From: Joscha Bach Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 7:29 PM To: Jeffrey Epstein Cc: Barnaby Marsh Subject: Re: Thank you, Jeffrey! This is from Noam, right? I would be very interested =n reading the responses of linguists and computational language =odelers to this. May I forward it to a friend at Google X? Some notes: > basic assumptions about human language that should I think be =ncontroversial, extensively discussed elsewhere, then turning to a =ample of challenges. A person's language is an internal =ystem, part of human biology, based on configurations of the brain, =eveloping in each person through interaction of specific biological =ndowment (the topic of UG — universal grammar in contemporary =erminology), external environment, and general properties and =rinciples of growth and development that are independent of language. = As far as I understand, there is not yet an agreement among linguists =rt. UG, i.e. how much is innate vs. do humans just converge on the =implest type 3 grammar that is consistent with the constraints they =bserve in their local environment. I think Noam argues that we have =ery specific circuitry for language, whereas the other camp would =uggest that we are general learners, with specific rewards that bias us =owards compositionality and systematicity. OTOH, this might also be =ead as a variant of Noam's "Strong Minimalist ThesisQ=9D (SMT). The controversy will be eventually resolved by progress in building =ystems that learn natural language. > The acquired system is an "internal language" =I-language), a computational system that yields an infinite array of =ierarchically structured expressions that are interpreted at the =onceptual-intentional CI interface as, in effect, a "language =f thought" (LOT), and that can be externalized to one or =nother sensorymotor system, typically sound. Also relevant are some =onsiderations about evolution of language. > Little is known about the evolution of cognitive fac