He’s talking about linguists that utilize computational theory of mind using symbolic manipulation ala 1950s era mainframes. The ‘violence’ for him is neural networks and self-emergent systems.

He’s talking about linguists that utilize computational theory of mind using symbolic manipulation ala 1950s era mainframes. The ‘violence’ for him is neural networks and self-emergent systems.

But then men would become holy and sacred. You could make a religion out of this.

“Once upon a time, a creature roamed the earth, known as man. [insert characteristics that scare the small children but when they get older they rebel and want to know more].”

Of course it’s also possible that men would go the way of the snergleflaut.

I respect him as a linguist that was transformatonal for computational lnguistics and AI. He was the right man for the job from the 1950s-mid 1970s for that but started getting in the way in the 80s when he started fighting neural networks and connectionism.

But it was around the 80s he started getting political. A lot. A whole lot. I could handle a toned down Chomskian politics maybe but he’s too much in one corner for my liking.

====

His views were too hard-wired… and he inspired Pinker, who I respect in anything else *except* in those areas that he has in common with Chomsky, both of whom seem to see the mind as ancient telephone switchboard.

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


5 − three =

Leave a Reply