Gosh she's lovely and so full-hearted in her research. And that idea is utterly interesting. I wonder if one should include this into didactics and how we start to learn foreign languages.
I had been looking for a good foundation for language learning when I learned about her work. I have a project where hopefully I can implement a better way to learn languages: painlesslanguage.com
@@coreygraham860 yes; the project was discontinued - starting a team collaboration was attempted at one point - perhaps something will be up someday there
Why is "people" a prime when it should probably be the combination of people+quantifiers? Is it hard-wired to make processing faster? An optimization to avoid processing people+many each time we think of people? For another problematic example, how does this supposedly innate list handle the contradiction that supposedly babies do not perceive themselves as "I", but rather part of their mother or their surroundings until at a later age? Is this primes list corroborated by brain analysis or historical data? Amazing interview. I'd love to know more about this.
One can't survey babies to completely confirm their inner experiences. But also, babies aren't finished products. For words to be innate doesn't necessarily mean that they are present in babies, because the innate process of maturation hasn't completed at the time of birth. Also, if babies did think in such a way as described, that doesn't imply that the 64 term mental language isn't present. The 64 terms might be present but as yet not applied properly, in thought, to the baby's personhood and environment.
@@jasonbernard5468 > innate process of maturation hasn't completed at the time of birth. Well from what I hear it doesn't complete before 25, but we still expect babies to speak much much earlier. In my case for instance I perceived myself (and cried ^^) after I could speak a little already. So I had overlapping atoms "I" and "mother" after I could already speak those atoms. It certainly makes sense that we'd be hard-wired to distinguish self and mother but the child+mother blob in children's consciousness is hard to conciliate with this, I find. > The 64 terms might be present but as yet not applied properly Sure that could happen too. It raises more questions though. I like the theory since of course we have hardware computation in our brains, so why not complex enough for rudimentary language blocks. It's just that the details escape me and the bold certainty she professes about these 64 atoms makes me dubious. I guess I'll have to read her book.
I have her semantics book from the 1990s. At the time I thought it was very wise if perhaps the underlying science was not very clear. Today I doubt NSM will ever have anything useful to say. Chomsky is still unapologetic for delying the progress but it does not matter. GPT and other latent/hidden layer ML models show we must heed Heidegger. I am afraid in time he will be recognized not only as philosopher but as a father of AI.
"7:36" -- "But the point is...there is shared human experience, common human experience, & apparently some concepts, which we find in all human languages, arise from common human experience."
