Put on the English subtitles! It would help many people. Make a precis. List the important points. It would help everyone. This is the smart and effective way to spread enlightenment, intelligence and knowledge!

@dakeh5125

2 жыл бұрын

🙏🙏

"This invention of proper English" lmao. I love how Chomsky, with no hesitation, dismisses all pretentiousness, whether it be in linguistics or political/historical analysis.

@maxheadrom3088

5 жыл бұрын

The concept of "no language is right or wrong" came from his linguistic theory some people compare to the work of Copernicus. Also, the software we're communicating through was made possible by his work applied to computer science to enable the creation of compilers - the tool used to make all software written today executable on a processor that only understands machine language.

@jameseames4754

3 жыл бұрын

lol

@careyjamesmajeski3203

5 ай бұрын

He takes a subtle shit on the shitheads.

Chomsky starts speaking at about 3:00

@8o86

5 жыл бұрын

great observation

@cssfriendly

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks

@DarkMoonDroid

5 жыл бұрын

TY!

@fhhfhdfdhhdhhdfhdf138

5 жыл бұрын

life-saver

@keyaduttafilms1812

5 жыл бұрын

😁😁😁😁😁😁

This man is now 92 years old. We will likely lose him soon; I hope he gets as much of his knowledge, thoughts and awkward but cute little jokes he hasn't put to paper before he meets his end.

@jamesthecat

11 ай бұрын

@Arid Sohan He will forever be remembered as a useful idiot for Russia, unfortunately, too. He got away with sailing near the wind for many years, but opinions now can't be hidden in eg small-press publications sympathetic to the former Yugoslavia.

I could listen to Noam all day. In fact, I’ve been reading and listening to him for 25 years. The precision with which he explains his thoughts is marvelous.

@helmutgensen4738

4 жыл бұрын

I also use his soothing voice & three-dimensional prose to fall into the deepest trance

@Ayala252

4 жыл бұрын

He's music, only even better. This fact is a great wonder to me.

@jona.scholt4362

2 жыл бұрын

I love putting on his lectures while I'm doing chores around the house. It's easy listening, interesting, thought provoking while also somehow being good background listening. It's a kind of paradox and ambiguous. Like Tom and Peter's book. Maybe? Probably not.

@julir3754

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely!

@julir3754

Жыл бұрын

​@@jona.scholt4362 I do that, too. All the time.

now, if you listen to this with EarPods, you got sir Chomsky sitting on your left, and a lot of couching people on your right; what an experience

@butcherax

2 жыл бұрын

The coughing is excessive. It must have been a very dusty auditorium.

@erichuang7524

2 жыл бұрын

@@butcherax or flu season

All of this off the top of his head. No notes in front of him, nothing. I am truly astounded by Mr. Chomsky’s breadth and depth of knowledge.

@mackenlyparmelee5440

3 жыл бұрын

@@fucyoucalksucker14354 I'm considering rescinding my comment

@jameseames4754

3 жыл бұрын

You need notes to talk for so long without saying anything.

Bless u for posting this

brilliant. Nourished by the conveyance of brilliance. Onward.

Very good lecture. Everytime I listen to this man, I learn something new. Thank You for posting.

@lepidoptera9337

Жыл бұрын

Yes, he always comes up with new bullshit. ;-)

respected sir ,i like your lecture ,i want more on this.thank you

5 years later....i watched this on December 12, 2015 originally, & only just got halfway through without falling asleep. Look out 2021, next time I WIL FINISH IT!

elegant introduction!!

What a brilliant lecture! I would have ran up to ask if I could get a picture with him 😭

I've listened to hundreds of hours of Chomsky over the last 24 years and i think this is his most animated lecture. And it's one of the most thought provoking too.

@leufious

2 жыл бұрын

It reminds me of the 1977 one On Language and Knowledge. I think the topic is something that he really enjoys, especially back then before it was as well understood. I imagine he spent incredible amounts of time thinking about these things and is happy to share. It's also not political which probably makes it more fun, and given the field he's probably even more confident/relaxed.

