Isomorphism between
the Theory of Active Perception
and the Language of Thought
While working on the Theory of Active Perception, we have noticed that its structure is similar to that of a natural language (that is, a language used by people for communication). This similarity got us interested, and we dug deeper into the theories on the origin of language: in particular, we studied the works by Noam Chomsky, Jerry Fodor, Svetlana Burlak, and researchers representing allied sciences, as well as by philosophers who addressed the issues of information perception. And it is thanks to our Theory of Active Perception that we discovered the isomorphism between the Theory of Active Perception and the natural language. The structures of those two systems are isomorphic—that is, they are similar to one another.

Why is this isomorphism so important? Because, firstly, it confirms the Theory of Active Perception and, secondly, studying or analyzing the structure of the natural language will help progress faster towards studying the possibilities of using the Theory of Active Perception in computer vision.

When we refer to isomorphism between TAPe and the natural language, we imply what follows:

● The elements in the natural language, similarly to those in the Theory of Active Perception, are grouped together according to certain laws at three different levels; those laws are the same for both systems.

● In the natural language, the first-group elements interact with one another according to certain laws and generate the second-group elements, which, in their turn, generate the third-group elements—exactly as it happens with the TAPe elements as well.

● Even the number of elements in the natural language and in TAPe is roughly the same, though it is the isomorphism between elements and connections that matters rather than their number being equal.

Why is it that any person is able to acquire any language from birth, how exactly does the human brain perceive a complex system such as the grammar of a language, what exact laws govern the way the word-like elements are grouped together in a language—those are the questions that Noam Chomsky (together with thousands of other researchers around the world) tried (and is still trying) to answer. But he did not go further than developing a set of rather general concepts in terms of why it is that different elements of the language of thought interact with one another in this exact way and generate new elements (meanings).

But his theories and concepts in what regards the origin and organization of language drew our attention to the isomorphism between the Theory of Active Perception and the language of thought. The similarity of structures in the Theory of Active Perception and the language is not surprising: people have an innate ability to perceive the language, from birth they are capable of discerning human speech from any other noises, and, sure enough, the way our brain perceives the language is isomorphic to the way it perceives other types of information, such as visual information.
In his works, Chomsky does not use this very term, “the language of thought”, but puts forward a hypothesis that language, as an innate system, started, at some point in history, to be used by people as a tool for thought in the first place and only later — as a means of communication. What matters here is the distinction between the language as some kind of innate system and language as speech or text which are external interpretations of that internal innate system. So, it is clear to us that when Chomsky or other researchers refer to an innate ability to acquire a natural language, or to universal grammar, what is implied in the first place is a kind of language of origin, a protolanguage that is inherent to the human brain—languagemathics.

Made on