3 ms·

First, there is no evidence of any probabilistic processing at the level of syntax in humans (it's irrelevant what computers can do). Second, I didn't say that

First, there is no evidence of any probabilistic processing at the level of syntax in humans (it's irrelevant what computers can do). Second, I didn't say that, in language, structure implies deterministic rules, I said that there is a deterministic rule that involves the structure of a sentence. Specifically, sentences are interpreted according to their parse tree, not the linear order of words. As for the birds analogy, the "rules" the birds follow actually does explain the V-shape that the flock forms. You make an observation "V-shaped flock" ask the question "why a V-shape and not some other shape" and try to find a explanation (the relative bird positions make it easier to fly [because of XYZ]). In the case of language you observe that there is structure dependence, you ask why it's that way and not another (like linear order) and try to come up with an explanation. You are trying to suggest that the observation that language has structure dependence is like seeing an image of an object in a cloud formation: an imagined mental projection that doesn't have any meaningful underlying explanation. You could make the same argument for pretty much anything (e.g. the double-slit experiment is just projecting some mental patterns onto random behavior) and I don't think it's a serious argument in this case either.

famouswaffles 2y ago
>First, there is no evidence of any probabilistic processing at the level of syntax in humans (it's irrelevant what computers can do). There is plenty evidence for to suggest this https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27135040/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27135040/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25644408/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25644408/ https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110346916/html?lang=en https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110346916... And research on syntactic surprisal—where more predictable syntactic structures are processed faster—shows a strong correlation between the probability of a syntactic continuation and reading times. >In the case of language you observe that there is structure dependence, you ask why it's that way and not another (like linear order) and try to come up with an explanation. You are trying to suggest that the observation that language has structure dependence is like seeing an image of an object in a cloud formation: an imagined mental projection that doesn't have any meaningful underlying explanation. No I'm suggesting that all you're doing here is cooking up some very nice fiction like Newton did when he proposed his model of gravity. Grammar does not even fit into rule based hierarchies all that well. That's why there are a million strange exceptions to almost every 'rule'. Exceptions that have no sensible explanations beyond, 'well this is just how it's used' because of course that's what happens when you try to break down an inherently probabilistic process into rigid rules.
- foobarqux 2y ago
  > And research on syntactic surprisal—where more predictable syntactic structures are processed faster—shows a strong correlation between the probability of a syntactic continuation and reading times. I'm not sure what this is supposed to show? If I can predict what you are going to say so what. I can predict you are going to pick something up too if you are looking at it and start moving your arm. So what? The third paper looks like a similar argument. As far as I can tell neither paper 1 or 2 propose a probabilistic model for language. 1 talks about how certain language features are acquired faster with more exposure (that isn't inconsistent with a deterministic grammar). I believe 2 is the same. > No I'm suggesting that all you're doing here is cooking up some very nice fiction like Newton did when he proposed his model of gravity. Absolutely bonkers to describe Newton's model of gravity as "fiction". In that sense every scientific breakthrough is fiction: Bohr's model of the atom is fiction (because it didn't use quantum effects), Einstein's gravity will be fiction too when physics is unified with quantum gravity. No sane person uses the word "fiction" to describe any of this, it's just scientific refinement: we go from good models to better ones, patching up holes in our understanding, which is an unceasing process. It would be great if we could have a Newton-level "fictitious" breakthrough in language. > Grammar does not even fit into rule based hierarchies all that well. That's why there are a million strange exceptions to almost every 'rule'. Exceptions that have no sensible explanations beyond, 'well this is just how it's used' because of course that's what happens when you try to break down an inherently probabilistic process into rigid rules. No one is saying grammar has been solved, people are trying to figure out all the things that we don't understand.
  - famouswaffles 2y ago
    >I'm not sure what this is supposed to show? If I can predict what you are going to say so what. If the speed of your understanding varies with how frequent and predictable syntactic structures are then your understanding of syntax is a probabilistic process. A strictly non-probabilistic process would have a fixed, deterministic way of processing syntax, independent of how often a structure appears or how predictable it is. >I can predict you are going to pick something up too if you are looking at it and start moving your arm. So what? Ok ? This is very interesting. Do you seriously think this prediction right now isn't probabilistic ? You estimate not from rigid rules but past experience that it's likely I will pick it up. What if i push it off the table ? You think that isn't possible? What if i grab the knife in my bag while you're distracted and stab you instead? Probability is the reason you picked that option instead of the myriad of options. >Absolutely bonkers to describe Newton's model of gravity as "fiction". In that sense every scientific breakthrough is fiction: Bohr's model of the atom is fiction (because it didn't use quantum effects), Einstein's gravity will be fiction too when physics is unified with quantum gravity. No sane person uses the word "fiction" to describe any of this, it's just scientific refinement: we go from good models to better ones, patching up holes in our understanding, which is an unceasing process. It would be great if we could have a Newton-level "fictitious" breakthrough in language. "All models are wrong. Some are useful" - George Box. There's nothing insane with calling a spade a spade. It is fiction and many academics do view it in such a light. It's useful fiction, but fiction none the less. And yes, Einstein's theory is more useful fiction. Grammar is a model of language. It is not language.

