language development-infant

25 views
Skip to first unread message

SCN User

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

In a previous article, ljmi...@iquest.net (Laura J Miller) says:

> I am hoping someone can help me, or at least direct me
> to some literature.........

> As a neurobiology graduate student, I have taken great
> interest in the neurodevelopment of my one year old
> baby (sigh, no longer a baby.....toddler). [...]

http://www.newciv.org/Mentifex/ is the archival Website of a lin-
quistic theory of mind based in part on ideas about infant speech
and language development. For instance, the Mentifex mind-model
attempts to explain a "spiral" of the infant acquisition of vari-
ous parts of speech, e.g., first nouns, then verbs, in a looping
spiral where the infant learns to build up standard (Chomskyan)
sentence structures. The following mind-diagram is an overview:

Theory of Child Language Learning
/^^^^^^^^^^^\ (spiral of additions & deletions) /^^^^^^^^^^^\
/visual memory\ semantic ________ / auditory \
| /--------|-------\ memory / syntax \ | speech stream |
| | recog-|nition | \________/<--|-------------\ |
| ___|___ | | flush-vector| spiral| _______ | |
| /image \ | __|___ ___V___ loop| /stored \ | |
| / percept \ | /deep \<-----/lexical\<---|--/ phonemes\| |
| \ engrams /<--|-->/concepts\--->/concepts \---|->\ of words/ |
| \_______/ | \________/ \_________/ | \_______/ |

Arthur T. Murray

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

In follow-up, stri...@primenet.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) says:

> Arthur T. Murray <ba...@lafn.org> wrote:
: Theory of Child Language Learning


: /^^^^^^^^^^^\ (spiral of additions & deletions) /^^^^^^^^^^^\
: /visual memory\ semantic ________ / auditory \
: | /--------|-------\ memory / syntax \ | speech stream |
: | | recog-|nition | \________/<--|-------------\ |

: | ___|___ | | flush-vector| | _______ | |
: | /image \ | __|___ ___V___ | /stored \ | |


: | / percept \ | /deep \<-----/lexical\<---|--/ phonemes\| |
: | \ engrams /<--|-->/concepts\--->/concepts \---|->\ of words/ |
: | \_______/ | \________/ \_________/ | \_______/ |

> The flush vector is actually perfected after the third year when
> they potty train... :-) :-) :-)

With my B.A. degree in ancient Greek and Latin I could have devised
a fancier term based on the Greek verb "skedannumi" ("to scatter"),
but "flush" meaning "to chase from a place of concealment" is fine.

In this mind-model of how a baby learns language, a syntax-node for
nouns forces out or "flushes" out the most highly activated lexical
concept among all the nouns which have taken residence in the mind.

Then the focus of linguistic control loops (spirals) back around to
a verb node and the infant says "Train go" or "Bird fly" or "I go."

The same spiral loop which generates sentences permits the addition
of new elements in the syntactic tree, or the deletion of erroneous
speech-patterns used by the child in a transition to proper speech.

Thanks to: any child psychologist who can help publish this model.

Arthur T. Murray

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

Spiros Triantafyllopoulos <stri...@primenet.com> wrote:

> [...] This is fascinating. Back in '84 I was a graduate student
> studying computer science, and of course, back then being the
> golden era of AI, I decided to do a (restricted) natural
> language processing program for my thesis.

> [...] If the unknown word was defined in terms of known words
> and relationships, it was added to the knowledge base.

Arthur T. Murray <ment...@scn.org> respectfully admits:

Thanks. Your initial article was an invitation for my posting of
details of a theory of mind in newsgroups germane to linguistics.

It sounds as if your language program was more sophisticated than
the Project Mentifex Mind.rexx program as of its 26.NOV.1994 most
recent version, but it is also possible that Mind.rexx, strictly
based on a rigorously speculative theory of mind, may incorporate
data-flows and logic-structures more promising for the AI future:

Theory of Child Language Learning
/^^^^^^^^^^^\ (spiral of additions & deletions) /^^^^^^^^^^^\

/visual memory\ interassociative ________ / auditory \
| /--------|-------\ memory / syntax \ | speech memory |


| | recog-|nition | \________/<--|-------------\ |

| ___|___ | | flush-vector| spiral| _______ | |
| /image \ | __|___ ___V___ loop| /stored \ | |


| / percept \ | /deep \<-----/lexical\<---|--/ phonemes\| |
| \ engrams /<--|-->/concepts\--->/concepts \---|->\ of words/ |
| \_______/ | \________/ \_________/ | \_______/ |

http://www.newciv.org/Mentifex/ run periodic Mentifex Web search.

