[erik_seaberg]

If the brain actually used language to represent ideas in use, we should have succeeded in finding its https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar. Instead it seems more like language is a kind of lossy compression we keep reinventing for ideas, to export them from a brain in some tangible way and get them into another (even in the future).

[Folcon]

Hmm, I'm not sure if that holds?

Just because you use a mechanism for expressing your ideas and reasoning, doesn't mean that underlying reality has to confirm in any way to it?

We invent new symbols and terms all the time as we experience new phenomena. A universal grammar may still be possible, barring incompleteness anyway, we may just be lacking a whole bunch of ideas still...

[bottom999mottob]

@erik_seaberg the lack of success in finding a universal grammar is a logical leap. The failure to find something does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist. Language is powerful for expressing abstract ideas without explicitly saying them, which suggests language more than "lossy" compression because it's more similar to Shannon's lossless compression with prefix codes. I see where you're coming from though.

@Felcon If language is a mechanism for expressing ideas and reasoning, it should reflect our cognitive processes that generate those ideas, so " [...] Just because you use a mechanism for expressing your ideas and reasoning, doesn't mean that underlying reality has to confirm in any way to it" is a bit contradictory. Are our cognitive processes not included in reality?

The existance of a universal grammar is a specific hypothesis that requires empirical evidence. It's tiring to hear Chomsky's ideas parroted despite no empirical framework to stand on. What ideas could we be lacking? This argument is similar to String Theory proponents who kept pulling ideas out of the ether to support an unsubstantiated theory.

[Folcon]

Firstly I meant conform btw, not confirm... Unfortunately it's too late to edit!

> Are our cognitive processes not included in reality?

Ah, this may not be productive, but I'm really just trying to tease apart different things.

Of course our cognitive processes exist in reality, however I would say there's nothing that requires that what they produce must materially map to reality.

We do not for example treat dreams as evidence, even though they run on our cognitive processes.

> It's tiring to hear Chomsky's ideas parroted despite no empirical framework to stand on.

To be honest, I had no idea I was doing that...

> What ideas could we be lacking?

I'm not claiming a lack of any specific ideas, I'm merely pointing out that considering that we do know that we invent terms for phenomena that we experience and I doubt that we have been exposed to even the majority of all phenomena, it seems unlikely that we can casually refute the existence of a universal grammar.

Absolutely, proving it does require evidence, which is in short supply and if I was pressed, I would suspect that it's existence is unlikely, but not impossible.

Now just to be clear, I don't mean that this is kind of reasoning can be useful for much else, but with regards to attempts to find some complete unification such as a universal grammar. In those specific cases things become a little fuzzier and reasonable people can disagree.