How did human language originate?

[untermensche]

So what is your point again about linear presentations creating a hierarchical system of "rules"?

My point is that you haven't demonstrated the factuality of your claim (unless you genuinely consider bold to be proof); and that you cannot, because you are simply, and laughably, wrong.

The existence of relational databases that can run on a single CPU is a clear demonstration that what you assert to be impossible is actually happening.

You haven't done your homework, and it shows.

You have absolutely no business talking about these matters, and it shows.

It is a philosophical point that is beyond dispute.

If the linear presentation of language is the cause of the language capacity you could not have a system of universal hierarchical "rules". It assumes nothing and stands alone.

You might think you can dismiss Chomsky's and others work without even knowing one thing about it, or reading one book or even article about it.

But that is the height of ignorance.

But prove me wrong.

Show me what Chomsky means by hierarchical "rules".

 

[bilby]

My point is that you haven't demonstrated the factuality of your claim (unless you genuinely consider bold to be proof); and that you cannot, because you are simply, and laughably, wrong.

The existence of relational databases that can run on a single CPU is a clear demonstration that what you assert to be impossible is actually happening.

You haven't done your homework, and it shows.

You have absolutely no business talking about these matters, and it shows.

It is a philosophical point that is beyond dispute.

If the linear presentation of language is the cause of the language capacity you could not have a system of universal hierarchical "rules". It assumes nothing and stands alone.

You might think you can dismiss Chomsky's and others work without even knowing one thing about it, or reading one book or even article about it.

But that is the height of ignorance.

But prove me wrong.

Show me what Chomsky means by hierarchical "rules".

Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.

If you can't support your claim, then it fails. Even if it's in bold.

 

[untermensche]

You have absolutely no business talking about these matters, and it shows.

It is a philosophical point that is beyond dispute.

If the linear presentation of language is the cause of the language capacity you could not have a system of universal hierarchical "rules". It assumes nothing and stands alone.

You might think you can dismiss Chomsky's and others work without even knowing one thing about it, or reading one book or even article about it.

But that is the height of ignorance.

But prove me wrong.

Show me what Chomsky means by hierarchical "rules".

Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.

If you can't support your claim, then it fails. Even if it's in bold.

I am not asking you to prove anything beyond knowledge of a person's work.

If you want to make comments on the theories of hierarchical structures you should know something about them.

I don't think you do.

 

[fromderinside]

So you wish to let your response to relational databases running on a single computer to be proof your 'it's impossible' statement is false then?

 

[untermensche]

So you wish to let your response to relational databases running on a single computer to be proof your 'it's impossible' statement is false then?

We're not talking about CPU's or computers.

This is about humans.

 

[fromderinside]

Now there's an irrelevant insight. Thanks.

 

[bilby]

So you wish to let your response to relational databases running on a single computer to be proof your 'it's impossible' statement is false then?

We're not talking about CPU's or computers.

This is about humans.

You need less Chomsky and more Turing.

The funny thing about mathematics is that it actually includes proofs. They are better than theories; and WAY better than philosophical musings.

 

[untermensche]

We're not talking about CPU's or computers.

This is about humans.

You need less Chomsky and more Turing.

The funny thing about mathematics is that it actually includes proofs. They are better than theories; and WAY better than philosophical musings.

What are you talking about?

Chomsky's work on language is highly influenced by Turing's work on computation.

You should just stop. The more you spew the less credibility you have.

 

[untermensche]

Now there's an irrelevant insight. Thanks.

I was hoping for something beyond absolutely nothing in defense of your nonsense.

 

[fromderinside]

Again you slander instead of taking the challenge. Whod'a thunk.

 

[bilby]

You need less Chomsky and more Turing.

The funny thing about mathematics is that it actually includes proofs. They are better than theories; and WAY better than philosophical musings.

What are you talking about?

You need less Chomsky and more Turing.

Chomsky's work on language is highly influenced by Turing's work on computation.

No shit, Sherlock.

You should just stop. The more you spew the less credibility you have.

I'm not sure why you imagine that I care how credible you find me. Your opinion on the subject of my credibility is no better than your opinions on so many other topics you pontificate upon while knowing little about.

 

[untermensche]

First you say we need Turing not Chomsky as if they are in any kind of opposition.

Then when you are told the facts, that they are not, you pretend you knew it all along.

Your comments are worthless.

Really you have nothing to say here.

You are way over your head.

But you are such an asshole that doesn't stop you.

You don't have the slightest clue what Chomsky means by "hierarchical" structure. You don't know one thing about any of his work on language.

Go away and read a book.

