Hi Pei, > The topics where I agree with Cassimatis: > > *. "humans use the same or similar mechanisms for linguistic and > nonlinguistic cognition" > > *. there are "dualities between elements of physical and grammatical > structure" > > *. "Infant physical reasoning mechanisms are sufficient to infer > grammatical structure"
I agree on these points but I feel that the third point subtly bypasses the most important issue. I think that infant physical reasoning uses the same reasoning rules and the same basic inference control strategies as any other kind of reasoning. Thus, I think the third point holds absolutely only in a somewhat uninteresting way. I don't think that the example he gives of whole-versus-part dominance transferring from the physical to the linguistic domain is very representative. I think that there are going to be plenty of linguistic phenomena that cannot be dealt with via any simple mapping from heuristics relevant for understanding the physical world. Nevertheless, I think these linguistic phenomena can be dealt with using the same reasoning rules and inference control strategies as are used for reasoning about physical phenomena. > *. the notion of "physical reasoning/inference" --- I understand why > he used the phrase, and he wasn't the one to coin it, but it still > sounds weird to me > > *. "Dualities between elements of physical and grammatical structure" > --- He still uses predicate calculus, which lacks support for concepts > with internal structures. Term logics will do much better here. > > *. "Long-distance dependencies and apparent motion" --- The duality > here is much less natural than the others. I agree with you on all these points Ben ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
