Why Only Us: Language and Evolution

Robert Berwick, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Simons Institute Special Seminar
simons.berkeley.edu/events/ro...

[@johansjons3510]

This is gold. Berwick's (and colleagues') work is great, in how it combines evidence from fields that traditionally have been far apart. (One minor mistake was that he attributed the work on Genie to the wrong Susan in 1:19:08. He meant to say Susan Curtiss, not Susan Godin-Meadow.)

[@ALavin-en1kr]

This puzzle proves that there was a prototype. Man was a special creation. The alphabet of the Sanskrit language, which is the mother of Indo-European languages, was given as actual sounds. Each letter of the alphabet is based on an actual sound. This lecturer is apparently unaware of this and most of this lecture is pure speculation. It would make more sense to start with an alphabet rather than with expressions.

[@NeilEvans-xq8ik]

Try as I might, I cannot find any reference to these ideas in discussions on artificial intelligence. Surely, if these ideas capture the essence of human thought, then a computer simulation of this process would form at least part of the constitution of an artificial person, right? I am connecting David Deutsch's ideas about "explicit knowledge" and "implicit knowledge ", which seem to correspond to the notions of the conscious and subconscious mind, with Richard Byrne's ideas on imitation in apes as linear behaviour parsing, and I'm thinking that Chomsky's ideas on this shift from the linear to the hierarchical structures of concepts via the recursive embedding enabled by Merge may allow for both the easy-to-vary and hard-to-vary explanations that Deutsch regards as the essence of human knowledge, whether explicit or implicit. I'm also going with Steven Mithen's idea that Merge emerged much earlier in human evolution than Chomsky assumes, specifically with Homo Erectus or thereabouts, gave rise to his notion of 'HMMMM communication ', which then in turn leads to the cultural stasis we see in human cultures from Erectus through to us, when compositional language was finally invented that gave rise to our modern capacity for relatively rapid innovation. This then harmonises these ideas with Deutsch's ideas on how human creativity must have evolved. Could consciousness, and any attempt to create it artificially, be the uppermost levels of these hierarchies of Chomsky's 'triangles'? If so, couldn't we tweak the ape-like probabilistic learning we see in ChatGPT-4 to create the first AGI? Please help me to understand where I am going wrong here! My guess is that I'm muddling up concepts that ought not be!

[@svengabelbart586]

min 1:15:00 Does anybody know the work they are talking about, i. e. the work on recursive rules in genomics? I would be very great full if anyone could point me to that work.

[@damienpkelly]

Why only us: mitpress.mit.edu/books/why-only-us

[@jamesquigley9762]

Language is our peacock's tail. Observe how adolescents form relationships. That's how babies happen.

[@marcverhaegen7943]

Why only us? Because of our special evolution, including our waterside past. The origins of human language are no mystery any more IMO if we use all available comparative information. Comparisons with non-human animals discern 4 or perhaps 5 biological preadaptations to human speech, which evolved at different times: (1) gibbon-like territorial duetting song in Miocene hominoids ("music", cf. Darwin already), (2) voluntary breathing, which began when early-Pleistocene Homo dispersed along African & southern Eurasian coasts, where they parttime dived for shallow-aquatic foods such as shellfish, (3) the possibility of closing the oral cavity at the lips, toothrow, palate, uvula, pharynx & larynx, probably for suction of soft & slippery seafoods (cf. labial, dental, palatal etc. consonants), (4) possibly brain expansion (if necessary for speech), made possible by the rich brain-specific nutrients in seafood (DHA, iodine, taurin etc.), (5) vocal learning (sound imitation), seen also in songbirds, parrots, dolphins etc., but not in apes (mostly adaptation for localizing family members?). Human laryngeal descent is composed of a descended larynx vs the hyoid bone (in all hominoids: apes & humans: an adaptation for territorial songs?) + a descended hyoid vs the palate (in human ancestors: an adaptation for suction of seafoods?). For more details & refs, please google e.g. "Speech originS 2017 Verhaegen".

