q: "do you believe in the freedom of the will?" a: "I have no choice".

Amazing. There's a sort of arrogant ignorance hiding under the guise of what I call science today-it's nearly cultic-where it is assumed any thinking person living 100yrs or more before us was stupid. I love how Noam never assumes people are stupid. Neither the ancients, nor the mechanic working on your car nor the general American public.

@AP-yx1mm

5 жыл бұрын

Neander de Oliveira Could you give a concrete example?students are literally taught to think about the context...

@michaeldebellis4202

Жыл бұрын

"There's a sort of arrogant ignorance hiding under the guise of what I call science today-it's nearly cultic-where it is assumed any thinking person living 100yrs or more before us was stupid." What in the world are you talking about? If you study science or engineering in any good university you will be required to learn Calculus and Newtonian physics. Both of which were invented in the 17th century. The theory of entropy and Maxwell's equations are fundamental to modern physics and were invented in the 19th century. Turing's proof that the Entscheidungsproblem has no general solution is where he invented the concept of a Turing machine (although he didn't call it that) and is the mathematical foundation for all modern digital computers from the first ENIAC to your cell phone. That dates back to the 1920's or so, approximately 100 years ago. I never understand people who call scientists arrogant. I mean, we are human and of course some of us are arrogant but I've noticed an inverse correlation between how arrogant someone is and how good they are. People like Chomsky and Einstein are very humble because they have no need to be arrogant and because arrogance makes you a bad scientist. Arrogance closes your mind to alternative viewpoints or to considering that you may be wrong which is exactly the opposite of what any good scientist would tell you is one of the core principles of good science. BTW, you do realize that Chomsky considers himself (quite rightly) a scientist right? Not his political work which he considers just good scholarship and common sense but his work in Linguistics spawned whole new disciplines. Both Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Psychology owe more to Chomsky than any single individual. His work is also critical to computer science such as the design of compilers and of course he reinvented Linguistics and transformed it from a liberal arts discipline where people essentially just documented different languages to an actual science where he and others created testable hypotheses.

@CriticallyAlive

Жыл бұрын

Couldn’t agree more, brilliant take on ole Noam

Neat. I like how he explains concepts and theories and their correlations with each other

The more I watch these, the more stupid I realise I am.

I've realized that I have not had anywhere near enough sleep to make sense of what on Earth was just said.

I think there may be such a thing as artistic synergy, where one envisions something, like a dragon for example and as there is no such thing in the living world, we do not have a model to work from, so we hunt down impressive things in the living world, (reptile scales, four legs with the same number of carpals and metacarpals, symmetry , etc. etc. etc., all rules formulated and indeed applicable somewhere in the real world...and we make a thing that did not exist in that form ever, but that is now conceptualized and it does obey rules, drawn from numerous examples of things real. How the mind selects these properties and rules again is below the surface of our understanding, but we have to admit it DOES HAPPEN.

When most everything taught has been bought? New inspiration from Noam has me caught.

@0MVR_0

5 жыл бұрын

When knowledge and understanding sought, a lecture from Chomp ought be given a shot.

@munafghori4052

4 жыл бұрын

What knowledge one must sought then noam's knowledge must you got and to others objection, one should ask "why not"?

I'm a little confused as to how making the argument against free will presupposes free will. How?

@milkoansah-johnson8768

5 жыл бұрын

It is self evident that you are at liberty to lift a cup or oppose a hypothesis. This is your free will.

@raykirkham5357

5 жыл бұрын

That is not what is being said here. There is no presupposition of free will. It is a feeling one has and is easily debunked.

@raykirkham5357

5 жыл бұрын

@Agnaye Ochani It always remains that we simply may not be able to understand the conditions that always influence our actions. They may just be too complex. When you work with specific examples. You can walk back the 'picking up an object and throwing it' to the argument leading up to the subject and that back even further till we always reach a point where we are not getting it all.

@DanDelos

5 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately he doesn't elaborate here but given his other views that I know of, I'd assume he's actually making a more Kantian argument along the lines of what Agnaye Ochani is saying. That is, arguments against free will assume a simple intelligible concept in the first place. This also applies to arguments for free will of course. But instead both of these (free will and 'randomness' or 'determinism') may be vast over-simplifications with no guarantee that the actual functions are even intelligible to the human brain. Sort of like how we also can't visualize 4-dimensional space, but that doesn't make it an impossibility in principle. The limit there is on our brain which has finite and pre-defined structures. This isn't a new idea from Chomsky himself and goes back to Kant, and surprisingly Newton as well (who did not take his physics model to be literal, even though everyone after him did). And more recently, the Copenhagen interpretation of physics presumes that the way the universe works on a fundamental level is beyond direct comprehension by our intuitive mental structures. It just won't make sense in any literal way, and obviously we didn't necessarily evolve to be able to understand something like that. So in that case, the best we can do is apply abstract mathematics or of course, use very vague/inaccurate analogies to things we are able to comprehend.

@psivil.disobedience

5 жыл бұрын

Milo Stroik 1:42

Whats Noam Chomsky’s stance on the federal reserve?

