1. Constant vs contingent vs inconsistent vs non-relations.
  2. Recursive Continuous Disambiguation vs Scale of Set of Constant Relations(density)
  3. Cumulation of association vs falsification of associations
  4. Computational efficiency.
  5. State Persistence vs breadth search, vs depth search
  6. We cannot know the intelligence of distant ancestors.
  7. Planning a series of steps in sequence must emerge – which requires recursion.
  8. Consciousness must emerge, meaning, the ability to compare states.
  9. Cooperation must emerge, meaning, the ability to empathize with intent.
  10. At some point we must develop sufficient computational ability to manipulate our bodies in some way that allows for unambiguous communication, or a means of continuous disambiguation, that is fast enough for one another to make use of in real time, and easy enough for one another to retain.
  11. And at some point, given sufficient computational ability, memory, and state persistence independent of recursion, language must emerge.
  12. At some point the value of such communication much be such that the cost of it is offset by the rewards of it.
  13. And we should see a cliff in history where there is a dramatic change when we did develop those abilities. And we do see it – rather recently.

But language requires a system of measurement. The system of measurement is limited by our senses. And as such meaning refers to a set of measurements, eventually reducible to analogies to human experience.

So while semantic content (measurements) must vary from species to species, grammar (continuous recursive disambiguation) should be universal in the sense that it varies predictably with computational abilities.

We can understand a child, a person with 60IQ, 70IQ and so on, up to 200+ IQ. But as far as I can tell the set of measurements (basis of semantics) remain the same, and all that changes is the scope of the state persisted, the depth of recursion, and the density and distance of relations, and the ability to model (forecast). In other words, simple people are in fact simply ‘more simple’ in the density of content of their semantics, use of grammar, and models (Stories) that they can construct with them.

So universal grammar as a set of computational minimums and efficiencies, should always exist, and human universal grammar as universal grammar limited to human measurements (semantics), does exist. And any organism with sufficient computational (neural) capacity, should develop some means of communication using some variation of universal grammar, and some sense-perception – action dependent semantics.

May 29, 2018 4:28pm