From Chomsky on the Piraha:

“The language is “unique” because of the publicity it has received and the extravagant claims that have been made about it. Apart from that, it is very much like many other languages, as has been shown by careful scholarship. As a matter of simple logic, it would be impossible for the language to contradict any theory of mine, even if the claims about the language were true. The reason is simple: these theories have to do with the faculty of language, the basis for acquiring and using individual languages. That has always been clear, explicit, and unambiguous. The speakers of Pirahã share the common human language faculty; they are fluent speakers of Portuguese. That ends the discussion.

The primary claim of “uniqueness” is that Pirahã lacks recursion, which is, plainly, a core property of the human faculty of language. Suppose that the claim about Pirahã were true (apparently not). That would be a curiosity, but nothing more. Similarly, if some tribe were found in which people wear a patch over one eye and hence do not use binocular vision, it would tell us nothing at all about the human faculty of vision.”

https://www.lavocedinewyork.com/en/2016/10/04/chomsky-we-are-not-apes-our-language-faculty-is-innate/

For anyone curious.

Here and here [both pdfs] are some easy reading if you're interested in some rather straightforward critiques of the Chomskian paradigm. The long and short of it for me is that Chomsky's approach to language is evolutionary nonsense. Not only does Chomksy and his ilk almost entirely divorce language from function, but so too does he universalize utterly contingent aspects of language while at the same time making those aspects 'innate'. It's a Platonism of language that is, for me, indistinguishable from a theism. No one who takes evolution seriously can take Chomsky seriously.

Edit: A popular article by Vyvyan Evans, a summary of his book on the utter and complete waste of time that is Chomskian linguistics, can be found here, if you'd prefer some lighter reading: https://aeon.co/essays/the-evidence-is-in-there-is-no-language-instinct — StreetlightX

I would suggest reading anything by Chomsky rather than taking the word of these authors. I can't see how anyone remotely familiar with Chomsky believes this nonsense. For example:

"Talk of linguistic universals has given cognitive scientists the impression that languages are all built to a common pattern. In fact, there are vanishingly few universals of language in the direct sense that all languages exhibit them. Instead, diversity can be found at almost every level of linguistic organization. This fundamentally changes the object of enquiry from a cognitive science perspective."

This has nothing to do with UG. Absolutely nothing. Of course there's an enormous range of language diversity.

More:

"A widespread assumption among cognitive scientists, growing out of the generative tradition in linguistics, is that all languages are English-like, but with different sound systems and vocabularies. "

Utter nonsense.

"The claims of Universal Grammar, we will argue, are either empirically false, unfalsifiable, or misleading in that they refer to tendencies rather than strict universals."

If the language capacity is shared by all human beings -- in fact essentially defines human beings as a property -- and no other organism has this capacity, then there is certainly a unique genetic structure underlying it. How this can even be disputed or controversial is mind-boggling.

As far as the Piraha language: here's a good response:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/362672

Unfortunately, much of what you cite gets Chomsky completely wrong. To take one example:

"Further, because Chomsky has pronounced that language did not evolve"

Just this alone goes to show they've never read a word of Chomsky. Of course language evolved. It's difficult to see, however, how it evolved incrementally. So yes, it's possible that it appeared in one human a couple of hundred thousand years ago. Hence the sudden explosion of creativity that's seen at this time.

The long and short of it for me is that Chomsky's approach to language is evolutionary nonsense. Not only does Chomksy and his ilk almost entirely divorce language from function, but so too does he universalize utterly contingent aspects of language while at the same time making those aspects 'innate'. It's a Platonism of language that is, for me, indistinguishable from a theism. No one who takes evolution seriously can take Chomsky seriously. — StreetlightX

What utterly contingent aspects of language? What Chomsky is referring to with universal grammar is almost trivial, and should be uncontroversial, but has been consistently misunderstood. He's saying there's a genetic component to the language capacity, on par with the mammalian visual capacity. That's not an amazing insight.

I agree there are aspects of Platonism involved, which Chomsky himself acknowledges as "Plato's problem" and discussed in the Meno. I don't see what's theistic about that.

I'm basically of the opinion that if you take everything Chomsky said about language, and then held the diametrically opposite view to anything he ever wrote on language ever, you'd be roughly on the right track. Like, you couldn't ask for a better, more exemplary, utterly wrong way to look at language than from a Chomskian POV. — StreetlightX

That's fine. I'd be interested in hearing why you think that then.

I don't agree with that. A bees waggle dance is in no way "language," unless, as I stated earlier, you adhere to the belief that language is communication. I'm in no way convinced by that.

Evolutionary endowed language capacities evolved very slowly. (Chomsky can offer no real insights there...)... — VagabondSpectre

I disagree. In fact, it's very hard to see how the capacity for language -- a digital infinite system -- could have evolved slowly. You don't go from one word to an infinite number of words in gradual steps. The language capacity evolved through some sort of rewiring of the brain, no doubt, but it's more likely this happened in an individual 200,000 or so years ago.

What do you mean by system of thought? Are there multiple systems of thought, language being one? It looks like you're trying to distinguish between a "system of thought" and "communication". Is that correct or no? — Noble Dust

Yes, that's correct. What I mean by "system of thought" is one aspect of what we call "thinking." As I mentioned, we talk to ourselves constantly. Are you not thinking when you talk to yourself? I would say you are, but I wouldn't say that's the only form of thinking.