@Intact-gf5zz

Жыл бұрын

@@leufious Loved the '77 lecture you mention, have listened to it many times this week while driving LOL :P Kinda fishing for a reply to my original query (top-level comment here) but in the '77 lecture/speech he clearly states how our 'mental faculties/organs/whatever' are "fixed" (obviously), yet here in this thread's video at 16:50 he literally says he/we *agree* with the Descartes-idea that will/choice is NOT mechanistic! Which would mean will/choice/consciousness has (at least some)dualistic properties...but I know Chomsky doesn't think that way, yet at 16:50 he's literally saying that choice/will is *not* mechanistic (which means dualistic *by default*, no? If&when thought or will ceases to be mechanistic it HAS to be dualistic, it's either physically based or not!) Sorry to kinda "hijack" your post but given your reference to the relevant/related '77 lecture, I know you could help me understand if you wanted/cared to :P Figured it wouldn't be seen as too-rude to just ask :P

@Intact-gf5zz

Жыл бұрын

Chomsky--sooo many topics and even more hours of *brilliant*, concise insight into all meaningful topics. Truly a 'beautiful mind'!!

@lepidoptera9337

Жыл бұрын

Why are you telling us that you can't tell that he is bullshitting after listening to him all this time? ;-)

@TheCorrectionist1984

Жыл бұрын

@@lepidoptera9337 , if you think Chomsky is bullshitting, I don't know how to help you.

I felt like I just listened to one 5,000 word sentence, the most incredible densely constructed presentation I have heard in a long time.

Maybe an informed debate is needed between you both ? I for one would be fascinated to see Bart Hill's fundamental philosophical position on linguistics.

I love the way @at 15:07 he straightens up when describing free will. A man who inspires.

@kennethmarshall306

3 жыл бұрын

He does. And he feels strongly that humans can choose a different future from what is pre-determined by the natural laws that govern the physical world. He declares that free will and conscious choice are fundamentally mysterious. But, for once, he gives no evidence, except for the fact that we don’t yet understand where the laws of physics come from (and perhaps never will). But just because we don’t know that doesn’t mean that there aren’t laws that all matter and energy must follow. There is every reason to believe that determinism is true but, maybe for ethical reasons, he cannot handle that, admittedly frustrating, truth.

@shrill_2165

3 жыл бұрын

@@kennethmarshall306 there are plenty of reasons to reject determinism. Arguably, anti determinism as well. Some of these arguments actually come from linguistics. Are you familiar with any of them?

@kennethmarshall306

3 жыл бұрын

@@shrill_2165 Probably not. But my reason for believing that determinism must be the correct understanding of the world is that science tells us that there are laws of physics that we, as part of the natural world are completely subject to. The feeling of choice that we all have is just that. A subjective sensation akin to the sensation of colour or sound or pain etc. All built in by our genes because these sensations helped our ancestors reproduce the genes that built our bodies. No purpose. No choice. Just the laws of physics playing themselves out.

@shrill_2165

3 жыл бұрын

@@kennethmarshall306 ok, so on what epistemic grounds can you deduce that science is a trustworthy source of information, and that your interpretation of it is a trustworthy one?

@kennethmarshall306

3 жыл бұрын

@@shrill_2165 The scientific method - that is, the use of observation measurement and experimentation to try to understand the world - is the only thing that has been proven to work. Including the very technology by which you and me are communicating.

I think when Chomsky spoke about an ideal native speaker, he meant himself. He speaks a great lge with no stoppage in a smooth way. Luv his way of speaking. U can't get bored at all.

Wow!! Just wow! Imagine if politicians talk in lectures that way.

Great Lecture.

Everyone stop coughing

@stavmiguel1125

5 жыл бұрын

ALLHAILRASH Smokers....Its natural for one person to have mannerisms and others follow un-consciencely

@keyaduttafilms1812

5 жыл бұрын

😁😁😁😁😁

@pakistaniraveasylum1396

3 жыл бұрын

should be wearing face masks / biosuits absolute imbeciles

@bobfears872

3 жыл бұрын

If you're going to cough, could you leave the room???

@KingAuthor83

3 жыл бұрын

All I can hear now....thanks...lol

The subject of language is indeed fascinating.

My Father it’s me, how’s my learners, you can giving me the thoughts but how to do the better things for me and everyone else 🙏🏼.

The wild children topic was fascinating.

