Genomic study: our capacity for language emerged at least 135k years ago
phys.org
phys.org
There's nothing in there saying there wasn't language before, nor why it shouldn't have been present much earlier. Early enough that e.g. Neanderthals could equally well be covered.
Now where is the threshold when we consider something a proper language and something... less lets say I don't know. Science probably doesn't have a clue neither. The evolution was probably very gradual, ie every 1000 years the complexity grew up by a notch, on average. Compound it to a million years.
The qualitative differences between human languages and any animal "language" (scare quotes intentional) include recursion and breadth of vocabulary, and likely a lot of other things to. Recursion and the ability to learn a large vocabulary are probably biological and unique to us, the other things might or might not be unique to us
As for the article itself, I'm not sold. The analysis was about narrowing down to find the most recent regional split in our genetics, with the assumption that language formed before humans split across regions. That would work if we assumed the capability to develop language rested largely on genetics. If a lot of animals could develop a language, then the explosion of human language could come from imitation when one regional group without a language meets another with a language.
>"Human language is qualitatively different because there are two things, words and syntax, working together to create this very complex system," Miyagawa says. "No other animal has a parallel structure in their communication system. And that gives us the ability to generate very sophisticated thoughts and to communicate them to others."
I have seen a lot of ideas about human mental exceptionalism fall apart. It wouldn't surprise me to find out in a few years that dolphins developed syntax.
A lot of humans probably ignore it too. Most don't even ever heard about phonology, which is more fundamental to language than syntax.
As for phonology, languages have that (even signed languages), but I don't see it as being more fundamental than syntax or semantics. Indeed, while some writing systems have something analogous to phonology (context-sensitive letter shapes, as in Arabic script, but also in Greek), some don't. And it's possible to learn written language without any spoken language--deaf people do that.
The title is wrong.
> Neanderthal-derived genes descend from at least 2 interbreeding episodes outside of Africa: one about 250,000 years ago, and another 40,000 to 54,000 years. Interbreeding also occurred in other populations which are not ancestral to any living person [0]
... which makes me think that it's more likely that both populations had the genomic capacity for language all the way back in the first "episode" 250k years ago as well (but to be clear, I'm saying it seems more likely to me, not that we can safely assume this must be true) .
Yes, I know that "humans are impossibly horny" is a bit of a meme, but we're not just talking about sex here, but about having offspring that is successful enough within then-existing society over many generations, to the point where the Neanderthal DNA was absorbed into the common gene pool and survived all the way to this day.
It seems very unlikely to me that that would happen unless both species were on a comparable level of mental capabilities. So we either both evolved language capabilities separately around similar times somewhere after 250k years ago, or already had the basis for it before our ancestral populations split and then later met again.
I think it true(ish) that in a model strongly aligned to a single root language the point of segmentation is the last point language seen in all post-fragmented states can exist. But I don't see why that is also the first point. It's just the one we can detect genetically. There will be some subsequent genetic evidence perhaps to a specific structural change in the brain, or vocal chords, or something else, indicative of language emergence.
If holographically defined families tools pre-date this time, then abstract concepts were being communicated, even if not vocally. Show-and-tell has limits and I would argue strongly suggest concepts inherent in language existed to communicate how to do the tool making.
Our bodies are mammalian in the basic pattern, but we are clearly distinct in ability. It wasn't 6000 frickin years ago, but there was a creation event where we instantaneously diverged from pure animal life.
Mitochondrial Eve traces us to our root. Thanks again, science!
1. Clearly false (what words do you use when you plan to throw a ball to a target?)
2. There is no reason to believe other animals are incapable of abstract thinking (although we can clearly see they are far less intelligent)
3. I don't know what your long screed about bigotry and religion has to do with language ability
Just imagine how slow university-level maths would be if you had to do all the thinking in words in your head.
Sorry if I sound rude, but this is such a common misconception people believe in, and it's so blatantly not true so I'm baffled people keep on claiming it is 'scientific' to believe that language is identical to intelligence. No wonder some people insist LLMs are just weeks away from becoming AGIs.
If a monkey can do it, it's not very abstract.
At work I do a lot of design thinking. I don't use words for that either, that comes later when I document the thing.
Understanding the physics or logic behind complex moving pieces does require abstract thinking, but that's not what your brain does to perform physical feats.
We saw them, practiced dealing with them, then became proficient, or not.
I see, and I agree.
> And when programming. No words involved, until I write the documentation.
Your variable names must be horrible ;-)
I do get your point about visualizing software relationships in the design phase, though. I'd still say, as a 40+ year programmer, that we can never escape the concept-words that are the foundation of programming, e.g. types, variables, functions, classes, encapsulation, pipeline, executable, etc.
Even if we are not consciously thinking of the terms, my guess is that, at a certain level of proficiency, we are using them at a kindof subconscious level.
It's an interesting meta-topic, and I won't say you're wrong, but we've certainly stumbled into a mostly unexplored land where no map yet exists. That's why programming is so challenging, difficult, and fascinating.
