I love this man. I just love him. I'll be so upset the day he leaves us.

@skanderabdellaoui

6 жыл бұрын

Same thoughts for me!

@edwardjones2202

4 жыл бұрын

Same

@TheJonnyEnglish

3 жыл бұрын

Dude he’s still kicking he might live to be 200

This is chomsky at his best. Straight forward dealing with macro questions and ideas, I love it

This is what's so difficult to explain to people without science backgrounds. Common sense is only applicable to mundane actions in the everyday world. It works for making a cup of tea, not for explaining how the water boils.

@excitedaboutlearning1639

3 жыл бұрын

I watched a scientist who's got a KZread channel, Thunderf00t, argue with an evangelist. The evangelist repeated the same argument over and over again as did Thunderf00t: The evangelist said, "You say that we don't exist how can you suggest something else?" Thunderf00t, on the other hand, was talking about the difference between knowing and assuming. He didn't define the terms, so the evangelical guy was visibly confused. In everyday language, knowing is often conceived as the same as assuming: "I know the universe exists," whereas in natural sciences, knowing is a concept that requires verification with control. Thunderf00t never made this distinction explicit and the Evangelist and him talked at totally different wave lengths. In everyday language, "I know the Sun rises tomorrow," means the same as "I assume the Sun to rise tomorrow, because of the Sun's previous instances of doing so," in science. The difference between assumption and knowing is vital in sciences. Similarly, the difference between cause and reason (intention) is of vital importance. People have a tendency to view everything from an intentional framework, that is, to believe that everything is conscious decision made by someone or something: A storm happening means God is angry, according to this framework. To become a scientist, one needs to change his framework. But when he wants to teach and write papers, he should view things in intentional framework to understand what the objectives of doing x and y are. Before Noam Chomsky, I didn't really understand any definitions in dictionaries that I read. They were gibberish to me. That was because my understanding of concepts was intuitive. That is, for example, in thinking about an object, I would think of a mental picture of the object or a concrete instance of it instead of describing its parts. Chomsky talking about the Hudson River still being Hudson River even after it's been polluted and the water having changed really changed my perspective.

@truestargazer1

Жыл бұрын

00

Bless this account

@conormcelroy1898

5 жыл бұрын

Matthew Frazier 0

Noam dives deep. He went to the bottom of the ocean on this one.

@raginald7mars408

5 жыл бұрын

Is he still there? Did not see him again, the great Deep Diver...

@djtan3313

4 жыл бұрын

raginald7 Mars ; he surfaced in China...

He answered that like a boss. Very complicated concepts and he made it look easy.

Chomsky is absolutely right. The person is not reducible to properties, what and who a person is irreducible. There is always a transcendent element to personhood, and that makes ethical concerns regarding persons very important. Because the person is irreducible it is not a concept that the natural sciences can construct.

True geniuses question everything. Why I don't like people who think they have it all figured out, including people like the 'new atheists'. I prefer Einstein's and Chomsky understanding of science compared to a Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins. Philosophy is still important to Einstein, Hawking said it was dead-

@maudeeb

5 жыл бұрын

I couldn't agree more. Although it wouldn't be a problem if Hawking & Dorkins just stuck to their narrow technical fields. The irony is Steve saying philosophy is dead is philosophising, and Dick dismissing all religion is a religious view. Anyone who's philosophically happy with materialism needs their head examined... with probes and stuff.

@robertpirsig5011

3 жыл бұрын

Philosophy will never be dead!

Is there any transcript for this one? I am dying to hear clearly of the asking.

Would have liked it of he'd elaborate on what weird and crazy means to him and why he says so.