Noam Chomsky is a pleasure to listen to. A treasure house of knowledge and so generous in teaching it to others. God bless him always💖

No one is able to know everything indeed. There are many intelligent beings who can construct thoughts and principles that reasonably explain one aspect or more but never everything that can unify the ideas of our existence and behavior as much as all physical or chemical reactions in this world. Perhaps in the distant future. I’ m glad there are many thinkers. They provide fundamental principles that lead me into thinking about many aspects of my life I haven’t examined as far as I can possibly understand. Thanks for this intelligent talk.

My great great uncle tutored him at MIT in linguistics

@lauriekace5298

3 жыл бұрын

I thought you wrote: " tortured him".

@maninwater5615

2 жыл бұрын

@@lauriekace5298 lol same

@funnyvishant

2 жыл бұрын

Lol tutored him when he was a professor at mit?

@paintedhorse6880

2 жыл бұрын

@@funnyvishant Not sure if youre aware of this but he wasn't always a professor. Infact he wasnt even always a linguist.

@tatthagatha2657

2 жыл бұрын

Is it Itzhak Sankowsky ?

What a great mind!

@jameseames4754

3 жыл бұрын

it is an illusion. An illusion not in way in which it is generally held, that is in common sense, but rather in looking back at the way in which we began this sentence, a certain illusory quality becomes manifest...in the late 19th century, there were certain dogmatic philosophers who held the view that I would eventually come to a point, they were altogether discredited...to our modern way of understanding psychology, we now apprehend readily some hitherto conception of a snake appearing to rise from a basket... yes you are now charmed and not a little drowsy. It may be said that magicians operating under the same said view of an illusory quality had occupied your pockets with prestidigitation and using outmoded concepts and ways of thinking had shifted common sense. I can't do it as well as he can. It is like juggling. You have to circle back occasionally to how Newton was a drama queen or biology is a myth.

the whole thing about cases is a very interesting piece of evidence. im studying latin from german which has four cases for latins 6. the funny thing i realize is that from context you can determine all 6 cases being expressed in german without there being an ending for it or anything. that lead me to realize that we all say things in those cases we just dont express the fact that were using them with a seperate ending that says "this word is in 1st case" after the actual meaning. if im not misinterpreting this is evidence for universal grammar.

@TheCorrectionist1984

2 жыл бұрын

What are cases?

@StaminatorBlader

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheCorrectionist1984 grammatical cases theyre pointless and make languages a pain in the ass

I love how Chomsky's grasp of the history of science and philosophy leading up to modern paradigms doesn't lean on the stupid caricatures that most pop scientists are obliged to rehearse.

@Ayala252

4 жыл бұрын

Can you please help with sources on the history of connection between the sciences that he speaks of?

@doublenegation7870

4 жыл бұрын

@@Ayala252 If you're interested in the history of linguistics as a science developed in the 18th-19th century, you can check out Chomsky's book called Cartesian Linguistics, which is probably the most qualitative of Chomsky's books on linguistics. You can also check out some primary sources like Rousseau, Herder, or W. Humboldt.

@lucasrandel8589

4 жыл бұрын

@@doublenegation7870 Are his comments on Newton, especially what Newton thoughts about his own work were, easy to find in biographies and stuff? Do you know where I could learn more about that?

1:07:20 Chomsky finally says that nobody knows how language evolved....

@DS-yg4qs

4 жыл бұрын

Hahahhahahaa thanks. He has no clue

@alexstrauss2914

4 жыл бұрын

No clue as to what?

@rfvtgbzhn

4 жыл бұрын

I guess this is true. I think it is impossible to find concrete evidence on how language has developed, so you can't draw any conclusions. You can make elaborate theories like Chomsky does, but you can't test them.

@rfvtgbzhn

4 жыл бұрын

@Language and Programming Channel yes, I also think so, especially for social sciences (including history) and economics. It is different in natural sciences, especially in physics, where theory which can't be tested are usually not accepted althought there are exceptions like String Theory (but the acceptance of String Theory is declining now, at the beginning it was accepted that it didn't make predictions because it was not yet a fully developed theory but it stayed like this for 40 years except for some version which where falsified by the LHC). Also in Mathematics most statements can be proven or disproven (but not all of them, see Gödel) but Math is different because it was actually constructed by humans.

@jesusislukeskywalker4294

3 жыл бұрын

some say: "everybody knows" Elvis Presley had some good ideas.

