I recently listen to a 2 hour long debate about whether free will exists or if everything is determined. In about 5 seconds Noam Chomsky says: “No one ACTUALLY believes everything is determined.”
@Samsgarden
4 жыл бұрын
What I respect about Chomsky is that he doesn’t lazily subscribe to the atheist views on rationality and positivism. He professes not to know and that we have a shallow understanding of phenomena
@metaviewx2091
3 жыл бұрын
There is a positivistic quality to his analysis and his willingness to settle with a notion of mystery that links only to our inability to exhaust the possibilities. Note how easily he dismisses "dogma;" the term he uses to describe and dismiss metaphysical assertions and I would include religion in this. He doesn't walk with the radical atheist but there are some latent presumptions in his thought he refuses to acknowledge or explore in this video.
@mryalapeno
7 жыл бұрын
I can't stop nodding while he talks..
@dariopavicic8205
6 жыл бұрын
I find his voice somehow satisfying and persuasive, it perfectly fits his wisdom.
@kennethchay1098
6 жыл бұрын
It's interesting since Chomsky has stated elsewhere that it's better to have as little inflection, charisma and charm (i.e., rhetorical skills) as possible when speaking because then it is the ideas that are held up to real scrutiny. Otherwise the tools of persuasion & manipulation that are the lingua franca of the modern age will lead to false conclusions -- i.e., politicians, mass media, marketers, political consultants, college (OxBridge) debaters, trial lawyers, fundamentalist religious leaders, pundits, pseudo intellectuals, "experts" and parasitic sophists of other stripes. He clearly practices what he preaches.
@jekonimus
4 жыл бұрын
well.. you say that "you cant stop", but no one even knows, if it's even "you" deciding to nod... :-p
@ginamarielalena9207
3 жыл бұрын
I love this guy. I can listen to him all day.
@waindayoungthain2147
5 жыл бұрын
🙏🏼 my sacrifice for your mercy and kindness.
@andreww.8262
Жыл бұрын
I always found it funny that for decades he's always had the same hand movements while speaking.
@Mr_Hasan_AlObaidi
5 жыл бұрын
If you want to know his intentions in using concerned own thoughts read his book of "new horizons in the study language and mind" he put those ideas in his hands of the most underlying explanations and expectations which are not solved yet. That's Chomsky the science
@AhmedalHijazi
4 жыл бұрын
Hasan Kadhim M. حسن كاظم العبيدي k. M. Hey 👋
@sophiarevel6952
5 ай бұрын
Deadly! 😱
@PolarPhantom
3 жыл бұрын
Man I wish I could just talk to Chomsky.
@bethenawaltz4190
3 жыл бұрын
email him he welcomes them and responds
@gokusayan
3 жыл бұрын
@@bethenawaltz4190 what is his email?
@dwen5065
4 жыл бұрын
I like much of what he says here, especially language being the key to human nature. We should have the study of human nature drummed into us instead of religion and arcane philosophical poetry. Understanding human nature is the key to getting over the hurdles we face in addressing our most critical problems, like climate change. I haven’t found any “great” books dealing with human nature. Seems odd since it’s so basic, and important. The fundamentals, as I see it, are that we are a highly social animal that is self interested and status seeking. That seems to explain so many human actions, both individual and group. I don’t get his focus on the “creative” aspect of our nature as being a key driver. But then again, I’d say we are less free than many think. We can’t escape our nature, human nature, any more than any living thing can. Kind of like swimming in a fast flowing river. Sure, you have some autonomy, but less than you think if you aren’t aware of the current. The show Westworld deals with these ideas in a very creative fashion.
@Philover
4 жыл бұрын
You should read some German Idealism if you want to learn about the human nature.
@Derp009
3 жыл бұрын
The Laws of Human Nature by Robert Greene is brilliant
@dwen5065
3 жыл бұрын
@@Derp009 thanks!
@dwen5065
3 жыл бұрын
@@Philover any recommendations?
