[Longwelwind]

Can't you consider that knowledge is a function of previous data? In your example, the 2 individuals actually didn't receive the same amount of data because the English speakers received data previously that allowed him to build some kind of "knowledge" that allows him to solve specific related tasks (understanding a spoken sentence). This would be the equivalent of transfer learning where "knowledge" is a model trained on previous, more general, data.

[mjburgess]

Nope, it's never a function of data -- because data is always ambiguous. It is never possible just to infer the conceptual model of the data from the data alone.

Animals solve this problem by having bodies and moving around. It is that we take the bent stick out of the water which allows us to impart a theory to the "data" we receive... a theory implicit in our actions.

Since we are causally active in the world, sequenced in time, and directly changing it -- our bodies enable us to resolve this problem. The motor system is the heart of intelligence, not the frontal lobe -- which is merely book-keeping and accounting for what our bodies are doing.

[a_square_peg]

Yep. Perhaps what I should have written is that much our knowledge is tacit in nature. We implicitly understand that things we can sense are limited projections of the real world and are able to derive mental model of what that reality might be more or less. Chomsky also talks about this notion of separating mind and body as an incorrect approach to understanding human intelligence which I think aligns with your view.

The notion that 'all we need is data and data is all there is' seems to summarize a lot of ML sentiments.