Any chance that there is a transcript for this?

fascinating

Another wonderful speech every single one is so profound! I'm currently at 45 minutes and 50 seconds and it's a very interesting concept that bees communicate and humans communicate but there does not seem to be a direct correlation between the forms of communication. I do wonder about the Rupert sheldrake theory of harmonic resonance. Could it be that when you look at a cat and you think something mean the cat runs away and if you look at a cat and you think something kind they do that eye blink thing that says friendly cat to friendly cat and what if this implies that communication happens non-verbally and perhaps the words we say are more of something to keep our conscious attention on while we telepathically communicate? I am not saying that this is the case of course I do not know but isn't it interesting that dogs react differently to some people than they do to others could it be that they're picking up on some form of communication perhaps vibrational from the very Act of Consciousness itself if Consciousness is an act at all? Maybe it is that Communication between humans is simply a matter of paying attention to something while the meaning is send vibrationally by some means not yet understood? so those little wiggle dances, although it definitely means something just as the sounds we make with our vocal cords and our mouths mean something, is independent of what we are thinking about and if someone is thinking one thing but says another thing we ask for clarification. we say is that really what you meant because what you said did not seem right. And the person says oh yes that's right thank you for clarifying. Perhaps there's something to that? something to the idea that communication happens non-verbally even when we are speaking to each other. You know the sinking sensation in your gut that happens when you know someone is not listening to a word you're saying even when looking at you and nodding somehow you know that they're not listening how do we know that they're not listening at those times? And why do we feel it so viscerally? Very interesting talk as always and I'm enjoying it very much always so many wonderful ideas!

Does anyone know if Noam Chomsky has done any research on Cuneiform? Anything on the development of Hieroglyphic symbols? Just curious.

This is a certified hood classic

Can't stop talking continuously for tens of minutes in all his lectures. What a man!!!!

At 1:12:00 Chomsky talks about research being done trying to see if the language facaulty could be an optimally designed organ. Does anybody know what research he is referring to?

@jesselopes5196

Жыл бұрын

That's the Minimalist Program! haha

@g00gIeruinedYT

Жыл бұрын

@@jesselopes5196 Alright cool, thanks for the reply :)

Seems like one of the most important talks in the history of the human species to be available so widely just sitting here like a plump fruit to be picked by the sleeping giant of history

A brilliant new book, "SPEECH! How Language Made Us Human" by Simon Prentis, draws together the issues discussed here and provides an overlooked yet surprisingly obvious solution to the origin of language. It's an amazing insight. Check it out!

5:15 - ancient Indian Grammar

@granand

5 жыл бұрын

What he did not mention is the name Panini. Who developed Vedic Sanskrit..to pass Vedic Knowledge which for centuries have been taught orally only

@madhusudan6552

3 жыл бұрын

granand Panini developed Classical Sanskrit

Well said, language is like human

Noam Chomsky research into transformational grammar influenced the Advancement of Computer science and programming language considerably

@dalesmith4609

7 жыл бұрын

how?

@evalsoftserver

7 жыл бұрын

Dale Smith John Backus of IBM the Inventor of FORTRAN programming Language used Chomsky work on Formalism of CONTEXT FREE Languages to produce a generalized Grammar for Computer language Still used today called Backus Normal form. BNF

@TheZindarod

7 жыл бұрын

Chomsky normal form

YOU ALL MAKE THIS HARD WORK. OMG, FORGIVENESS COMPASSION AND LOVE IS THE TRUE TRINITY TO HUMANOID DEVICES. WHAT ELSE WILL SERVE YOU HUMANOID CREATURES OTHER THAN FORGIVENESS COMPASSION AND LOVE???

Human inquiry involves the will and nature. It is inevitable that nature shall dictate the survival of will. Like nature time and distance makes insignificant what once was significant.

Good video 😅😮🎉

does anyone know what he means at 21:27? by "I can, unbelievable as it is, move the moon by lifting my arm"

@jlrinc1420

6 жыл бұрын

I think he was talking about how Newton viewed the force of gravity as a mystical force unexplained by mechanics and one body can attract another without any mechanical causation so that if you lift your arm the gravitational attraction between the arm and the moon increases and slightly alters the moons trajectory.

@noahdavidson1343

5 жыл бұрын

You do move the moon when you move your arm. Just a very tiny amount. That's what is meant.

