Philosophy Now Forum

I believe one of Chomsky's positions with respect to language is that since it is the case that human beings brought up in a society can learn and understand the language of any other human society of any human civilization if they are born and raised in it, then that shows that all humans are of the same "species". If it were not the case that we all share a common grammar and syntactical structure (as Chomsky seems to assert), then what does that say of LLM AIs?

If it can be said that a computer understands and learns a human language, does that make it a "species" of human being? What about an alien race from another planet? If an alien race from another planet could decipher human language, then does that make them of the same "species"? Or what if human beings ever learn and fully understand the language of dolphins? Would that make human beings and dolphins the same species? And if not, then is it true that all humans are the same species by virtue of being able to learn and understand the same human languages?

Or is it the case that it must be an innate ability to learn a language from birth that makes all humans the same species? Presumably, we cannot learn Dolphin language from being born and raised around dolphins. But a human infant can learn any other human language if born and raised around any other group of humans. So if a newborn baby of an Aboriginal family born and raised in a tribe in Australia were born and raised in London, that baby would be able to learn English like a native Londoner. Is that correct?

not all humans have the ability to use language

non linguistic autistics are common

-Imp

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:30 pm
Or is it the case that it must be an innate ability to learn a language from birth that makes all humans the same species? Presumably, we cannot learn Dolphin language from being born and raised around dolphins. But a human infant can learn any other human language if born and raised around any other group of humans. So if a newborn baby of an Aboriginal family born and raised in a tribe in Australia were born and raised in London, that baby would be able to learn English like a native Londoner. Is that correct?

The answer to the last question is yes. Certainly the baby can any human language. But I suspect the reality is any "language". Consider if a human child is raised by parents who do not share a language. We see what happens as the child learning two human languages, but what the child is learning (until it later learns differently) is that has learned ONE (non-existent) human language where the rules of the language are such that women speak one way and men another.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:30 pm I believe one of Chomsky's positions with respect to language is that since it is the case that human beings brought up in a society can learn and understand the language of any other human society of any human civilization if they are born and raised in it, then that shows that all humans are of the same "species". If it were not the case that we all share a common grammar and syntactical structure (as Chomsky seems to assert), then what does that say of LLM AIs?

If it can be said that a computer understands and learns a human language, does that make it a "species" of human being? What about an alien race from another planet? If an alien race from another planet could decipher human language, then does that make them of the same "species"? Or what if human beings ever learn and fully understand the language of dolphins? Would that make human beings and dolphins the same species? And if not, then is it true that all humans are the same species by virtue of being able to learn and understand the same human languages?

Or is it the case that it must be an innate ability to learn a language from birth that makes all humans the same species? Presumably, we cannot learn Dolphin language from being born and raised around dolphins. But a human infant can learn any other human language if born and raised around any other group of humans. So if a newborn baby of an Aboriginal family born and raised in a tribe in Australia were born and raised in London, that baby would be able to learn English like a native Londoner. Is that correct?

I don't know why you are always citing Chumpsky. He's been proven wrong in multiple ways, but he's so arrogant and full of himself that he would rather die (not soon enough) than admit to being wrong.

Species (a purely biological term) is perhaps wrong.

Humans are a social animal that has had "culture" probably longer than we have been human (say perhaps back to our common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos). Our cultures co-evolve with us, and at a rate far faster than our biological evolution. But although not biological, we cannot survive without it. We are not orangutans (solitary primates). We are not gibbons (nuclear family primates). The enlightenment thinkers who imagined primitive man living in isolation and then coming together simply did not understand our species could NOT survive that way. We depend on the co-operative group.

Part of our culture is language, And yes, all normal human babies born primed to learn one or more << sorry, while an autistic baby born into a band of normal pre-humans might survive, a band of autistic pre-humans would not survive >> But I think Chomsky wrong when he imagines the innate recognizers the baby is born with are for recognizing specific patterns, grammars, etc. I rather suspect more like "recognize ANY patterns, grammars".In other words, if its not random, in what way is it not random.

What the adults speaking different languages around the baby might see happening is "learning more than one language at a time" but from the baby's point of view, one language with strange rules (and only much later learns are different languages). Compare to human languages where men and women use different words, etc. As a matter of fact, in most cultures babies hear a special "baby language" when addressed to them than they hear being used between the adults around them.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 8:03 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:30 pm I believe one of Chomsky's positions with respect to language is that since it is the case that human beings brought up in a society can learn and understand the language of any other human society of any human civilization if they are born and raised in it, then that shows that all humans are of the same "species". If it were not the case that we all share a common grammar and syntactical structure (as Chomsky seems to assert), then what does that say of LLM AIs?

