Post #2384212

2026-04-18 19:21 UTC

@ngaylinn@tech.lgbt I'm a generative linguist by training, and my main focus/expertise is syntax. Based on the body of evidence I'm familiar with, I tend to think that the mind is symbolic—i.e. we have innate procedures that manipulate symbols. I'm somewhat agnostic as to the extent to which those symbols are innate, but I think they all must have some innate basis—perhaps what you referred to as "constraints." In my younger days, I did extend this to how I viewed "AI"—I was somewhat hostile to ANNs and though GOFAI didn't get a fair shake—but now I view CogSci and AI as two different sorts of fields, and the success or failure of a particular type of "AI" says almost nothing about whether the human mind is structured anything like that particular type of "AI."

Replies (1)

@ngaylinn@tech.lgbt 2026-04-18 19:55

@thrilway@kolektiva.social Gotcha! I suppose by "constraints" I primarily mean things like: our visual system perceives a limited slice of EM radiation as an arbitrary color spectrum, or our scent receptors get wired up directly to our memory. However, I think we also have minds constrained to prefer thinking with certain systems of concepts. Like, we perceive scenes with objects and actors, trajectories and intents. I would put "native symbol manipulators" in the same bucket, without necessarily saying we have any innate symbols or even a finite space of grammars. I certainly agree that AI and CogSci are very different fields with different goals, but I lament that. I wish AI was more concerned with principles of intelligence generally, and how artificial and natural forms of it relate. Especially now, since the most interesting frontiers are how these things intersect. GOFAI was fundamentally flawed, but so are LLMs without logic and facts. Or feelings, for that matter! Another of our innate constraints.

Open ##2384213