@HallyVee

4 жыл бұрын

And going even deeper he is pointing out that the interactions, even in the form of graviton particles, are ghostly. IE two fields cannot interact mechanically, as he talks about later. Physics is based on spooky action at a distance, not comprehensible mechanics.

@jameseames4754

3 жыл бұрын

He's the gravitational analogue of Magneto. What he doesn't mention is that he has bees hidden up his sleeves. It is unbelie-beeable.

@HkFinn83

2 жыл бұрын

Gravity :)

Descartes did not invent the idea of "mind." he discarded earlier ontological ideas in favor of the simple res extensa. This idea should be understood in relation to his analytical geometry: ie it is the start of a way of conceptualizing in principle anything that now has an unprecedented level of coherence (because of the radically simplified ontological idea -- just "extended") and an unprecedented level of precision (because of the math) both at the same time.

Noam is in the 36th Chamber. I don't think I've gotten to the point where he walks off stage.., then steps back on and says "Yea , we all feel and speak emphatically, hence initiations of "language" are culturally aligned to descriptive perspective shadings of life"

@aofenix5961

2 жыл бұрын

* sharings'

Academy is the highest achievement of civilization.

@jameseames4754

3 жыл бұрын

that is word salad. I guess he means intellectual achievement is great. One more vote for the primary of consciousness model. People who vote primary of consciousness tend to be inarticulate.

Great to note that cognitive science has progressed since this talk. Around 1:14:00 he talks about ambiguous stimuli and the lack of research into the area; nowadays we know that top-down activity from higher brain areas causes the switch in interpretation. It has something to do with selective attention.

@jacobbberger

4 ай бұрын

I noted the same thing. What a joy being at the forefront of collective human experience/intelligence..

17:00 but there is a lot of work (e.g. Nietzsche) on the fact that everything, including human action and thought can potentially be predictable, mathematically calculable, in other words, that there is no free will. But I suppose, that if we build an A.I. system in the future that is capable of predicting a good part of, or even whole of human behaviour as it has been so far in history (let's say up to 2021), then this debate would be settled for good.

@HkFinn83

2 жыл бұрын

Nietzsche is a bizarre person to cite here.

Wish I wasn't 34 before realizing I want to be a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, and social justice activist.

@doilyhead

Жыл бұрын

Tolkien says Hobbits aren't adults until 33 since they live to be 100. So there's that! ;-)

@johnseabron

Жыл бұрын

@@doilyhead Well then color me inspired!! :D

@lepidoptera9337

Жыл бұрын

So you want to be an idiot like Chomsky at 34? :-)

@johnseabron

Жыл бұрын

@@lepidoptera9337 No I want to be a complete genius like you.

@lepidoptera9337

Жыл бұрын

@@johnseabron That's easy. 8-12 years of university level physics will do. But then... you don't have it in you, do you, kid? :-)

imagine Chomsky interviewing Jay Mascis or vice versa...just imagine that for a minute.

@greeneking77

6 жыл бұрын

I can feel the pain of everyone

@sabinedoherty8198

6 жыл бұрын

I've never loved a KZread comment more.

@andcouncil1

6 жыл бұрын

Even better....imagine sudonym2010" (scroll up) response to chomsky" rejoinder??

@MrKmanthie

4 жыл бұрын

you mean "J Mascis".

I'm glad I already know what I would have heard had I listened to the whole thing because that was made impossible by the distraction of the incessant coughing of the audience.

Noam

frsit,all respect for the father of the linguistic moderne and the grammar generative the language's they are on générale the clès of all the sceince fro example when you smalt perfume you speak with your tongue that you smalt and don't forget that the tongue is the language carrier that way we can't explain with this language's and the human can fly with this language's.the meaning that we have like the speader web between the tongue and outher sense because they are very related to etcheother because all them explain with the language that way if we don't have this language we invented other languages like the language of the body or language of the sing or the single that way it very important this language's.

Wiseman

Very interesting talk in many ways. But I have to put it on .75 playback speed, to ingest it (he talks faster than he knows I guess). In doing so, I also played with .50 speed, which makes Noam sound drunk.