[@humbertocamargo6275]

Philosophical anthropology: Man developed language in evolution when he perceives the object of desire in woman. (Essay Fragment)

[@adamclark1972uk]

Someone needs to tell those researchers that potatoes didn't exist until 1492

[@d7dh523]

Weak argument disappointing. Why you speculated according to biology theories you don’t have to do that. I don’t see physics depends on biology nor chemistry and mathematics

[@senecanzallanute4066]

I tend to lose confidence in a linguist when I find out he spells ''reasoning" wrong. :-)

[@johnnybee69]

Wrong is the wrong word.

[@senecanzallanute4066]

@@johnnybee69 Oh, you mean I should have used 'incorrectly' instead of 'wrong'? Pray, illuminate me...

[@johnnybee69]

@@senecanzallanute4066 Yes, or wrongly. Wrong is an adjective, not an adverb.

[@senecanzallanute4066]

@@johnnybee69Thank you for explaining that! Who would have thought. I talked wrong all my life. Ooops.

[@benweb1105]

Professor, if you like to actually learn something about language evolution, or if you like to find the 'fossils ' of human languages, than start by Lear Albanian language. Don't wast your life time confusing yourself and others. Read Petro Zheji books. "The Messianic role of Albanian language ".

[@stefanhensel8611]

@ Ben Web: Why? Granted, Albanian tells you a lot about the evolution of Indo-European languages. But other than that, in which way is it special?

[@deselby9448]

Wow! The fact that this guy is considered a linguistic expert is really embarrassing. Any real conversation about the genesis or evolution of language must address capacity and need. Capacity for language and need for language. If language is really a derivative of evolution then who had capacity for language when the first modern language was created? Specifically what were their ages? Who needed language the most when the first language was created. What was the capacity of the people that needed language the most? No mention of capacity or needs at all? Really? I have a lot of respect for Noam Chomsky but its embarrassing that he has associated his name with this junk.

[@d7dh523]

De Selby yeah i am disappointed also to bad

[@johansjons3510]

There's no argument in your comment. What're you getting at? Adaptation?

[@MrRobertbyers]

Appreciate the video but this is all wrong.Ffirst it ignores the bible saying adam spoke right away. Then it tries to turn a simple thing as language into a thing of profound genetic change. Then it ignores the power of the memory, within kids too, to simply remember the sound arrangements they hear quickly. There is no inbred language ability but simply a thinking ability. thinking came first and language is a primitive mechanical representation of complex thought. Its thoughts that organize and not language. We talk to ourselves before we can talk. Its impossible that our thoughts would not be organized before language. language simply mimics thought as music simply mimics tones of voice. it takes a creationist to fix things.

[@zombiesingularity]

+Robert Byers lol

[@gonggamshan]

I love your sarcasm!

[@marcverhaegen7943]

Why only us? Because of our special evolution, including our waterside past. The origins of human language are no mystery any more IMO if we use all available comparative information. Comparisons with non-human animals discern 4 or perhaps 5 biological preadaptations to human speech, which evolved at different times: (1) gibbon-like territorial duetting song in Miocene hominoids ("music", cf. Darwin already), (2) voluntary breathing, which began when early-Pleistocene Homo dispersed along African & southern Eurasian coasts, where they parttime dived for shallow-aquatic foods such as shellfish, (3) the possibility of closing the oral cavity at the lips, toothrow, palate, uvula, pharynx & larynx, probably for suction of soft & slippery seafoods (cf. labial, dental, palatal etc. consonants), (4) possibly brain expansion (if necessary for speech), made possible by the rich brain-specific nutrients in seafood (DHA, iodine, taurin etc.), (5) vocal learning (sound imitation), seen also in songbirds, parrots, dolphins etc., but not in apes (mostly adaptation for localizing family members?). Human laryngeal descent is composed of a descended larynx vs the hyoid bone (in all hominoids: apes & humans: an adaptation for territorial songs?) + a descended hyoid vs the palate (in human ancestors: an adaptation for suction of seafoods?). For more details & refs, please google e.g. "Speech originS 2017 Verhaegen".

[@marcverhaegen7943]

I'm very sorry for this repetition. Something went wrong apparently...

[@marcverhaegen7943]

I'm very sorry for this repetition. Something went wrong apparently...