@SB-ok3xc
Жыл бұрын
I hope Chomsky will be remembered for his political thought as well as for his work as a linguist. The two things are correlated.
@proteus4301
Жыл бұрын
He often has to point out that they are in fact not correlated.
@rafa374
5 ай бұрын
He will ONLY be remembered for his politics. His linguistics will be binned. It's all false
@anwarpsychiatrist4629
10 күн бұрын
Superficial philosopher who seems to deep.
@fatfrank69
3 жыл бұрын
Did anybody catch the name of the two scientists who reviewed the topic of free will?
@cristiancr714
3 жыл бұрын
Emilio bizzi and Robert ajemian
@TheFrygar
8 жыл бұрын
I wonder what he means when he says "nobody believes that, whatever they say" in reference to people thinking that voluntary action is governed by physical laws. Does he think something outside physical law gives us our volition? That sounds like dualism of some sort.
@periodikoSF
8 жыл бұрын
It's a quick aside, and I'm not 100% sure, but I believe he's referring to a general idea he's written about involving the history of science, the limitations of human understanding, and how incredibly little we know about even the basics of the workings of the human brain. "The phrase “we do not yet understand,” however, should strike a note of caution. We might recall Bertrand Russell’s observation in 1927 that chemical laws “cannot at present be reduced to physical laws.” That was true, leading eminent scientists, including Nobel laureates, to regard chemistry as no more than a mode of computation that could predict experimental results, but not real science. Soon after Russell wrote, it was discovered that his observation, though correct, was understated. Chemical laws never would be reducible to physical laws, as physics was then understood. After physics underwent radical changes, with the quantum-theoretic revolution, the new physics was unified with a virtually unchanged chemistry, but there was never reduction in the anticipated sense. There may be some lessons here for neuroscience and philosophy of mind. Contemporary neuroscience is hardly as well-established as physics was a century ago. There are what seem to me to be cogent critiques of its foundational assumptions, notably recent work by cognitive neuroscientists C.R. Gallistel and Adam Philip King. The common slogan that study of mind is neuroscience at an abstract level might turn out to be just as misleading as comparable statements about chemistry and physics ninety years ago. Unification may take place, but that might require radical rethinking of the neurosciences, perhaps guided by computational theories of cognitive processes, as Gallistel and King suggest." He's saying that, as we understand the relevant fields, we cannot even begin to bridge that gap between our understanding of the mind and general physical laws. Cognitive science is for now in a phase like early chemistry, where we can generate useful descriptive and predictive data, but we can't even begin to penetrate down into the layers to actually understand why any of this is happening, why an organism as simple as a bee or a squid chooses to go left instead of going right is totally beyond us, let alone the underlying mechanisms that create the human mind. chomsky.info/201401__/
@TheFrygar
8 жыл бұрын
periodikoSF I actually emailed him about this after I posted this comment and his response was essentially that he has no doubt that physical processes underlie cognition, but that we have no idea how to begin answering the questions, which he has said many times before. I've heard him reference Gallistel several times and it's an interesting line of thinking, but without much more empirical support than the rest of the theories in neuroscience (at least at the moment). However, I think his intuition seems right: we aren't getting anywhere, so why not try something else?
@mathiasgril6644
7 жыл бұрын
I think he's talking about a sort of predetermined view on behaviour. Something like "if you know all the physical variabeles of someone's body and surroundings you theoretically could calculate his behaviour exactly", and that nobody believes that to be true.
@coreycox2345
6 жыл бұрын
I wonder if we ever will? Your comments make me realize that I have been thinking of "the laws of nature" in an informal way.