Language is the written and audio reference to reality in a way that everyone can understand. The way language refers to reality is to create words that refer to reality. Words are symbols that in a way symbolize reality and that everyone understands in the same way. A symbol is something that unites the symbolized with the user. In the case of language, words unite reality with all users since language is intersubjective. Intersubjectivity means that all users mean the symbols of the language in the same way, that is, the words. For a symbol to be known to all, what was symbolized must also be known to all. What is known to all is the world in which they exist as human beings. So the symbols and the symbolized of the language must be sought in the reality which is sensually accessible to all. Since the question is the beginning of language, one must look for those first cosmic symbols from which the knowledge of all reality can be symbolized. The first cosmic symbols should symbolize the cosmic phenomenon that is first and collectively recognized and symbolized by the first cosmic symbols. When we say that a phenomenon is symbolized first in the mind, it means that it becomes the first knowledge that before it did not exist in the mind another to recognize it, that is, it is the pure first knowledge (Pure reason according to Kant). That is, we seek to find the phenomenon that first becomes known to all (and constitutes the first pure collective knowledge) and the symbols with which it was collectively symbolized. From the knowledge of the first phenomenon and its symbols, it is possible to collectively recognize and symbolize all sensory information as similar to similar, because in all sensory information there is the same factor from which the first phenomenon was symbolized and became known. We can be sure that the first language was structured with symbols of the first collective knowledge of people. The many languages ​​that we have had and still have after the first language, are a result of forgetting the right way of symbolizing and consequently linguizing reality. The metaphorical way in which the words were and are used contributed to this. Αυτό που ο Τσόμσκι ονομάζει universalia είναι ο παράγοντας της πρώτης καθαρής γνώσης η οποία υπάρχει σε όλη την πραγματικότητα ώστε η πραγματικότητα να αναγνωρίζεται από την πρώτη καθαρή γνώση σαν όμοια προς όμοιο. Έχω κάνει έρευνα και, βρήκα την πρώτη συλλογική γνώση των ανθρώπων. Βρήκα ότι η πρώτη συλλογική γνώση είναι παράγοντας ο οποίος υπάρχει σε όλη την πραγματικότητα δηλαδή είναι αυτό που λέει ο Τσόμσκι universal. Ο παράγοντας ενυπάρχει σε όλες τις διαφοροποιήσεις της πραγματικότητας και και γιαυτό όλη η πραγματικότητα αναγνωρίζεται από την πρώτη καθαρή γνώση δηλαδή τον παράγοντα .

@mathias4851

Жыл бұрын

No language is thinking

@ronlentjes2739

Жыл бұрын

Interesting comment. I agree that the first thing is to experience what ever and then apply that to some mental note about that as symbol, feel, sound. Truely a fascinating subject to consider how languages became. We are spirits in a physical body to experience this physical world. When we "die" we shed our physical body and continue living as spirit with same personality and issues that we had a second before we die. So language is stored by our spirit and we continue to use language and thought forms in spirit. It is totally awesome this creation for sure.

Philosophical anthropology: Man developed language in evolution when he perceives the object of desire in woman. (Essay Fragment)

Again, Noam Chomsky did not understand the soundhelix (klankhelix, Lauthelix) which the university of Leiden (NL) now calls "Language as a timemachine". With the soundhelix, we can reconstruct the past (and than correct) and we can spell the future, since it is the Oracle of Delphi, a technik men never did take seriously.

No hay subtitles , its a pity.i am almost deaf.

The Key to Universal Linguistics lies in our Life- and Organism-structure. The Eternal Life have No origin. What We call 'Origins of Language', is in beginning of a Development-Circuit of a whole new Language and Consciousness, as part of the Life-Renewing-Nature, droven by the Life-Desire, and Hunger- and Satisfation-Principles.. Campel-Monkeys is a early example of spoken Language, and word-bending, only 15 words, all warning, exept 'Come Here'. The Masculine Princip, and the Feminine Princip, is the most basic in the Life- and Organism-structure, it also stands for Sending and Recieving, as is the basic in all and any kind of Communication.

1:41:07 Chomsky forgot something! Though for just a couple of moments.

@ChristianWilliamsYachting

5 жыл бұрын

He remembers authors, but not book titles. He remembers the work, but not the artificial label placed on it. His mental equipment recalls the end, or the essence, and might be considered teleological. However, I think its merely cultural. The university tradition is to cite authors, not titles or summaries. Wide culture requires a title: Not have you read Grisham, but have you read The Pelican Brief. ("yeah, I read it, and it stinks")

Why are people always dying at such events? It's as if the room was filled by tuberculosis patients... That is so inexplicably annoying.