@RootinrPootine

6 жыл бұрын

marce11o Like our concept of a river. You can remove all the water from it and replace it or even Change it’s course drastically with bulldozers. That is, change everything physically that would indicate that it’s the same river and yet we intuitively understand that it’s the same river. We don’t naturally insist that we change the name of the river and don’t understand. Of course it doesn’t sound weird, but it wouldn’t because it’s the nature of our language. Noam is saying it is weird when you ask the simple question of “why is that the case? Why do we conceive in that way?” Because that’s of no use to science, and we use science to understand the world in a certain way. His point is that we think in metaphors but this will seriously trip us up when it comes to science if we’re not careful. That’s all he’s saying. Check the videos on this channel about AI and you’ll get the point.

@youtoobfarmer

5 жыл бұрын

He did, a little, in the bit about thought experiments involving teleportation, and in the idea of psychic persistence, which means that people aren't objects, either in an intuitive or a scientific sense.

@maudeeb

5 жыл бұрын

'Weird and crazy' is shorthand for 'not composed of substance', to people who believe everything is composed of substance.

He is so "Russell" in his answers.

@shoeblaze

6 жыл бұрын

bertrand russell, logical positivism

@shoeblaze

6 жыл бұрын

although with scientific, and not philosophical statements

@jascoolo

6 жыл бұрын

He is far from irrationality and his hypothesis are maybe futuristic, but as down to earth as you can get.

@jascoolo

6 жыл бұрын

I don't say, that Chomsky is the most important philosopher these days, but he has some points.

@ORaddlyispissedoff

6 жыл бұрын

Jovan Jovanović > trust me in this Why? Who are you? What's the basis upon which we must believe you and not Chomsky? Very strange...

02:00 you know the questioner is EFFED soon as NC starts using the chalkboard eraser

Crazy properties

Wow he has a thick philadelphia accent here.

@rickobrien1583

5 жыл бұрын

Yo he didn't say yo once yagatabeekiddinme.

But the teletransportation experiment can be done also with an object and the answer is just the same, ¿which one is the real object?

I wish there's subtitles on these videos..I'm not a native English speaker and it's really hard to get the words they're saying.

no one can take the place of the human kind because with his thoughting to ideas to concept to cognitive to difference sceince in all domains with his miracle mind with differences intelligence to etcheother human kind because all human have difference intelligence.

Jack Ma recently concurred with Master Chomsky. Yet, everyone was fawning over Elon...

I actually would like to know if airplanes fly...

The person reading this sentence at the beginning of it is not the same person finishing it up right now. The concept of a person is a 'self', and this is more of a product of thought. Consider how you may react amongst friends, a boss, your parents, or someone you're trying to impress. Are you the same in all instances? No, you shapeshift, you reform and adapt. One of the greatest mistakes we as a society do is assume that there's an unchanging entity behind the eyes, carried from one moment to another. This creates enormous problems, such as the dualism between "I" of the head and "me" of the body, the feeling of separation and isolation this makes with an interconnected world, which of course neoliberalism capitalizes on by emphasizing further divisions.

@mtoad

6 жыл бұрын

I think about this concept often when identity politics are discussed. Just like how people tend to draw distinctions between "this is me, but this is not me", when in fact it's all still you, in what could be called different modes, even when it's a mode atypical of you, possibly triggered by an atypical situation; people will say "I was born into the wrong body because I like to wear dresses", or "I'm attracted to men", or "I never liked sports", when the actual issue is in our absurd and paradoxically both too rigid (ie a man behaves in this particular way) and too flexible (straying from the basic definition based on reproductive organs) definition of what it means to be a man or a woman. A man who behaves in ways most commonly associated with female behaviours or has interests and desires commonly associated with a female, is still very much a man. Because of a misunderstanding or twisting, or an incomplete conception, of the definition of what it is they "are"--man, woman, Charlie, son, husband--people end up trying to contort themselves to fit it.

@jonm7888

6 жыл бұрын

Maybe there is only one "I" (consciousness) which contains all of the "mes" or bodies. I think looking at things this way solves a lot of those problems psychologically and in physics.

