Does anyone have a criticism of Anton. Anyone think he is too tunnel visiony to consider certain details? Corey makes no distinction between human language and recursive human language. With this oversight he continues a promulgation of discourse about linguistics which leads to wrong headed conclusions. For example the idea that we humans (all humans) have the capability to count. And that this ability is a description of what it is to be human. Why this is wrongheaded is because our ability to count is a description of a culture most humans, but not all are "caught up within". There is a significant difference between thinking that One learns to count from within any language, which is Anton's contention, And awakening to a spoken language where the native speakers Cannot count, even when speaking with speakers who can count. If this continues unchecked, Followers of Anton will be mislead into following upon the premise that all language speakers can count. Or sense infinitudes. He may even brush over this as if it is a non issue. sigh. Anton like Chompsky may have followers believing their capability to embed variables into one another is a definition or capacity of their physiology, opposed to a definition of the language/ culture they are brought up within. (Not) accepting (recursive) language as the base. This is in question. Has Anton confused oral speaking languages as non recursive? If so we are still not on the same page. Anton NECESSARILY involves recursive practices as being a definition of being Human. If one can read this statement or watch this video they are caught up within recursive language. They also know "innately" how to count. I say this because he thinks ALL language speakers count. It is demonstrably evidenced to the contrary. See Daniel Everett's work on the Pirah language. This language has no recursive properties. To restate: Recursive language is something we are 'caught up in'. Since we are 'caught up in' we have the capability of accessing & utilizing it's attributes. Such an attribute is counting-math,embedding. etc. 'the recursivity of language' is not an expression of our human faculty. This is shown to be the case because there are humans who speak language which is not recursive. These people cannot count to 6. Non recursive language speakers cannot learn math. Or they would be recursive! Anton continues to believe that counting is innate to any forms of oral or written languages. Recursive ability is capacity of our faculty. It is not an expression of it. How to state this? See comments on his vid here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUWsL5lOUPw ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tILJ6Z6fFJI

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjXPVFmjj7k

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa-MgwoxAcE

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGY_RzxMMV0