@ramirosan145

7 жыл бұрын

Fajeth88 haha i cant stop hearing those coughs now. it truly is annoying!

@fakukurs4436

7 жыл бұрын

fk u :D

@lau_dhondt

7 жыл бұрын

haha, great observation

@DreamEr-sp3fn

7 жыл бұрын

Fajeth88 haha For sure eh. why can't we get good producers where it truly counts Eh??? lol

@1squeamishneophyte

6 жыл бұрын

FRAIL NERDS!

What year was this?

It is a monument to mankind that a person can get paid, even get awards, for asking: When Tom and Peter take out the book "Tom Sawyer" from the library, would you say they took out the same book, or different books? Or, my favorite: Is the chicken ready to be eaten?

He understands the Mathematics of Structure

@jameseames4754

3 жыл бұрын

deep

This video is as long as a movie

@doublenegation7870

4 жыл бұрын

Except this isn't a waste of time that leaves you dumber than when it started .

AMERICA'S NUMBER 1 LINGUIST

@africanhistory

5 жыл бұрын

Maybe, he did not decline the title. Should say most famous linguist. Or one of the most influential in recent times.

I find little that is meaningful in the first sixteen minutes of Prof Chomsky's lecture, apart from its historical content. Possibly, what is missing and might supply the base of meaning is contained in his more technical work. Discussions such as the distinction between automata and human activity lying in human will, I find unhelpful because human will is, itself, a poorly defined concept having to do with transitions in human activity. Are those transitions at some level undetermined as is the motion of a particle in a gas or are they part of a sequence of behaviors that has been established ? Reaching back to ancient or classical philosophers may give the inquiry an aura of significance, but so doing does not supply what is missing, meaning.

There have been some recent experimental results, and perhaps some common sense for some time, to suggest that humans too are automata, both basically and extensively. I think there are some reasons to doubt Descartes idea (discussed at 15:10-17:20), and to think that human will is fundamentally an illusion. My inherent wiring forces me to be contrarian about this.

@jameseames4754

3 жыл бұрын

I was surprised he proclaimed that common sense had long been declared irrelevant and that everyone knew mystic forces ruled the universe.

@richardyates7280

3 жыл бұрын

So your brain chemistry made you come up with this thought and express it....and therefore you did not express it of your own free will?

Conference starts at 3:00

Panini developed vedic sanskrit

@madhusudan6552

3 жыл бұрын

No, Classical Sanskrit

None couldn’t give, it how’d you get.

The world is not divided into areas, some bees live near you vis-a-bees shopping pattern behavior, for example they don't bicycle to your shop whenever they feel compelled to buy a Romanian to Free Will Thesaurus. They have their own language or occult dance, some professors nostalgically refer to as common sense. But collinearly some bees live near trees and it would be false of us, in our modern and outmoded presumptuousness to construct a hitherto unimagined conception of Newton as drag queen being chased around by bees. Merely because they don't speak Chinese innately when wherein sofar as bees are concerned Chinese is a "language". I'm going to practice, but I don't think I can make my blather as inane and tedious.

1:34:23

11:37 14:40

Silently drops the mic and walks out the stage.

Was it really on 2015?

@Popitet

4 жыл бұрын

"Chomsky spoke on "Universal Linguistics" at Winona State University in Minnesota on March 20, 1998."

Why wasn’t the person coughing all the time invited to leave the room??

44:33, why would finding language in primates be a challenge to the theory of evolution?

@jlrinc1420

6 жыл бұрын

because the last common ancestor between ape and man is supposed to have happened way before the structures for language developed in mans brain

@Erickvazquezc

6 жыл бұрын

You are right, it doesnt, if anything it would confirm it, but i believe thats just his point

@Erickvazquezc

6 жыл бұрын

And also that thingy about displaced reference being rare in the animal kingdom is just false, just ask your dog or cat

It’s my doubts about axioms not proven🙏🏻. Please .