If it can be said that a computer understands and learns a human language, does that make it a "species" of human being? What about an alien race from another planet? If an alien race from another planet could decipher human language, then does that make them of the same "species"? Or what if human beings ever learn and fully understand the language of dolphins? Would that make human beings and dolphins the same species? And if not, then is it true that all humans are the same species by virtue of being able to learn and understand the same human languages?

Or is it the case that it must be an innate ability to learn a language from birth that makes all humans the same species? Presumably, we cannot learn Dolphin language from being born and raised around dolphins. But a human infant can learn any other human language if born and raised around any other group of humans. So if a newborn baby of an Aboriginal family born and raised in a tribe in Australia were born and raised in London, that baby would be able to learn English like a native Londoner. Is that correct?

I don't know why you are always citing Chumpsky. He's been proven wrong in multiple ways, but he's so arrogant and full of himself that he would rather die (not soon enough) than admit to being wrong.

Chomsky has a lot of followers in the third world. He's their hero because he's critical of neo-colonialism. Everything he writes his followers gobble up. He's a phenomenon, a charismatic sage for them. I keep tabs on him because so many others do.

A PS on our built in pattern recognizer(s)

This is something we have for senses other than just hearing and we have this in common with other animals.

It is "skewed". Likely to err on the side of seeing a pattern when really random. Take sight. The animal looks at a bush and between leaves see things of another color. Do these bits and pieces match the pattern for some predator behind the bush. Or is it just random blobs. Far less costly to err on the side "seeing" predator, not random (but it really was random) , than to err on the side "random, no predator (but there was a predator there). In other words, we should expect evolution to result in a skewed pattern recognizer. << note: I am using "seeing" to mean both reception of the image and interpretation by the brain >>

Well I am saying the "hearing" of a human baby is detecting patterns in the sounds made by the adults around it. Also probably erring on the side of seeing patterns where none BUT the "entropy" (the extent to which not random -- how information theory uses the term) of all human languages so far from random that the real patterns will be learned and the false ones not (not being reinforced because not being repeated).

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 2:05 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 8:03 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:30 pm I believe one of Chomsky's positions with respect to language is that since it is the case that human beings brought up in a society can learn and understand the language of any other human society of any human civilization if they are born and raised in it, then that shows that all humans are of the same "species". If it were not the case that we all share a common grammar and syntactical structure (as Chomsky seems to assert), then what does that say of LLM AIs?

If it can be said that a computer understands and learns a human language, does that make it a "species" of human being? What about an alien race from another planet? If an alien race from another planet could decipher human language, then does that make them of the same "species"? Or what if human beings ever learn and fully understand the language of dolphins? Would that make human beings and dolphins the same species? And if not, then is it true that all humans are the same species by virtue of being able to learn and understand the same human languages?

Or is it the case that it must be an innate ability to learn a language from birth that makes all humans the same species? Presumably, we cannot learn Dolphin language from being born and raised around dolphins. But a human infant can learn any other human language if born and raised around any other group of humans. So if a newborn baby of an Aboriginal family born and raised in a tribe in Australia were born and raised in London, that baby would be able to learn English like a native Londoner. Is that correct?

I don't know why you are always citing Chumpsky. He's been proven wrong in multiple ways, but he's so arrogant and full of himself that he would rather die (not soon enough) than admit to being wrong.

Chomsky has a lot of followers in the third world. He's their hero because he's critical of neo-colonialism. Everything he writes his followers gobble up. He's a phenomenon, a charismatic sage for them. I keep tabs on him because so many others do.

Hmm. Just googled 'neo colonialism' (against my better judgement) and of course I'm none the wiser now. That's the trouble with meaningless, manipulative buzzwords--they don't actually mean anything. And why would you keep citing chumpsky just because he's (according to you) 'idolised in third world countries'? What exactly is a 'third world' country anyway? Your own country is full of homeless people who have no access to proper health care. That's what you call 'freedom' over there. Is India 'third world'? It's one of the richest countries--rich enough to have nuclear weapons. I'm sure Indians have better things to think about than going around hero-worshipping some rich American. Chumpsky is an American so he must be an evil 'neo colonialist' too

I don't think Chomsky's point was ever to show that all human beings belong to the same species. The idea is rather that our ability to learn any natural language through exposure as young children shows that we all share the same innate capacity for language. I don't think there has ever been any question for Chomsky of someone/something gaining membership in a species by learning a language.