@michaeldebellis4202
6 жыл бұрын
Pollen Applebee if you read Gallistel's book Memory and the Computational Brain (an amazing book btw) he explains why trying to reduce cognition to physical neural nets is not likely to provide meaningful theories, that there has to be intermediate levels of abstraction to explain things like how humans do basic math, definition of sets and subsets, if-then rules, etc. I.e., a Turing machine model for the brain. I think when Chomsky says "no one really believes that" here he's talking about the physicalists and connectionists who claim everything can be reduced to just neurons. I think the "no on really believes that" means that if you look closely even at the research of such people there are always assumptions (sometimes implicit) about things like grammar or other computational representational structures in addition to neurons; that you can't do meaningful research on cognition without having such concepts as part of your model. I've recently audited a couple classes on neuroscience and cognition and I was surprised to notice how correct Chomsky is. The people who talk about reducing everything to neurons are usually the pop science writers like Sam Harris and Patricia Churchland but the actual serious researchers recognize that there is more to a theory of cognitive neuroscience than just neurons and neurotransmitters.
@tracksuitjim
6 жыл бұрын
what exactly does he mean when he talks about simple words having incredibly complex meanings? i feel like i slightly know what he means but also not at all hah i was rly hoping he'd go into it
@FriedZime
6 жыл бұрын
Perhaps that a word has a huge amount of information contained in it, that is hard to actually describe? Like the word tree for some people could perhaps contain the whole wikipedia page on it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree, and for some even more information. And the more you know about it, the harder it becomes to simply define it. But i'm not sure.
@leilasavat1682
6 жыл бұрын
I think something along the lines of "table" is not one specific object but we, as kids, learn it as the concept of a "table", and then are able to recognize other objects with the essential property of "tableness" as being tables too, whether they be round, square, short, tall, four or six or ten-legged, etc. We as kids, immediately recognize all of them as tables without further teachings-quite remarkable, really. As usual, Chomsky is brilliantly insightful.
@CyberClone138
5 жыл бұрын
Love -is one obvious example.
@sabyasachisenapati3619
5 жыл бұрын
By meaning, here he means all semantic aspects, related to sense reference, content etc. And not the plain reference we use to point to a table when one utters the word table
@waindayoungthain2147
4 жыл бұрын
🙏🏼, it’s my sacrifice and my opinion, when the political policy isn’t in parallel with equality living, with inequalities by no means of life’s living differences. How’s conflict going with time ending. How’s struggles going on with weapons power . It’s my ideas, why not we’re in any new Civilizations? Since no peace collectively clearly in reality and live with awareness 😣.
@usarmynow3743
4 жыл бұрын
Did he just say his life was schizophrenic?
@Brian-sh5ne
3 жыл бұрын
Yes lol. He means all over the place, which is very true when you look at how varied his work has been
@jefb2361
7 жыл бұрын
We don`t understand it, because we can`t explain God. I`m a Chomsky fan, by the way.
@Snowboarder54688
6 жыл бұрын
What are you talking about?
@dwen5065
4 жыл бұрын
Ignore god and focus on human nature, that’s the key to getting over the hurdles we face in addressing our most critical problems.
@franticmower7300
4 жыл бұрын
God? That petty fuck who divided human kind because humans built a tower too high so he made them speak different languages? What a fucking primitive thought, don't you think? Sounds more like an excuse to not understand languages rather than an explanation.
@dorianphilotheates3769
3 жыл бұрын
Jef B - It’s always been rather difficult to understand things that don’t exist.
@jefb2361
3 жыл бұрын
@@dorianphilotheates3769 the majority are never always right of course, but you're in a minority. Most of the world believe in some form of deity. Look at the lengths they go to in order to worship something they can't see, touch or hear. Strange people.... .
@AndogaSpock
4 жыл бұрын
I don't understand why he is saying, children pick up language without instructions. Children do get instructed, often at home, when they decide to listen to the people around them, with eyes and ears.
@yuriarin3237
4 жыл бұрын
its not explicit instruction, is implicit learning just by exposure, that's the point
@CIARUNSITE
2 жыл бұрын
I don't think a linguist should use schizophrenic in that manner.
Пікірлер: 63