audio

Audio could be much better

No Cesar! Cesar Cueto: "This man is now 92 years old. We will likely lose him soon; I hope he gets as much of his knowledge, thoughts and awkward but cute little jokes he hasn't put to paper before he meets his end". It was NOT Chomsky ! He didn't REALY understand, because the re-discovery of the universal soundhelix was published on Research Gate on the 28 of October 2013. Here all articles are disappeared, but name und titles are still visable. Maybe some of you did hear of the whistleblower Marcus Kühbacher who was accusing Zu Gutenberg (min. of defense - Angela Merkel / Germany) of plagiarisme. Kühbacher did also accuse the Philipps-University-Marburg (i.c. Deutsche Sprachatlas and IGS) of hiding my research-results since I did attack the rules of Jacob Grimm (words are getting less at the end). The right rule is that words are getting longer at the end and solve at the front. This means that the german language is helixing out of Dutch! That was a big attack on Germany's vision on history! They accused me (64) after 26 years of working at this university of sexual intimidation (!) - only to get rid of me. What kind of behavior is this? When women do (re)discover something sensational, some men probably can not accept this. The university did try to get me into a psychiatric-ally clinic with medicaments, visit of parents: forbidden! What kind of university is this? So, the university of Leipzig has all my books. Benjamin List and Klaus Hasselmann are the Nobelprisewinnars. You can ask WHY. I know, since they used my books with an explanation of physics, chemics, astronomics, medicin and MA-the-MA-tics, which is of the 'mama's' who knew what MAT means: fivehouse, but you have to double this fivestar! My English is miserably, but my thoughts not! I can advise you all to learn Dutch because of handle the universal soundhelix.

sound's a bit out of sync

i think and feel its true. im psychotronically abused and i can see what other mean without words.

Man, this great teacher takes a subject that is so interesting and turns it into the most boring set of language ever- in this lecture. Thank u tho. Quite good info

It's laughable for a person to flood the comments section because he or she disagrees with the content of the talk. It's as if Chomsky would care at all about a random person on youtube ranting over his talks.

@fhhfhdfdhhdhhdfhdf138

5 жыл бұрын

imagine if he finds Chomskys' email address

I want a Chinese or Korean sub😭

@theaggrotravelersbucketlis5470

3 жыл бұрын

学英语啊

Chomsky is an Einstein in humanities

I hope that coughing human recovers soon and well

Why do those people cough like that??Do they have problems?? they should stop coughing and listen carefully to the man.

As a scientist, I was of the opinion that Newton and his laws showed how mechanistic and predictable the world is. Now I have a linguist/philosopher telling me I (and many others) was wrong! Meantime it seems that this guy bases his whole innate language theory on Descartes.😂

@stevenhines5550

7 ай бұрын

Yeah, we were wrong and it's not that funny. (I wonder if, often, we haven't been lied to never had any reason to go back and check. I have no idea why it is so important to preserve a mechanistic worldview - if I were forced to make a stab at it I would have to say it has to do with exercising illegitimate power over other people - but I think his general thesis is that these ideas are open to challenge with experiments and when one bothers to carry them out we find that our assumptions and assumptions about what we have been taught are wrong.) BTW, I don't think Chomsky said Newton proved we can't make predictions or that the world doesn't have mechanistic features like cause and effect. What I think he said was that there are unintelligible occult forces, such as action at a distance, that do not fit into a mechanistic worldview. I should say I am not a scientist but I have had occasion to check Chomsky's sources about Israel-Palestine and it checks out. As far as I know, which admittedly is, technically, very little, his references and source accuracy generalizes and he has made a career out of academic accuracy and integrity and he very rarely even has a misplaced comma in his work. There is no reason to doubt his history and historiography of science - evidently it is unchallenged. What he says about Hume and Newton and Aristotle and Descartes is reliable. I saw him say right to a fellow linguist's face "you have misread Hume" and there was never any further debate from that scholar. I would think such a direct challenge would merit a response but it never came. His dismantling of Skinner has never had a coherent response and it's been over sixty years. Also, if I heard him correctly, he said that Descartes got pretty far with his depiction of mind but was ultimately incomplete and incorrect. That's the really cool thing about Chomsky IMO, people like to snipe at him but nobody ever challenges his sources or even engages him in discussion about how to interpret them.

Those people coughing all the time tho! Trying to follow up this lecture during a pandemic is not optimal for my cringe-sensitive ears. I'm affraid I'll keep up to reading articles.

1st Man was called Adam. The Azerbaijani language, for Man is Adam. Could this have been one of the 1st language

Pigs have displaced reference cognition as well as self-recognition.