@owfan4134

Жыл бұрын

Except the person is actually the same, and we understand that intuitively. The intuitive understanding of ontological continuity is both our defining attribute and our outer bound; We are capable of dissecting the whole into pieces for analysis, but we can never go beyond. A chair is many things, most literally a collection of molecules arranged in such a way that objects of similar mass and definite form can mutually conform to each other’s shape- the same cannot be said of a pile of sand or a pool of jello, despite them being very similar at a microscopic level. Your awareness is bound both by the recognition of individuation and by its ephemeral nature, which I think we both can agree is mostly illusory. What I consider debatable is the attribution of awareness to one’s identity, for the former is something more primal and mysterious than the latter. A doctor may be a healer at work, a father at home, a husband on dates, and a football fan at the bar, but there is something consistent in all those cases. It’s not even necessarily the fact that a subject exists for these attributes to apply, but that such things arise and come into being through him. What is language? Where do thoughts come from? Constantly, without any real effort, your mind is generating enormous quantities of information that you are making decisions about passively without necessarily being aware of it. I think we could agree that the one “making the choices” is relatively illusory, as they’re just a collection of events and experiences of sufficient gravity to maintain an identity as one might wear a costume for a play. The thing that makes humans interesting is that you can become aware of that fact and make choices outside of the constraint of “identity”. This is why the idea of “you not really existing” is fundamentally flawed, as it makes the same mistake that “there is no free will” does. Namely, these are an oversimplification used to subvert the narrative significance of our lives in an attempt to create a more easily understood and accessible framework for perceiving reality. The concept of a person is not a “self”, but a vessel for containing one. The question you must answer is how much difference there is between these two, and in what way. I think the answer depends on how much responsibility you take for your own actions and how willing you are to observe yourself plainly and with scrutiny so as to detect bias. That bias is the illusion; there is nothing concrete or objective about our biases, they are the parts of us which are self-fulfilling prophecies that create the justification for their existence according to the demands of our individual ego.

@owfan4134

Жыл бұрын

Mtoad makes a great point, very cleverly identifying the issue surrounding identity politics as actually just being a matter of “clinging” to ideas and thoughtforms. My “idea of manhood” fits certain descriptions, I can list them and identify what qualities this idea should possess; I can develop a platonic object in my mind which corresponds to a nature or essence that I project onto others innately, without being consciously aware of it. Whatever emotional attachment or significance the idea or thoughtform has to me, I will assign to others. By attributing this nature or essence to my identity, I will naturally project it onto others, making me feel threatened or insecure when the ideas are challenged in any way. By accepting the assumption of my bias as being inherently true, I’ve become bound to an outcome which is inevitable if the identity I’ve created for myself is to persist. Most people put up walls and push others who challenge their identity away; this is natural and not to be ashamed of, we’ve evolved to be this way. But we can be better, if we chose to. Imagine the idea of “manliness” in the way Jordan Peterson might describe. Stoicism and a impersonal affect which does not bend to outside influence are inherent to the nature of such a system. There is a great degree of complexity and nuance, but this simple generalization cannot be overturned. If you analyze the content of this assertion, you notice immediately how transient and impermanent it is. What is stoicism? It is the art of seeing things clearly, for what they are and nothing more. What is an impersonal affect? It is the refusal to take into account the whims of fate when considering one’s psychological climate. The first one is not mutually inclusive to the second; if you are to observe something for what it truly is, you must be willing to feel and experience all the emotion which comes with it. The idea that you must become immune to emotional distress comes from an inherent refusal to experience pain or endure the affliction of “unmanliness”. The requirements of the identity which the adherent cleaves demands that the parts of you which fail to conform be “overcome” or otherwise removed. This is contradictory by the same reasoning I just described stoicism being the art of deepening awareness. The act of adhering to an idea, an identity which is being sold to you as worthy of emulation and acceptance is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issues are found entirely within the construct of identity itself, not in the particular orientation it takes on. This is also the problem with identity politics; people think the issue is in other’s use of words or offensive ideas, but this is a surface level issue. The real problem is in a lack of empathy or awareness of the implication of being an inherently social construct whose meaning necessarily depends on the situation it finds itself in. If you deny others dignity, you deny yourself. If you take from others without intention to repay, you rob yourself. If you chose to resist and confront others by means of asserting dominance and control over them in rhetoric or debate, you are enslaving yourself to strife and the suffering of impermanent ideas. Everything dies, everything will end and be forgotten. If we cling desperately to appearances and the orientation of their bodies in the constellation of social dynamics, no matter how much importance we may place on the hero’s journey or other such abstractions, all that really matters is seeing things clearly and without bias. To observe and know as you are known. The same argument can be applied to the opponents of Peterson, and with good reason, but I take his example primarily because the one who claims a title and authority must be willing to be held to account for it. We spend so much time wasting our efforts on enforcing dominance and defending ideas that the real issues become footnotes or fodder for ad hominem assault when civil discourse inevitably breaks down when both sides reach the material threshold of substantive topics of debate they can summon like Pokémon in a duel.

