Anastasios, I wasn’t really that interested in the article – I wouldn’t make much of it. The key thing is simply what it attests - the existence of sign language as an alternative to – (and, one might add, *precursor* of ) - alphabetic language. Put that alongside the fact that pictographic and then ideographic language also precede alphabetic language historically. Put that alongside how sign language also works to whatever extent with animals. They-re useful and important pieces of evidence.
But you don’t really need them There is no way to do real world inference by language (i.e. symbolic language). The “language of language” – its underlying base – couldn’t possibly be still more symbolic language. There is no way to infer how one object in the real world interacts with another via language. You think you can explain whether a foot fits a footprint in the sand by looking at the “letters (and possibly numerals) for those objects in a database?. “Let’s see: F-O-O-T and F-O-OT-P-R-I-N-T. And both are “12 inches long” Yes obviously this foot made that footprint.” You think that’s how real world and scientific inference work? Looking at letters/words/names and not the real things? Just sit at home with your database and never look at the objects in the field? You and many others are subject to a mad (as in – divorced from reality) – illusion . The illusion springs from how people *appear* to be doing inference by language. A detective looking at that case, may just say in language: “Yes you can clearly see this foot fits the print...” What you’re not noticing is that he is simultaneously physically and imaginatively fitting shoe to print – fitting the objects together – and that precedes the words. And without that physical fitting together of objects, there can be no words. The words don’t come first, they come second. There is only one universal “language” that runs through,and underlines, all sign systems and all forms of conceptualisation, including symbolic language. Graphics/ figures. Inference always proceeds by “figuring out the connection” – comparing how and whether the figures of objects connect – not whether their names fit - (and indeed comparing whether the font of the words on the page fits the fonts of the word in your brain, before you can even recognize them as words). From: Anastasios Tsiolakidis Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 8:46 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Step One towards the real lingua franca of brain/AGI On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: The results suggest that participants extended their linguistic knowledge from spoken language to sign language. Mike, you are overselling the article, it is neither real nor first. It's a bit of a rehash of Universal Grammar, and the language of language is grammar of course: the unlikely expressive richness of subject object verb adverbs adjectives. You stir-fry a mix for a few seconds and you get god-like power, neat trick, no? AT AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
