Helmut, There are only two claims here, one by Chomsky and one by Peirce.Although both use the term ‘instinct’ and ‘innate,’ these mean quite different things for both of them (there is a tendency to interpret Peirce’s (Hume’s, Locke’s, etc) use of “instinct” (and many other terms) anachronistically).
In any case, Chomsky claims that language is not learned, in fact that it cannot be learned. It is “acquired” via innate structure that emerges via triggering via the environment. Peirce claims that all knowledge, ontogenetic or phylogenetic (but that is often/usually misinterpreted as well) is gained via inference over signs. What ChatGPT has done (and the Piantadosi article is crucial to seeing this clearly, so I assume you have read it) is to show that language structures AND their meanings can be learned by inference over signs. ChatGPT does rely on LLM (Large Language Models) and children do not, but work is already being done to produce the results based on more realistic data bases. Now if any system can learn a language via inference over signs, Chomsky is wrong. QED. The question that arises, however, is whether ChatGPT (or computers in Searle’s Chinese Room Gedanken experiment) are inferring over indexes and icons or also symbols (human language is differentiated from all other communication system via the open-ended cultural production of symbols). This also challenges the Turing Test, as Searle points out when he also argues that a computer’s “understanding” is based on inference of indexes and icons rather than symbols (though he does not use such terms). I discuss these points at length in my forthcoming book and I will be giving a talk on this at Google’s headquarters in July. Another benefit of Peirce’s philosophy over standard linguistics comes into view when we consider what I call “Frege’s error.” As we all know Peirce and Frege were developing propositional and first-order logic nearly simultaneously. However, Frege’s axiom-based system proposes a crucial role for the Fregean concept of compositionality in language, whereas Peirce’s Existential Graphs provide an inferential, non-compositional model of meaning. In my forthcoming work (and in a few talks I have given recently in pro-Fregean linguistics departments (which is pretty much all linguistics departments) I argue that compositionality is too weak (it cannot extend beyond the sentence/proposition) and too strong (it creates faux problems such as the veritable core of most formal linguistics, “gap-filler” analyses, e.g. movement rules) whereas inferentialism provides the best coverage. Peirce’s inferentialism is similar to, but much more general, than Brandom’s inferentialism (also as developed by Peregrin). So Peirce, in my analysis, is right at the center of current debates on the nature of human language. I also make this point in my 2017 book, How Language Began (and Homo erectus scholar Larry Barham and I make this point based on much more archaeological evidence from Homo erectus sites: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10816-020-09480-9 All best, Dan > On Apr 20, 2023, at 4:47 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dan, if I would read all of Chomsky´s, and would not find him claiming, that > his genetic grammar-module is not based on logic, then I would have to quote > all he ever has written. The other way round would be easier. And: Refutation > is a strong accusation, and I think the prosecutor has the burden of proof. > Best, Helmut > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. April 2023 um 20:28 Uhr > Von: "Dan Everett" <[email protected]> > An: "Helmut Raulien" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], "Peirce-L" <[email protected]> > Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Chat GPT and Peirce > You’ll have to read your way through the literature. > > D > > On Apr 19, 2023, at 2:27 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dan, List, > > First i apologize for posting unrelated in the main thread. > > I appreciate your argument and find it a great insight. Now, is this a > refutation of Chomsky´s theory or not? A computer program perhaps does not > need such a module, because it can research and develop language from > universal (natural) logic with Peirce´s contribution to discovering it > included. But maybe the evolution of the brain works differently: There is no > direct, analytical reference to universal logic, I would say. Evolution is > all about viability. But of course, viability is greater if it is in accord > with universal logic. It then simply works out, while when not being in > accord, it doesn´t. But, with a direct link to logic missing, I guess for > evolution it is a good idea, to install viable, well tested routines for > modules from time to time, which are then inherited and give instructions. So > maybe humans do have a grammar module, although for a computer such a thing > is not necessary. Instead of "module" you may call it "instinct", i think, > like a bird knows how to build a nest without first logically pondering "What > should I do to have something to lay my eggs in?". So, all i wanted to > object, was, that all that is not a refutation of Chomsky´s work. That is, > unless he explicitly should have claimed, that this module/instinct is the > starting source/reference of language, and does itself not have a reference > to logic. Which would be absurd, i think. > > Best Regards > Helmut > > 19. April 2023 um 19:37 Uhr > "Dan Everett" <[email protected]> > wrote: > ChatGPT simply and conclusively shows that there is no need for any innate > learning module in the brain to learn language. Here is the paper on it that > states this best. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/007180 > > From a Peircean perspective, it is important to realize that this works by > inference over signs. > > Dan > > On Apr 19, 2023, at 12:58 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dan, list, > > ok, so it is like I wrote "or it is so, that ChatGPT is somehow referred to > universal logic as well, builds its linguistic competence up from there, and > so can skip the human grammar-module". But that neither is witchcraft, nor > does it say, that there is no human-genetic grammar-module. And I too hope > with the Linguist, that we dont have to fear ChatGPT more than we have to > fear a refrigerator. > > Best > Helmut > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ��� PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply > All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . ��� To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of > the message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ��� PEIRCE-L is owned > by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and > Ben Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply > All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of > the message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by > THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben > Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
