Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hplntx!curry
From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Subject: Re: What's innate? (Was Re: Artificial Neural Networks and Cognition
Sender: news@hpl.hp.com (HPLabs Usenet Login)
Message-ID: <D32wFC.Jp5@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 19:21:12 GMT
References: <3fosrd$2if@mp.cs.niu.edu> <D2q93L.JHA@spss.com> <3fq5ih$hkb@mp.cs.niu.edu> <D2vEL5.9u8@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3g169u$s8o@mp.cs.niu.edu> <D2xL1y.MzF@hpl.hp.com> <3g42bk$jco@agate.berkeley.edu> <D2zD5B.F00@hpl.hp.com> <3g6j2i$fhi@mp.cs.niu.edu> <D310KE.5vp@hpl.hp.com> <3g9ab6$es@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: saiph.hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Lines: 57

: In <D310KE.5vp@hpl.hp.com> curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry) writes:
: >There are two separate questions here. The first is
: >whether humans have specialized brain structures to facilitate
: >language acquisition. It's not clear whether you are actually
: >denying this, but I think you have a tough row to hoe if you try.

Neil Rickert (rickert@cs.niu.edu) wrote:
: I do not deny that we are specialized for language.  If you manage to
: teach language to apes, the next generation will not carry it on.  If
: a group of children are not exposed to language, they will probably
: invent one.

: Have I agreed to enough for your liking?

Good. That's all I was looking for.

: >These specialized brain structures are, of course, composed of
: >interconnected neurons, which presumably function and learn
: >much as do other neurons. The specialization arises from the
: >wiring pattern of the interconnections, and its evolution is
: >not any more astounding than the evolution of many other
: >specialized brain subsystems (e.g. visual subsystems).

: One should be careful.  The time period over which visual subsystems
: evolved was far far longer than the time period over which language
: evolved.  The longer time gives a much greater opportunity for
: specialized evolution.

Can we reach a verdict of "not proven"? Since we don't know
how much of the mechanism for, say, primate calls actually
carries over to grammar. Perhaps a very small (genotypically
speaking) step is all that's required.

My only point was, that the evolution of such structures
was not such a far leap beyond other, undisputed, cases,
that one could dismiss the possibility out of hand.

: (BC): (a) discover universal "arbitrary" constraints on
: >learned syntax, and to (b) show enhanced learning ability for
: >these structures in particular (as opposed to, say, vocabulary).
: >The former is Chomsky's creole argument (e.g. the Nicaraguan
: >signers discussed by Pinker), and the latter is the
: >"poverty of the stimulus" argument.

: I am quite prepared to agree that there is strong statistical
: evidence for (a).  That is, natural languages prefer some types of
: syntactic structures.  I would not be at all surprised if these
: preferred structures are easier for a child to learn, and that amount
: to consent to (b).  On the other hand, I would imagine that it is
: almost impossible to ethically carry out experiments which might
: demonstrate (b).

But doesn't this amount to admitting that something like a UG
exists, even if it is somewhat different from, or weaker than,
the one proposed by Chomsky?

Bo
