we are hard wired for language. One of the reasons Chomsky prefers the first interpretation is that someone can lack language ability while not being impaired in any other areas; if language were just an application of general intelligence, then the inability to acquire language should reflect a deficit in general intelligence as well, which is not always the case. However, dyslexia is an example of a cognitive impairment meeting exactly those two criteria: (1) Can be an isolated impairment (2) Non-reflective of cognitive faculties dedicated specifically for it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 9:04:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 6:31:16 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:04:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Can you explain Chomsky's response please.

http://imgur.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 4:55:13 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 9:04:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:31:16 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:04:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Can you explain Chomsky's response please.

http://imgur.com...

I guess he's saying it's a 'rather minor' reason (others, like Pinker, obviously don't find it minor...) because, like Coltheart, he maintains that double disassociation doesn't necessarily imply the modularity of language - it's just that, if you feed the double disassociation into Bayes' theorem, you find that the probability of the existence of a domain-specific language module is very high.

To fully understand the next sentence, you have to understand the difference between linguistic competence and linguistic performance, a distinction that Chomsky has been making for decades and has had profound impacts on cognitive science. Competence is your 'knowledge' of the language - like the secondary memory of a computer - and performance is how the language is actually produced in real time - say, how your CPU actually performs the machine code that is stored in the computer. Chomsky is apparently talking about claims by researchers like Stephen Crane, otherwise a big fan of Chomsky, who believes that aphasia shows a performance deficit while competence remains untouched. But such a claim is hard to test and refute (Popper), so it may not be a particularly scientific one - which is what I think Chomsky was trying to say.

Your dyslexia example is single disassociation, not a double one, which is considerably weaker. Moreover, dyslexia often comes with dyscalculia, in which people find a range of inabilities to calculate, so it may not even be a case of single disaassociation.

As for the second paragraph, about the 'major reason', that's what Chomsky has been trying to show for the last 50 years: That language has its own idiosyncratic structural properties that could not have been derived from domain-general cognitive abilities alone. The post-minimalist Chomsky probably had recursion in mind when he wrote 'the simplest properties of language', since he currently believes recursion to be the most central language-specific ability (though I disagree with him in this regard: I agree with Jackendoff and Pinker's claim that other cognitive abilities also display recursion). When he spoke of 'those few cases where the approach has been spelled out carefully enough to be tested', he was probably talking about attempts at connectionist models like Rumelhart and McClelland's past-tense verb acquisition simulation or Elman's simple recurrent network simulations, which classicalists like Chomsky and Pinker believe to be failures (e.g. Pinker and Prince, 1988).

(Incidentally, I believe Chomsky believes it to be the 'major reason' because he's a linguist, and because he was the one most involved in developing this argument - a psychologist like Pinker would probably find the first one more 'major'...)

As for why Chomsky was so fast, I'm pretty sure he gets asked these questions so often that he's just C/Ping from previous emails...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 4:58:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 4:37:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can he beat 11 minutes?

http://imgur.com...

Dylan, you made several important errors in the first paragraph...
-Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia by definition have to do with brain areas (Broca's and Wernicke's areas, respectively).
-The dyslexia example, even if true, was just single disassociation, not double (which is the case of spoken language). But dyslexia often comes with dyscalculia, as Chomsky wrote.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 5:01:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
BTW, it has been found that languages violating universal grammar can't be processed by Broca's area, which is normally the area we use to process syntax.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...