tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post831783265623463868..comments2023-10-23T11:13:35.712-04:00Comments on Games with Words: Nature, Nurture, and BayesEdwardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04295927435118827266noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-54092024496668823712011-09-08T10:02:39.141-04:002011-09-08T10:02:39.141-04:00@Matt: Your comment got held up in my spam filter ...@Matt: Your comment got held up in my spam filter for some reason, and so I just saw it.<br /><br />I wonder if perhaps we mean different things by "innate". Would you be comfortable with stating that each organism has a starting state, from which some end points can be reached and others cannot? That is, the starting state for the human and chimpanzee embryos are different, with the human embryo capable of developing into things that the chimpanzee embryo cannot develop into, and vice versa. <br /><br />This is all I -- and most people, I think -- mean by saying something is innate: it's a prior constraint on where the system can go. Without that concept or something very similar to it, it seems that it is impossible to ask what is different between different species of animal. We know that it's not just the environment (cf the Noam Chimpsky experiments).GamesWithWordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15107067137612954306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-12362358963961485272011-09-01T23:15:07.603-04:002011-09-01T23:15:07.603-04:00Well, it's fortuitous that you picked that par...Well, it's fortuitous that you picked that particular question, as it's one I think I have the ability to address. The idea is that we should do away entirely with "innate" as a word, because there's no particular reason to say, "This is innate, that is not." Genes are something that a human zygote (and later, infant) has - but their expression is modified, altered, controlled, and influenced by a literally endless list of environmental factors, from nutrient densities to social environment later in life. Basically, it says, nothing exists in isolation. <br /><br />So in a developmental system, genes don't work according to the Central Dogma of Crick and Watson. There's nothing like: genes (genotype) -> transcription, translation -> amino acids -> proteins -> phenotype (the way the organism is). Instead, genes are just one of many things that contribute to the phenotype - along with social cues (why are you blushing? did your genes just change?), electrochemical cues, etc. etc. <br /><br />While this is mostly a theory, there is strong, consistent evidence of the fact that epigenetic modification (non-genetic factors that change gene expression) are stable and heritable. So genes, while you're born with a certain set, produce one outcome in one environment and a different outcome in another (search for anything on methylation). <br /><br />So, to extend this to language, while exaggerating as little as possible: we aren't born with "innate" anything, nor to we "learn" everything as we go along. There is a massively complex, interdependent system of factors ranging from genes to physical environment to linguistic and social environment that allow children to learn to make use of a complex method if information transfer, which is different from, say, pheromone-level communication only cosmetically. This, if you take it seriously, applies Occam's razor swollen to the size of a battering ram to the innate-learning-mechanism-versus-innate-hierarchical-phrase-structure issue. Both are irrelevant, because language is not a faculty, or a single contiguous ability, or even a single entity in any sense. Body language, smells, immediate circumstances, tone, vocal contour, and so on are not auxiliary to a phrase, they are part of it. But that's a different argument. Basically, language is construed not as a regularized series of rules and symbols and so on, but as a dynamic method of communication. Words and phrases are only part of the process. After all, you can never achieve fluency learning rules and exceptions, not with a human brain (which makes room for C-3PO, thank god).<br /><br />Sorry I've been so verbose. Hopefully you skipped to the end and are not horribly bored.Matthew Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15153450989030444934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-19281949419333813262011-08-28T10:18:18.337-04:002011-08-28T10:18:18.337-04:00@Matt: I haven't read this particular paper, t...@Matt: I haven't read this particular paper, though I've heard similar arguments. I'm not sure I completely understand them, and I suspect people may be talking past one another. For instance, take the claim that there is nothing innate, only genetic, environmental, and social factors (among others). What definition of "innate" is being used such that genetics isn't innate?GamesWithWordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15107067137612954306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-77961985389425321952011-08-23T10:39:33.456-04:002011-08-23T10:39:33.456-04:00oy. Reed's paper is 1997, not 2007. Sorry. Was...oy. Reed's paper is 1997, not 2007. Sorry. Wasn't thinking.Matthew Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15153450989030444934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-45930589539639048682011-08-23T10:36:36.617-04:002011-08-23T10:36:36.617-04:00What are your thoughts on people like Edward S. Re...What are your thoughts on people like Edward S. Reed who argue (see his 2007 paper, The Ecological Approach to Language Development: A Radical Solution to Chomsky's and Quine's Problems) who essentially argue that the Nativist/Empiricist debate is founded in the wrong presuppositions, and that we should instead adopt a ecological perspective?<br /><br />Th idea basically appeals to the idea of a developmental system, wherein there is no "innate" anything, just the combination of factors (i.e. genetic, environmental (biochemical), social (social), etc.) that result in particular developmental patterns. By this view, language is not a unique, distinct faculty or capacity but rather non-separable part of a complex information sharing and processing system, that most humans end up developing in pretty similar ways because we all get raised in pretty similar ways.<br /><br />I am an undergrad studying linguistics and neuroscience, and I would be delighted to hear your thoughts on the matter.Matthew Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15153450989030444934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-49197409290935324682011-08-14T03:21:23.830-04:002011-08-14T03:21:23.830-04:00What is remarkable here is the poor grammar exhibi...What is remarkable here is the poor grammar exhibited by the original author. The word "data" is the Latin plural of the word "datum", which means "that which is given". In formal or scientific writing, "data" should always be used as a plural.<br /><br />Thus, instead of "very much data", it should be "very <i>many</i> data", and "little data" should be "<i>few</i> data".<br /><br />Also, different languages have different preferred word orders. I learned in my Bar-Mitzvah lessons that ancient Hebrew used <i>verb-subject-preposition-object</i> (although modern Hebrew uses a more English-like word order); and I have read that in heavily inflected languages, such as Latin, you can mix up the words and the sentence will still make sense.<br /><br />I also have a problem with Bayesian analysis. I remember my frustration with the then-popular search engine Alta Vista. I would start a search, and Alta Vista would go off on a tangent and give me results that did not match my needs. I would then reframe the search, using more specific terms, but Alta Vista would be stuck in some kind of Bayesian hysteresis and give me results reflecting its previous misunderstanding of what I was trying to ask. Then Google came to the rescue, and Alta Vista is now part of Yahoo.Joshua Zev Levin, Ph.D.http://www.levicar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-6284010306307715242011-08-11T00:59:43.361-04:002011-08-11T00:59:43.361-04:00I wasn't suggesting "the world is not ran...I wasn't suggesting "the world is not random" as an explanation. I was suggesting it as a rephrasing of the question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-1916415579187081572011-08-05T19:56:09.699-04:002011-08-05T19:56:09.699-04:00None of the above.
There are patterns in the inp...None of the above. <br /><br />There are patterns in the input. Perfors shows, under certain assumptions, those patterns can be learned. But why do those particular patterns exist, rather than some other patterns? <br /><br />"The world is non-random" is not an explanation, any more than it is an explanation of why apples fall or light behaves sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave.GamesWithWordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15107067137612954306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-22601824557491910692011-08-05T12:41:41.004-04:002011-08-05T12:41:41.004-04:00ok, maybe you can help me understand this, because...ok, maybe you can help me understand this, because I've heard your question at the end, but I'm not sure I understand it.<br /><br />You are not really asking, "why is the world not random?" right?<br /><br />Are you asking, "why is language input not random?"<br /><br />or maybe something more like, "why is language input optimalish?"<br /><br />none of the above? =)<br /><br />-ecl.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com