List: Just a brief comment on Professor Everett wide-reaching scientific assertion that appears to me to subscribe too and pontificate about CSP writings with respect to realism of scientific phenomenology.
> On Jul 18, 2023, at 1:44 PM, Thomas903 <ozzie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dan, > > I wanted to comment briefly on a sentence from your earlier posting: > "ChatGPT simply and conclusively shows that there is no need for any innate > learning module in the brain to learn language.” Human language is widely regarded as a vehicle of communication between individuals. The possibility of human linguistic communications requires necessarily both a speaker and a listener. Both are necessary; one without the other is insufficient. My comments seek to explore three well-differentiated aspects of the possible interpretations of this conjecture. First, it is obvious to most philosophers that a common mother tongue is the foundation of human culture and that the capability to speak and understand the same tongue is essential to normal human communication. The natural genetic potential of a new-born does not entail instantaneous linguistic proficiency. This assertion must be explored from this perspective. Secondly, CSP referred to the critical notions of the distinctions among token, type and tone on the interpretation of signs and signals. Learning these distinctions are necessary for analysis of pragmatic realism associated with human communication. In her well-grounded work, Logic-Language-Ontology, Professor Ursula Skardowska demonstrates the roots of forms of understandings between speaker and listener in terms of Peircian tokens and types. In order for verbal communication to occur, both participants need experience with tokens, types and tones as described by CSP. The inscription of semantic terms in both minds is essential for the precise reproduction of meaningful terms.This assertion must be explored from this perspective. Thirdly, CSP developed his trichotomy for the communication of the factual foundations of natural sciences. Such communications are functions of the knowledge bases associated with the internal semes of the individual minds. Historical sensory experiences are necessary to ground the relationships among the scientific symbols used to express the tokens, types and tones of scientific communication. This assertion must be explored from this perspective. WRT specifically ChatGTP, I would ask two simple questions: 1. Under what situational circumstances would subscriptions to the algorithm correspond to circumscriptions of natural descriptions (such that the intentions of questioners’ sentences inscribed in the responses of the algorithm) ? 2. How do human communicators inscribe meaning into words (as logical terms) such that the presentation to the recipient corresponds with the re-presentations of the speaker? Cheers Jerry
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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.