if the self is an emerging property of a process rather than an emerging property of matter, then it is moral to destroy one of them (if done with no suffering).

@TheFrygar

6 жыл бұрын

Why? When the first "process" is stopped, the person dies (their consciousness ends). The second "process" is identical to the first, but the first person's life has still ended - everything goes black and they cease to exist. The moral question is still there.

@MrBlues113

6 жыл бұрын

The "process" isn´t really stopped, it continues in a different place, that is why it is moral to destroy one of them. The first person life hasn´t ended because by definition we said the self is an emerging property of a process rather than matter, if the process hasn´t stopped, life hasn´t stopped. But that is only true if the self is an emerging property of a process rather than matter.

@TheFrygar

6 жыл бұрын

Useless. Processes are instantiated in matter. We know that if we "stop" the process of your nervous system activity, your self will disappear (your consciousness is gone). Stopping the process is death. Starting it somewhere else requires that it be instantiated in new matter. If we start the process a 2nd time and the same "self" and consciousness that existed in the 1st process suddenly arises in the 2nd one, that is supernatural. You are saying that a magical thing called "self" that exists in the 1st process (which we KNOW can be erased by stopping the process) will suddenly arise in the 2nd process in a different medium. That is just science fiction.

@jonm7888

6 жыл бұрын

Pollen Applebee you don't know how consciousness appeared, so you don't know if it will disappear. There is no scientific explanation of consciousness, so there is no reason for you to speak with such certainty. You are just stating your own dogma.

@TheFrygar

6 жыл бұрын

Jonathan Milks - stop your wishful thinking and just listen for a second: all I'm doing is stating FACTS. I agree with you - science has not sufficiently explained consciousness. I never suggested otherwise - please don't argue against strawmen. The only thing I'm speaking with certainty about are facts that anyone can gain from introspection. When you go into general anesthesia or certain parts of your brain are destroyed/injured, it is simply a fact that you lose consciousness (or at least you lose any memory of being conscious). There is no dogma involved here. We have literally no evidence that a "soul" which contains a person's consciousness moves between groups of matter if the "process" of the matter is the same - that's what the OP was suggesting, and that is the only thing I was arguing against. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it so we can see your great scientific discovery. Otherwise, learn how to be skeptical of outlandish claims - it will serve you well.

hoving towards zen tbh.

21st!

So much for the science of psychology.

0 Dislikes, lets keep it that way

SOMA

Is a river an object?

@justgivemethetruth

6 жыл бұрын

why wouldn't it be.

@jonm7888

6 жыл бұрын

It's a concept.

@justgivemethetruth

6 жыл бұрын

I can point to it, I can swim in it, I can fish it in, and some of them can catch on fire ... it's a thing. ;-)

@jonm7888

6 жыл бұрын

justgivemethetruth different water you're pointing to and swimming in, different fish you're catching, different chemicals that are burning. A river is a concept.

