display all the ideas for this combination of texts
6 ideas
3171 | Children speak 90% good grammar [Rey] |
Full Idea: Ninety percent of most young children's utterances are grammatical. | |
From: Georges Rey (Contemporary Philosophy of Mind [1997], 4.2.4) | |
A reaction: This is good evidence for some sort of innate element in the grammar of language. But the accurate grammar is not in a particular language. Good communication must be the driving force in all this. |
3174 | Good grammar can't come simply from stimuli [Rey] |
Full Idea: Grammatical sensitivity is in no way a physical property of the stimulus, and we can't imagine how to build a device which would produce grammatical structures in response to the environment. | |
From: Georges Rey (Contemporary Philosophy of Mind [1997], 4.3) | |
A reaction: You could try to program it with a set of (say) Aristotelian categories, and mechanisms to sort the environment accordingly. It then has to query its database, in response to practical needs. A doddle. |
3170 | We train children in truth, not in grammar [Rey] |
Full Idea: Very young children have been shown (Brown and Halon 1970) to be 'reinforced' not for their grammar but for the informational content of what they say. | |
From: Georges Rey (Contemporary Philosophy of Mind [1997], 4.2.1) | |
A reaction: This is what you would expect. It doesn't follow that the grammar comes from innate mechanisms, because the pressure to get the information right could impose increasing accuracy in grammar. |
3213 | Animals may also use a language of thought [Rey] |
Full Idea: The language of thought need not only be confined to creatures which speak a natural language. | |
From: Georges Rey (Contemporary Philosophy of Mind [1997], 10.1.1) | |
A reaction: I take it as axiomatic that our brains are no different in principles and fundamental mechanics from the lowliest of creatures. See Idea 7509. |
3215 | Images can't replace computation, as they need it [Rey] |
Full Idea: Processing of images and mental models seems to require, and therefore is unlikely to replace, computation and representation. | |
From: Georges Rey (Contemporary Philosophy of Mind [1997], 10.1.2) | |
A reaction: A good point. If you are a fan of mental imagery, you still have to explain how we can hold an image, or recall it, or manipulate it. I always, I don't know why, wince at the thought of 'computations' among neurons. |
3194 | CRTT is good on deduction, but not so hot on induction, abduction and practical reason [Rey] |
Full Idea: The computational/representational theory of thought has given a good account of deduction, but mechanical theories of induction, abduction and practical reason are needed in order to make a machine which could reason. | |
From: Georges Rey (Contemporary Philosophy of Mind [1997], 8.5) | |
A reaction: This is the best analysis of rationality that I have found (four components: deduction, induction, abduction, practical reason). I can think of nothing to add, and certainly none of these should be omitted. |