Peace be with you, friend.
Look at my other example - maths. How do you reason about solving mathematical problems rapidly with words? Many mathematicians visualise abstract problems without using words, only using words later to attempt to write more thorough proofs.
That's physical, not abstract. Our entire body's neural net is used to develop those physical skills. When it comes time to catch or throw a ball, no abstract thinking is involved, just doing.
If you want to study the physics of throwing a ball, then you need abstract thought, but not for just practicing it.
> 2. There is no reason to believe other animals are incapable of abstract thinking (although we can clearly see they are far less intelligent)
And there is reason to believe they're capable of abstract thinking?
> 3. I don't know what your long screed about bigotry and religion has to do with language ability
Because we communicate abstract ideas to one another via language. Once we acquire a mind-topic, we can then focus on it, as per our desire and mental focusability. That's why programming is so difficult.
But we can also contemplate our moral basis with respect to another mind-topic that teaches us how to abstractly evaluate it. It can be called religion or ethics or whatever. But we navigate our choices against whatever we deem permissible or impermissible, desirable or repellant. And we can self-evolve that basis against which we make our choices. It's an essential aspect of human nature, and it requires abstract concepts such as compassion, harm, happiness, sadness, kindness and anger, to name but a few.
> Just imagine how slow university-level maths would be if you had to do all the thinking in words in your head.
Just imagine how uni-level maths would be if there were no abstract concepts being taught with actual words.
Are you saying that not only did your maths education only use diagrams, but that no verbal explanation was involved?
> Sorry if I sound rude, but this is such a common misconception people believe in, and it's so blatantly not true so I'm baffled people keep on claiming it is 'scientific' to believe that language is identical to intelligence.
It's not rude, but it is just wrong. For one, I never said it was identical to intelligence. Intelligence is evaluating an abstract concept net to attempt to evaluate how a particular concept relates to it.
Abstract concepts are built on the same logical network that facilitates our ability to process and produce language. How we build and utilize our ever-evolving network results in abilities that we call intelligence.
> No wonder some people insist LLMs are just weeks away from becoming AGIs.
That's not me, brother. I'm not even on the LLM hype train, much less think they're going to facilitate AGI. They probably have a few niche uses, but that's my take on all the LLM stuff.
Abstraction is about generalising beyond the physical objects we experience. The ability to understand the physics behind how objects work is abstract, but it's a low enough level of abstraction that even simple animals are capable of it.
> Just imagine how uni-level maths would be if there were no abstract concepts being taught with actual words.
Language is pretty good for communication, obviously.
> Are you saying that not only did your maths education only use diagrams, but that no verbal explanation was involved?
My driving test also used language to convey the lesson. But I don't talk to myself before I decide which direction to turn the wheel...
> Abstract concepts are built on the same logical network that facilitates our ability to process and produce language.
Overlap, certainly. Anything else is conjecture.
No, it's a physical coordination of our body's neural net that connects our senses, brain, nerves, and musculature to perform coordinated feats. It's the direct opposite of abstract: it's concretely physical. And we share this neural net wetware wiring with our cousins, the animals.
There is nothing abstract about pulling your hand off the stove, but describing anything requires abstract concept-nets.
> Language is pretty good for communication, obviously.
It's essential for communicating abstract concepts, as well as contemplating them.
> My driving test also used language to convey the lesson. But I don't talk to myself before I decide which direction to turn the wheel...
That's because you have taught your wetware how to physicalize the concept net's decision tree by learning how to recognize the inputs and coordinate the proper responses. Lather, rinse, repeat.
> Overlap, certainly. Anything else is conjecture.
Anything that can be named exists as an abstract mental concept; that's what a concept is. The map is not the territory, because it is abstract, because the map exists only in our brain, even if we learned its contours from a paper document. That's what makes it abstract, because we have abstracted it to a mental concept, where its name refers to a network of other names in a describable way.
That is how langauge is built up from literally nothing but our elders' repetitive descriptions of objects and their interactions, kinda like typed values and functions where the typing describes their relationships to other typed values and functions. And the relationships are abstract concepts, too.
Thanks for this interesting philosophical discussion. Peace be with you.
And of course, LLMs generate perfectly reasonable natural language without any "universal grammar", or indeed, much structure beyond "predict the next token using a lot of transformer layers."
I'm pretty sure that most of Chomsky's theoretical model is dead at this point, but that's a long discussion and he's unlikely to agree.
As for LLMs, at present they require orders of magnitude more training data than children are exposed to, so it's unclear they have anything to say about how humans learn language.
Here are some key resources on language psychology and acquisition:
1. "Language in Mind: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics" by Julie Sedivy - Covers basic concepts and neural basis of language
2. "The Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker - Classic work on language acquisition and development
3. "Foundations of Bilingual Memory" by Heredia & Altarriba - Explains why early exposure shapes sound perception abilities
Writing system changes mainly affect literacy, less so speech. The brain processes spoken and written language somewhat separately.
For deeper research, look up "phonological acquisition" and "critical period hypothesis" in scientific journals.