@blackcat1642

5 жыл бұрын

look up his comments about ron paul i think he mention there, im passing

HI ALL 😘

We are capable of solving the issue of intelligibility as discussed by Noam however, it is too arcane for the run of humans. This means the principles beyond science must be familiar as a prerequisite. Mathematics is a starting point because it trains one to conceptualize. After gaining ability to conceptualize, it may then be probable to discuss Free Will.

@BlakeBjornstad1

5 жыл бұрын

What he’s saying is we have the same likelihood of accomplishing that task as a rat does at understanding prime numbers. Which is to say, it’s simply something that we should accept as beyond our capacities. In the same way organisms have genetic blueprints that impose limits on them. Say, humans don’t grow wings , there are the same limits imposed on human capacities for intelligibility.

@jones1351

5 жыл бұрын

So - then, what mathematical concept is not rooted in determinism or probability? Every mathematical proof - no matter how esoteric - is based the fact that for Z to be true it cannot violate previous proofs A and B and C and... Free will can't be explained using either. If it's deterministic then it's not free will. We do what we do because we can't help it. This is what the deniers of free will argue. That deep, deep, deep down where we've yet to plunge, there is a deterministic cause for our every decision. It reminds me of Einstein's insistence that quantum indeterminacy is not possible. There must me some 'hidden' variable. 'God does not throw dice...' But - so far - he was wrong. Randomness? I get up in the morning to head for work and wind up at the slots in Vegas, just because? Again, I couldn't help myself? So, that doesn't work either - not in a normally functioning brain. An armed nut wearing a MAGA hat with a confederate flag pin on one side and a swastika on the other crashes a crowded movie house demanding everyone stand up and render the Nazi salute. Maybe (1) All will comply; or (2) some will comply while the rest decide to take their chances; or (3) some may even brave rushing and disarming the misanthrope. We simply can't say, because - free will. But, what is it - if not deterministic or probabilistic?

@BlakeBjornstad1

5 жыл бұрын

Daniel ben Avraham Avinu having a concept/theory is one thing. Having understanding is another. You’re welcome to take guesses but your guess is as good as another and it’ll more than likely stay that way.

@0MVR_0

5 жыл бұрын

The immediate above is true, particularly for concepts that show no sense of significant convergent thought among us. We can for instance verify the existence of a prime number by use of mathematical tools. The same decomposition of will and executive command is distant. Questions such as "did 'I' exert the process or was 'I' coerced by externalities?" have no meeting point between the multitude of us.

@milkoansah-johnson8768

5 жыл бұрын

Will is the dominant desire, of the moment, of a period, or of a life. It dominates its opposing desire and may dominate the desires of others. Desire is the conscious power within, which may bring about changes in itself or which changes other things. No desire in the human is free, because it is attached or attaches itself to objects of the senses when thinking. One desire may control or be under the control of another desire, but no desire can change another desire or be compelled to change itself. No power other than its own can change it. You may subdue a desire, crush or make it subordinate, but it can't be made to change itself unless you choose and will to change. You are free to will or not to will to change. This power to choose whether you will remain attached to this or that thing, or whether you will let go of the thing so be unattached, is your point of freedom, the point of freedom every person has by innately having desire. A person may extend desire from a point to an area of freedom by willing to be, to do, or to have, without attaching itself to what it wills to be, to do, or to have. When the will thinks without being attached to what it thinks, it is free and has freedom. In freedom it can be or do or have what it wills to be or do or have, as long as it remains unattached. Freewill is to be unattached, unattachment.

that doesn't sound like him. i don't know why...

i think that the reason he is confused/wrong about free will is this: he says that people trying to convince others that theres no freedom of will means there IS freedom, however look at it this way: the particular machine inside that human tell him to be uncomfortable with the notion that there is no freedom of will, thus he seeks to doanything he can - present arguements etc - to convince others that his point of view is true. Then the other party is compelled to accept or decline those arguements, by the force of their inner machines telling them what to do. So there is a point in trying to argue for or against free will, ucs you are told to do it the only way you know how, and still does not presupose free will.

@davedd7803

5 жыл бұрын

But then everything is just predetermined. It’s just dead particles/atoms interacting with each other..?

@bntagkas

5 жыл бұрын

@@@davedd7803the bigget reason why everything is not predetermined is forced randomness i think. so the system is reactionary, in a way inside a human may be 1, 2 or more machines cooperating or at times fighting each other(see cognitive dissonance). so the machines may have pre-fixed rules at what they should do at what circumstance, but because of randomness aswell as machine vs machine fighting for which will dominate 'consciousness' at any given time, we see very intricate and complex behaviours.

@davedd7803

5 жыл бұрын

@@bntagkas Sure, randomness. But that doesn’t change anything, right? It’s still just dead atoms interacting, right? But then how can reasons exist? It’s just dead atoms interacting, causing an illusion of a person that’s causing a new reaction, creating another illusion (the “reasons”). How can dead atoms create reasons?

@bntagkas

5 жыл бұрын

@@davedd7803well the more questions you ask and the deeper you go you come back to the 'mysteries' chomsky talked about somewhere.

@davedd7803

5 жыл бұрын

@@bntagkas Yes, exactly. But you're the one who's denying free will. So without free will, how can 'persons', 'reasons', 'values' etc. exist? Do you deny these as well?