 

[fromderinside]

... and on another sour note our gladiator for Chomsky abandons the stage in favor of asking another to read. I wonder what Turing had to say about that. Maybe he'd have said "if it's impossible its impossible" rather than saying something about computing not being relevant to what humans do with language.

 

[untermensche]

... and on another sour note our gladiator for Chomsky abandons the stage in favor of asking another to read. I wonder what Turing had to say about that. Maybe he'd have said "if it's impossible its impossible" rather than saying something about computing not being relevant to what humans do with language.

This anti-Chomsky pouting is a phase. Popular with some today, but it will be gone tomorrow.

I do not ask anybody to do anything.

I just expect people that want to talk about a person's work to actually know something about it.

I don't think Turing's work on computation is in conflict with Chomsky's work in the least. That is who Chomsky learned about computation from. Chomsky has an advanced level of mathematical education and understanding.

 

[fromderinside]

The point being made is that Turing has proofs for relational databases being used to develop infinite hierarchies on a computer. You demur saying |not talking about computers ...talking about humans". Actually bilby provided the example of relational databases doing hierarchical infinities using databases after a Turing mathematical proof where you claim only man can do that because Chomsky sez so. Chairs are meant to have more than one leg sir. When you stand on a one legged one you are going to fall. Oh wait. Chairs are meant to have more than one leg sir. When you stand on a one legged one you are going to fall. There fixed it so you will understand.

 

[untermensche]

The point being made is that Turing has proofs for relational databases being used to develop infinite hierarchies on a computer. You demur saying |not talking about computers ...talking about humans". Actually bilby provided the example of relational databases doing hierarchical infinities using databases after a Turing mathematical proof where you claim only man can do that because Chomsky sez so. Chairs are meant to have more than one leg sir. When you stand on a one legged one you are going to fall. Oh wait. Chairs are meant to have more than one leg sir. When you stand on a one legged one you are going to fall. There fixed it so you will understand.

So lets try to make sense of this.

Turing developed the basic understandings of computation and computers.

Therefore what?

What is his relationship to the human language capacity?

Mathematical proofs?

I do not have clairvoyance.

Here Chomsky takes on the so called "computational cognitive scientists" and makes them look like fools.

 

[bilby]

First you say we need Turing not Chomsky as if they are in any kind of opposition.

No, I don't. I said "You need less Chomsky and more Turing." (bold in the original). That's not in any way an implication that they are in opposition; Just that you are weighting their contributions inappropriately.

Then when you are told the facts, that they are not, you pretend you knew it all along.

LOL. You don't know the facts; and you certainly don't know what I do or do not know.

Your comments are worthless.

Really you have nothing to say here.

You are way over your head.

But you are such an asshole that doesn't stop you.

Are you talking to a mirror?

You don't have the slightest clue what Chomsky means by "hierarchical" structure. You don't know one thing about any of his work on language.

Go away and read a book.

Your arrogant assumption that you have clue one what I do or do not know is unsurprising, as you appear to revel in making claims you cannot possibly support.

 

[untermensche]

Yes I understand. You are rubber.

You still don't give one reason to discount Chomsky.

Or one reason to think Turing has anything significant to say about language.

 

[fromderinside]

The point being made is that Turing has proofs for relational databases being used to develop infinite hierarchies on a computer. You demur saying |not talking about computers ...talking about humans". Actually bilby provided the example of relational databases doing hierarchical infinities using databases after a Turing mathematical proof where you claim only man can do that because Chomsky sez so. Chairs are meant to have more than one leg sir. When you stand on a one legged one you are going to fall. Oh wait. Chairs are meant to have more than one leg sir. When you stand on a one legged one you are going to fall. There fixed it so you will understand.

So lets try to make sense of this.

Turing developed the basic understandings of computation and computers.

Therefore what?

What is his relationship to the human language capacity?

Mathematical proofs?

I do not have clairvoyance.

Here Chomsky takes on the so called "computational cognitive scientists" and makes them look like fools.

We were talking of Chomsky's claim for unique human capacity. Turing demonstrated a mathematical proof through which one can realize infinite organizational capacity with relational databases.

Chomsky poof

 

[lpetrich]

(To someone else here)

When you can explain the universal hierarchical nature of human language come back.

Until then you have nothing.

Hierarchical understandings cannot arise from linear presentations.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean.

I think that hierarchy was already part of our unconscious modeling of the world, and that it was co-opted for parsing language, likely with increasing complexity over time.

In computer programming, there is a similar problem: serializing and deserializing data structures. Serializing is placing a data structure's contents in linear order for storing on a disk or transmitting over a network, and deserializing is restoring that data structure from that serialized version.