--
Would appreciate human input on these topics as well. Thanks.
#2 is more of a polemical book, maybe not the best if you want a fair summary.
#3 I've never heard of.
Huge question, but there's not really a lot of data to go on. There do seem to be some things that are a lot easier to learn when you are very young.
> why is it easy for me (as someone who grew up in the East) to learn guttural sounds of Arabic
It all has to do with the speech sounds you're exposed to when you're young.
> Does the writing system affect speech, and if yes, then how?
Probably not. Very little if so. The main effect would be preserving old speech forms of the language to some extent, if the writing is phonetically based.
> What are some known neuroscientific tricks (for adults, not kids) for acquiring specific languages?
The most important thing is lots of exposure and practice and also the way you're practicing the language should be as close as possible to how you will actually use the language. There aren't any massively effective shortcuts.
If you grew up hearing certain sounds, it will usually be easy for you to hear and produce those sounds, whether it's the sounds of Arabic, click languages, or English (as native speakers of Chinese or Japanese know wrt the sounds made by 'l' and 'r'). Infants hear all the distinctions, but they tend to lose the ability as their brain learns their first language (or first and second in bilingual homes). To some extent you can, however, pick up the distinctions up to around puberty. And adults who have studied phonetics (all the sounds used by all the languages of the world) can generally learn to hear and produce those as well.
Writing systems generally do not change the spoken language, as evidenced by the way English is written, which bears only some relationship to the spoken language (and often only to the way English was spoken hundreds of years ago).
In order to to learn another language, linguists study phonetics (as mentioned above), as well as phonology, morphology, syntax etc. I can say from experience that these help. I don't think I'd call these subjects "neuroscientific", just linguistic.
Even strict list of changed genes could be extremely helpful for AI progress.
Second difference, natural I are feed-forward network, not back propagated as typical AI NN, because natural use some chemical method to "calculate" parameters.
I think, with right structure and some FF method, GAI is already technically achieved.
PS FF NN already exist, but problem that it now using classical method of differential equations which is prohibiting real use, because too much computation need.
They are less specialized than brains, but compensate millions of years of evolutionary adaptation with a larger corpus of text, about the same size as 11,000 people use in their lifetime, assuming 1B words/human.
Interestingly, humans needed 10 million times more text for cultural evolution, based on an estimate of 110 billion humans who ever lived.
So making progress is millions of times harder than catching up.
Could you provide source, where exists this 10 million times more text?
- Text which is not stored on some material carrier is just forgotten.
Largest old text system I know is Confucianism. It is huge, but very far from 10 million times 1B.
Other known text systems are all much smaller than Confucianism.
Now, the training set of GPT-4 was around 14T tokens, let's say 10T words. If you divide them you get around 10 million.
But why do you think that all 110B individuals have made significant contribution to overall intelligence?
I think, at best case, in every generation exists few significant contributors, but all others are just carriers of genome diversity and nothing more, and all they have done, just disappear as a breath of wind.
So, for 200k years, if one generation 40 years, will be just 5000 generations, ok, lets consider significant 1000 persons from each generation, will be just 5millions, 5 magnitudes less than your estimation, and BTW much closer to known estimations of humanity knowledge and size of datasets used to train largest existing models.
Plus, they have thousands of multimedia carriers (cinema, music, etc) and one time was archived all tweets for history preservation.
But all multimedia and tweets are much less volume than texts, but added few additional dimensions, hard to express with text.
Phylogenetic Analysis has been fairly successful already in analyzing our genetic history, so I'm not sure why you'd think it's impossible.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/78o048/did...
>As a quick point and this is quite a late response, having the same FOXP2 gene may not be enough. New evidence suggests
>Using statistical software that evaluates gene expression based on the type of gene, Vanderbilt graduate student Laura Colbran found that Neandertal versions of the gene would have pumped out much less FOXP2 protein than expressed in modern brains. In living people, a rare mutation that causes members of a family to produce half the usual amount of FOXP2 protein also triggers severe speech defects, notes Simon Fisher, director of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who discovered the gene.
But, as I could see, only humans have so significant language culture that lead to great number of manuscripts.
I will even accent - little number of humans write books, but near none other species do this.
We don’t know, as you note. But the genetic evidence combined with tool use and their large Supra-orbital indices (fairly big brains, if shaped differently than ours) all would make that the preferred prior I’d say.
The most likely explanation for the Fermi paradox is just that high intelligence is incredibly rare.
Why are we here? Because we are having this conversation over a global digital network. The universe is probably full of bubbling mats of bacteria.
I suppose language requires a means of communication and someone to communicate to at a minimum. Although actually we think in a language so I guess we don’t need someone to communicate to.
Then maybe language creation just requires the right sort of thoughts?
Edit:
I should have read the article first LOL!
They say as much:
> "Language is both a cognitive system and a communication system," Miyagawa says. "My guess is prior to 135,000 years ago, it did start out as a private cognitive system, but relatively quickly that turned into a communications system."