Science would say that their DNA is the same

The concept of a person don’t exist in science! So psychology should not use the concept that there is a person in front of the and the trauma from 35 years ago is still shaping the future if nothing is done? Or what does he mean by the concept of science?

Interesting critique to science as way to acquiring truth. As brains are the true creators of the world and the experience, things so obvious as strait lines become human creations, the world can only exist TO us, a universe completely made of rocks is irrelevant, concepts are human, very human, a concept cannot be in itself, a concept appears TO someone, to some brain, to some sort of consciousness. Do planes fly? Flying is a concept to a brain, it is not a concept in itself. Do robots walk? Walking is a human concept, extend the metaphor if you want.

@queleimportapene6582

6 жыл бұрын

This doesn’t mean that all human knowledge is equal to human myth or human dogma, this doesn´t mean that irrigating your pyramid with human blood will increase rain next season just because you believe it, just because rain or blood are human concepts, brain concepts. This doesn´t mean that using radio waves to communicate with antennas and satellites is happening just because you believe it. Science is still different, even though we accepted the most basic thing; a strait line, to be only a human concept, it is still the shortest way between to points in a human space concept, it is probably due to how our brains perceive the world, a world that is human. Maybe our world is constrained by evolution, maybe our brains perceive in that way as a byproduct competition, survival reproduction and mutation.

@deplaneetegmont

Жыл бұрын

"As brains are the true creators of the world" This doesn't make sense. Aren't brains part of the world? How can a part of the world create the world. Mind, not brain, creates the world. Brain does nothing.

Philosophers are just not smart enough to understand Star Trek. It's not the case that the person is duplicated elsewhere and the original destroyed, rather the person is disassembled and the molecules are sent at super speed to the new location and reassembled there. How many philosophy PHD papers are based on this misunderstanding?

@santiagorende5835

6 жыл бұрын

why send molecules? they are all the same

@thisismyname9569

6 жыл бұрын

Precisely to avoid killing the original person. If viewers were told a replica was assembled and the original destroyed, they would rightly see this as murder. There are still difficult questions to be answered. Does moving the molecules also move consciousness? How? These are of course empirical questions that probably can never be answered.

@santiagorende5835

6 жыл бұрын

but our molecules change all the time, cells die and are replaced by others if I recall well, every ten years your skeleton cells (that are the more lasting) are fully replaced. So every ten years you are a totally different person, from the objective perspective. In the video Chomsky says it with 7 years

@thisismyname9569

6 жыл бұрын

Yes. And electrons are always moving between atoms, and atoms being displaced. Quarks move and change. Leaves us with the interesting situation that we don't know what actually exists. All we can do is *consider* something to exist for the purpose of a particular discussion. In your example we *consider* you to be the same person from ten years ago even though 'you' are made of different stuff that you were then.

@fede2

6 жыл бұрын

I don't see a misunderstanding. Once one is hypothetically disassembled, that's problematic enough. That they could be reassembled to form the same material substrate begs a whole host of questions: is the same *person*? does it retain it's previous habits, traits, memories, personality, etc.?

True humanity is found in Jesus Christ alone

@tricanico

6 жыл бұрын

In the abstraction of Jesus, may be.. True humanity is found within humans We are the creators of Love and Music and Science and Poetry

@tricanico

6 жыл бұрын

All of these forms of art converge into One thing The elevation of human soul and society

@bobpolo2964

6 жыл бұрын

Julian - Humans did not create love, reality demonstrates that with abundant evidence

@tricanico

6 жыл бұрын

bob polo that seems to depend on how much you want to elevate the meaning of love If you mean a certain pattern of chemical reactions and whatever, then sure.. that was done by randomness, and we all know how the story goes When I mean Love, I mean something else, I mean that which seems so impossible for human beings to hold and at the same time, it's the most human thing

@bobpolo2964

6 жыл бұрын

Julian - Love that's defined by the world within your own mind is no definition at all, it's just relative. It would be better to derive the definition of love from the source of love itself, namely, God your Creator