famouswaffles 2y ago

>First, there is no evidence of any probabilistic processing at the level of syntax in humans (it's irrelevant what computers can do). There is plenty evidence for to suggest this https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27135040/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27135040/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25644408/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25644408/ https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110346916/html?lang=en https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110346916... And research on syntactic surprisal—where more predictable syntactic structures are processed faster—shows a strong correlation between the probability of a syntactic continuation and reading times. >In the case of language you observe that there is structure dependence, you ask why it's that way and not another (like linear order) and try to come up with an explanation. You are trying to suggest that the observation that language has structure dependence is like seeing an image of an object in a cloud formation: an imagined mental projection that doesn't have any meaningful underlying explanation. No I'm suggesting that all you're doing here is cooking up some very nice fiction like Newton did when he proposed his model of gravity. Grammar does not even fit into rule based hierarchies all that well. That's why there are a million strange exceptions to almost every 'rule'. Exceptions that have no sensible explanations beyond, 'well this is just how it's used' because of course that's what happens when you try to break down an inherently probabilistic process into rigid rules.

foobarqux 2y ago
> And research on syntactic surprisal—where more predictable syntactic structures are processed faster—shows a strong correlation between the probability of a syntactic continuation and reading times. I'm not sure what this is supposed to show? If I can predict what you are going to say so what. I can predict you are going to pick something up too if you are looking at it and start moving your arm. So what? The third paper looks like a similar argument. As far as I can tell neither paper 1 or 2 propose a probabilistic model for language. 1 talks about how certain language features are acquired faster with more exposure (that isn't inconsistent with a deterministic grammar). I believe 2 is the same. > No I'm suggesting that all you're doing here is cooking up some very nice fiction like Newton did when he proposed his model of gravity. Absolutely bonkers to describe Newton's model of gravity as "fiction". In that sense every scientific breakthrough is fiction: Bohr's model of the atom is fiction (because it didn't use quantum effects), Einstein's gravity will be fiction too when physics is unified with quantum gravity. No sane person uses the word "fiction" to describe any of this, it's just scientific refinement: we go from good models to better ones, patching up holes in our understanding, which is an unceasing process. It would be great if we could have a Newton-level "fictitious" breakthrough in language. > Grammar does not even fit into rule based hierarchies all that well. That's why there are a million strange exceptions to almost every 'rule'. Exceptions that have no sensible explanations beyond, 'well this is just how it's used' because of course that's what happens when you try to break down an inherently probabilistic process into rigid rules. No one is saying grammar has been solved, people are trying to figure out all the things that we don't understand.
- famouswaffles 2y ago
  >I'm not sure what this is supposed to show? If I can predict what you are going to say so what. If the speed of your understanding varies with how frequent and predictable syntactic structures are then your understanding of syntax is a probabilistic process. A strictly non-probabilistic process would have a fixed, deterministic way of processing syntax, independent of how often a structure appears or how predictable it is. >I can predict you are going to pick something up too if you are looking at it and start moving your arm. So what? Ok ? This is very interesting. Do you seriously think this prediction right now isn't probabilistic ? You estimate not from rigid rules but past experience that it's likely I will pick it up. What if i push it off the table ? You think that isn't possible? What if i grab the knife in my bag while you're distracted and stab you instead? Probability is the reason you picked that option instead of the myriad of options. >Absolutely bonkers to describe Newton's model of gravity as "fiction". In that sense every scientific breakthrough is fiction: Bohr's model of the atom is fiction (because it didn't use quantum effects), Einstein's gravity will be fiction too when physics is unified with quantum gravity. No sane person uses the word "fiction" to describe any of this, it's just scientific refinement: we go from good models to better ones, patching up holes in our understanding, which is an unceasing process. It would be great if we could have a Newton-level "fictitious" breakthrough in language. "All models are wrong. Some are useful" - George Box. There's nothing insane with calling a spade a spade. It is fiction and many academics do view it in such a light. It's useful fiction, but fiction none the less. And yes, Einstein's theory is more useful fiction. Grammar is a model of language. It is not language.