Because I don't understand what "system of thought" is supposed to mean, I'm not clear on how it differs from communication — Noble Dust

You're right, "system of thought" is rather vague, but that's because we understand very little about "thought" in general. Rotating an object in your mind's eye, which we can all do, doesn't necessarily involve language, for example. I know of some people who claim language and thought are the same thing, but almost no one who claims language (manifested in this case in just "talking to oneself") is entirely separate from thinking. So I say that language is one system of thought, one expression of thought.

Communication is something done with the sensorimotor system and is secondary.

So language as a system of thought is only used rarely because it’s only required on those rare occasions when needed — Brett

Language, as a system of thought, is used all the time. We're always talking to ourselves, as I mentioned.

What I trying to establish is whether language as a system of thought is used rarely because it has a specific role among other systems, or it’s used rarely because it’s inadequate for communication? Or it appears to be used rarely because it’s not communication? — Brett

When did I say it's "used rarely"? Communication is used rarely, yes. In my view, language and communication are not the same thing.

What is non-being if it is not being dead? You can't be dead really because you aren't anything when dead . There is nothing that it is like to be dead. There is only what it is like to be alive. Where there is life, presumably there is being. — Nils Loc

What is a dreamless sleep like? Is that non-being? In that case, you're interpreting "being" again in relation to a human being with a life, with perceptions and feelings etc., which come to an end in death. That's one particular entity (being) that ends, yes. That doesn't tell you much about being in general.

In many ways, what's considered non-being (as not being presently before you) is actually more common than being (as presence, which is what the philosophers have always interpreted it from the Greeks onward). What if, instead, being is considered something concealed, absent? A kind of "nothing" in a sense? We do seem to live most of our lives in a kind of "unconscious" (or in Heideggerian terms, "ready-to-hand") relation to the world--like when we're involved and engaged in the world, in a skill or with other people, or when totally absorbed in an activity.

Sure. But you’re feeling is that thought is communicated very rarely, and language is doing something else, except on those rare occasions. — Brett

I'm saying language is a system of thought. Not the only system. So in that sense, yes, this system of thought gets communicated very rarely.

What thoughts get expressed through the language faculty is almost always expressed to ourselves, internally. Just introspect for a while: you're constantly talking to yourself. How much of that gets communicated to others--through speech, or sign, or writing, or whatever-- is very rare indeed -- maybe 1%?

If talking to yourself isn't considered part of thinking, then I have no idea what thinking is. However, I wouldn't say language is synonymous with thought. I can imagine a scene without a verbal commentary, for example. But again, I've had friends who argue that language is thinking. Although I've never been fully convinced.

Do you mean thought is communicated very rarely? And very rarely, does that mean not very often or not very accurately? — Brett

I wouldn't say language is thought. But it does seem to be related to thinking. This is up for debate, of course, and an interesting question.

By "very rarely" I mean not very often, yes.

Didn't seem it. You referred to "non-being" as death or sleep. One wouldn't say that's non-being. Maybe a kind of nullity. The world goes on when you're dead or asleep, however.

Language is a system of thought. It's communicated very rarely, whether by sign or through speech. So it's communicative properties aren't what's essential. One can communicate with a hairstyle, bees with a waggle dance, etc. There are all kinds of ways to communicate, down through the insects. So language certainly isn't that.

It's not necessarily true that being ends in death. Human beings end in death. The light analogy is a good one, but WE'RE the light, not being.

A lot of people are afraid of hell. That's where the fear stems from. Hence the need for certainty about being after death. But it's a fear that's cultural, particular to the countries that take seriously the Christian dogma. It's hard to shake if you've grown up around people who do take it seriously. There's no intellectual or logical remedy for it.

Being and time seem to be interrelated. To say being is finite (or infinite) is a mistake. We need to know what being is before we assert a property to it. It does not seem as though being is a being--an object or entity. Thus it makes it difficult to talk about.

Heidegger has some different things to say about being, if you're interested.

I think it's more the fact that, much like Nixon, he went too far in attacking the Democrats, who have the power to fight back when they're the victims of his corruption. He could have just as easily, and more rightfully, been impeached for about 20 other things in the last three years.

To say the Democrats are doing this because they're afraid they can't win head-on is kind of a joke. Trump's victory was not a landslide. In fact it was rather narrow and a 1 in 4 shot. He lost the popular voted handedly. His approval ratings have been consistently low for three years. True, it's the democrats' election to lose -- again -- but I'd hardly say they're afraid they can't beat him. A much better case can be made about Republicans -- hence the attempts at voter suppression and extreme gerrymandering.

"God" is a meaningless term, essentially. If one defines it as a human-like invisible spirit somewhere "up there" in a different dimension, there's not the slightest reason to believe that, especially when you now have history and exposure to a wide range of world belief systems.

If "God" means something greater than human beings -- OK, fine. Why we call it "God" and not something less historically charged is another question. Why not call it "Brahman" or the "Apeiron," etc.? And who cares at that point, anyway?

The fact that people are even arguing about it is interesting. I wonder if in India they're arguing whether Shiva exists. Probably.

I really wish the Democrats wouldn't put so much energy into impeachment, knowing it's not going anywhere. The polls seem split on this issue, and not moving much, so that's not an argument. It being the "right thing" is nonsense, too. There were a thousand things to impeach Trump about - why this one, especially? Ask yourselves that question.