6 ms·

You are being way too vague. What is setting your expectations of "slowly"? What rate would you expect children to learn language at? Even if that were to be

You are being way too vague. What is setting your expectations of "slowly"? What rate would you expect children to learn language at? Even if that were to be the case, your argument is essentially a god of the gaps argument. Not P therefor Q is not sound reasoning. The whole notion of the Universal Grammar and innate language faculties which instantiate subsets of the Universal Grammar is weird.

gnaritas 14y ago
No, he's right, check out Pinkers the language instinct for the full treatment on the issue. Children learn at a rate impossible from just what they hear and imitate. We are pre-wired for language.
- Retric 14y ago
  30,000+ hours using more computing power than the fastest computer on the planet to get the a 3 year olds grasp of language is hardly 'fast'. PS: Language acquisition starts before birth, and continues 24/7 after that until we 'learn' it.
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    "Pinker explains that a universal grammar represents specific structures in the human brain that recognize the general rules of other humans' speech, such as whether the local language places adjectives before or after nouns, and begin a specialized and very rapid learning process not explainable as reasoning from first principles or pure logic. This learning machinery exists only during a specific critical period of childhood and is then disassembled for thrift, freeing resources in an energy-hungry brain." Having read the book, his arguments are far more convincing than your assertions.
    - Retric 14y ago
      However, unlike his arguments I limited myself to using actual facts. If you just want a compelling argument: Biology is a vary important component in the creation and evolution of language, because the fine motor control required to say "linguistic" vs "mommy" or "stop" has a lot to do with how languages are learned and evolve. As baby's practice how to say thing babble converts to simple words but in doing so there are pattern as to which sounds are easier to produce and therefore enable them to probe their environment by reproducing. This paralls the evolution of language where the most important and simplist ideas where the first to be communicated and therefore take up the 'root' address space in the language with more complex words and ideas like 'chemist' being tacked on over time. PS: Sure, it sounds great. But how many assumptions am I stringing together in just those few sentences.
      - gnaritas 14y ago
        Look, if you haven't read the book, I'm not interested in your opinions of his arguments; you don't know them. When someone recommends a book, you don't kill the messenger when your disagreement is with the author; don't be an ass.
        Retric 14y ago
        I have read most of the language instinct. I get why people find it compelling, but that has little to do with being accurate. My point was his style tends to be convincing vs. his actual evidence being compelling. PS: Think of it like this A -> B, B -> C therefore A -> C is all well in good most of the time. A -> B .... Y -> Z therefore A -> Z only really works with math, build a chain that long and it's unlikely for all those steps to be accurate.
        gnaritas 14y ago
        And I don't find your point in the least bit compelling. Unless you're a leading expert in the field as he is, your points mean jack squat to me. And since I'm not making the argument, it's not argument from authority to say his book is far more convincing than your assertions without evidence. You're trying to debate me about a book I recommended; you're an ass. Goodbye.
        Retric 14y ago
        That seems overly rude. It's also a ridiculous appeal to authority at the same time. If I where to attack the book I could say something like: "In chapter 2 'Chatterboxes' he states humans are the only animal that uses language which is complex issue by it's self. He goes further and says every group of humans in remote areas we encountered have had complex language. He then runs with that line of reasoning. However this ignores not just other animals that use simple forms of language but human ancestors that where close to us anatomically and probably also used language. If homo sapiens's ancestors also used language then you would expect the earliest humans to also use language therefore language would spread from it's origins to all those remote areas vs. being created from scratch in those remote areas." Now, I could get 10 PHD's to say the same thing and use quotes etc, but what's important is the accuracy of the statement not who says it. http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/

gnaritas 14y ago

No, he's right, check out Pinkers the language instinct for the full treatment on the issue. Children learn at a rate impossible from just what they hear and imitate. We are pre-wired for language.

Retric 14y ago
30,000+ hours using more computing power than the fastest computer on the planet to get the a 3 year olds grasp of language is hardly 'fast'. PS: Language acquisition starts before birth, and continues 24/7 after that until we 'learn' it.
- gnaritas 14y ago
  "Pinker explains that a universal grammar represents specific structures in the human brain that recognize the general rules of other humans' speech, such as whether the local language places adjectives before or after nouns, and begin a specialized and very rapid learning process not explainable as reasoning from first principles or pure logic. This learning machinery exists only during a specific critical period of childhood and is then disassembled for thrift, freeing resources in an energy-hungry brain." Having read the book, his arguments are far more convincing than your assertions.
  - Retric 14y ago
    However, unlike his arguments I limited myself to using actual facts. If you just want a compelling argument: Biology is a vary important component in the creation and evolution of language, because the fine motor control required to say "linguistic" vs "mommy" or "stop" has a lot to do with how languages are learned and evolve. As baby's practice how to say thing babble converts to simple words but in doing so there are pattern as to which sounds are easier to produce and therefore enable them to probe their environment by reproducing. This paralls the evolution of language where the most important and simplist ideas where the first to be communicated and therefore take up the 'root' address space in the language with more complex words and ideas like 'chemist' being tacked on over time. PS: Sure, it sounds great. But how many assumptions am I stringing together in just those few sentences.
    - gnaritas 14y ago
      Look, if you haven't read the book, I'm not interested in your opinions of his arguments; you don't know them. When someone recommends a book, you don't kill the messenger when your disagreement is with the author; don't be an ass.
      - Retric 14y ago
        I have read most of the language instinct. I get why people find it compelling, but that has little to do with being accurate. My point was his style tends to be convincing vs. his actual evidence being compelling. PS: Think of it like this A -> B, B -> C therefore A -> C is all well in good most of the time. A -> B .... Y -> Z therefore A -> Z only really works with math, build a chain that long and it's unlikely for all those steps to be accurate.
        gnaritas 14y ago
        And I don't find your point in the least bit compelling. Unless you're a leading expert in the field as he is, your points mean jack squat to me. And since I'm not making the argument, it's not argument from authority to say his book is far more convincing than your assertions without evidence. You're trying to debate me about a book I recommended; you're an ass. Goodbye.
        Retric 14y ago
        That seems overly rude. It's also a ridiculous appeal to authority at the same time. If I where to attack the book I could say something like: "In chapter 2 'Chatterboxes' he states humans are the only animal that uses language which is complex issue by it's self. He goes further and says every group of humans in remote areas we encountered have had complex language. He then runs with that line of reasoning. However this ignores not just other animals that use simple forms of language but human ancestors that where close to us anatomically and probably also used language. If homo sapiens's ancestors also used language then you would expect the earliest humans to also use language therefore language would spread from it's origins to all those remote areas vs. being created from scratch in those remote areas." Now, I could get 10 PHD's to say the same thing and use quotes etc, but what's important is the accuracy of the statement not who says it. http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/