David G. Mitchell

unread,
Feb 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/10/97
to

In article <1997Feb9.1...@lafn.org>,

Arthur T. Murray <ba...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>Thanks. Your initial article was an invitation for my posting of
>details of a theory of mind in newsgroups germane to linguistics.

Is there anything you _don't_ regard as an invitation
to post your picture yet one more nauseating time?

SCN User

unread,
Feb 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/10/97
to

David G. Mitchell deserves a response (below) to his objection:

> Arthur T. Murray <ba...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks. Your initial article was an invitation for my posting of
>> details of a theory of mind in newsgroups germane to linguistics.

> Is there anything you _don't_ regard as an invitation
> to post your picture yet one more nauseating time?

Please consider the rationales in descending order of importance:

1. The purpose of this never-before-seen-in-history worldwide fo-
rum is the exchange of ideas in an atmosphere of free speech.

2. Ideas suppressed in traditional forums will not here be silenced.

3. Antipathy to the unexamined message forces the issue of its truth.

4. It is easier to react against than to originate a theory of AI.

5. Since the Minsky-McCarthy Newell-Simon "founding fathers" AI
conference at Dartmouth in 1956, the long wait may now be over.

6. The Mentifex diagram of the public-domain theory of mind is
little larger than a signature but epitomizes 14 years of work.

7. Many germane posts cry out for a repetition of this message:

/^^^^^^^^^^^\ Concepts Interrelating With Words /^^^^^^^^^^^\


/visual memory\ interassociative ________ / auditory \

| /--------|-------\ memory / syntax \ |episodic memory|


| | recog-|nition | \________/<--|-------------\ |

| ___|___ | _V__flush-vector| spiral| _______ | |
| /image \ | /core\ ___V___ loop| /engrams\ | |
| / percept \ | /"self"\<-----/lexical\<---|--/ "you" \| |
| \ engrams /<--|-->/ "self" \--->/nonverbal\---|->\ "I" / |
| \_______/ | \ "other" )<--\concept- /<--|---\"I" / |
| | \"other"/---->\router /--->|--->\"you"/ |
| | \_____/ \_____/ | \___/ |

Patrick Juola

unread,
Feb 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/12/97
to

In article <E5EF...@scn.org> ment...@scn.org (SCN User) writes:
>> Is there anything you _don't_ regard as an invitation
>> to post your picture yet one more nauseating time?
>
>Please consider the rationales in descending order of importance:
0. The Mentifex idea is fundamentally worthless.

>
>1. The purpose of this never-before-seen-in-history worldwide fo-
>rum is the exchange of ideas in an atmosphere of free speech.
>
>2. Ideas suppressed in traditional forums will not here be silenced.

Damn. I keep hoping.


Sean Walton - D26

unread,
Feb 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/13/97
to

Strange... You use the same language and diction as the one
who nauseates us. I propose that you and he are the same
person with aliases (I hate aliases--they are lies).

The purpose of this forum is to express ideas, this is true.
But no one wants to listen to a windbag vaunt himself over
unrelated responses. If you have an idea, present it as an
idea. In fact usenet etiquite states that you should use:

RFD: <your idea here>

"RFD" stands for "Request for discussion". Don't use somone
else's plea for help as your opportunity to blither. If it
weren't for the remote fact that you _are_ speaking about
the group, I would accuse you of spamming.

-Sean Walton, KB7rfa
PS. _I_ don't hide behind aliases. YOu can check for
yourself--these are my credentials.


In article <E5EF...@scn.org>, ment...@scn.org (SCN User) writes:
>
> David G. Mitchell deserves a response (below) to his objection:
>
> > Arthur T. Murray <ba...@lafn.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks. Your initial article was an invitation for my posting of
> >> details of a theory of mind in newsgroups germane to linguistics.
>

> > Is there anything you _don't_ regard as an invitation
> > to post your picture yet one more nauseating time?
>
> Please consider the rationales in descending order of importance:
>

> 1. The purpose of this never-before-seen-in-history worldwide fo-
> rum is the exchange of ideas in an atmosphere of free speech.
>
> 2. Ideas suppressed in traditional forums will not here be silenced.
>

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages