His talk is one thing, but you begin to see his power when he answers questions.

@Wretchedrenegade

Жыл бұрын

Kind of like a freestyle rap

@julir3754

Жыл бұрын

I totally agree. His sharpness and mental clarity are astonishing.

@hjuikkll

Жыл бұрын

Cower before his power Edit: power lol

@chrisdolan9515

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely.

To still be sharing his experience and knowledge at his age is honorable. We'll all loose something when Chomsky is gone, and I'm glad I was able to learn of his view on the world.

@coreycox2345

4 жыл бұрын

I think the same, Henny Zhi. His work has changed my view of the world.

@lorenzomcnally6629

9 ай бұрын

Devolution Marxist Anarchist sociopath Numb CHUMPsky. Decades of Deconstruction Revisionist Human history. Everything he preaches soundly rejected by 2000 years of objective reality. Called Civilization

@arthurpenndragon6434

5 ай бұрын

who could've guessed the same could be said 9 years later.

How rarely humanity is gifted with an individual whose personal ethics are not completely corrupted by money or power, and whose intellect raises him to a level that cannot be denied. Then even rarer the man cares about the future of humanity and is still actively pursuing a more just world. IMHO a hero and a role model.

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

One of the things which surprised me in this lecture is A. for how very long Chomsky's comclusions have been known and B. how sucessfully our educational systems managed to hide these from us.

@nicholasdedless4881

7 жыл бұрын

I've often thought that Chomsky's scientific ideas are not given nearly the attention they deserve in the common culture because his political ideas are so in conflict with the main stream view. Its impossible to overstate his influence on turning the "soft" sciences into actual science. Both Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Psychology were based on his ideas. Also, his influence on computer science is seldom appreciated. After Turing and Von Neumann I think Chomsky is one of the most influential theorists who enabled the modern computer. If you take a class on how to write a compiler (the software that is used to create most computer programming languages) the Chomsky Language Hierarchy is essential theoretical background. Also, in Natural Language Processing his early theoretical work helped explain why the naive context independent approaches to machine translation could never work.

@evalsoftserver

7 жыл бұрын

THE EDUCATION SYSTEM LIKE MOST SYTEM WILL RESIST ANNY MEANINGFUL CHANGE , THESE ARE ALL POWER STRUCTURES ANND CENTERS JUST LIKE THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL POWERS . CHANGE CAN BE FEARFUL, AND MAY LIMIT THE POWER OF THE POWERFUL , I THINK THIS IS THE REASON WHY SOCIAL CHANGE IS SLOW OR NON ESISTENT.

@nicholasdedless4881

7 жыл бұрын

One more point regarding how Chomsky conclusions are hidden. Its obvious this happens in regard to his political writing and also why it happens. In fact why they essentially ignore Chomsky's political ideas is part of what Chomsky himself explains (e.g., in Manufacturing Consent). But his scientific and philosophical ideas are also very much ignored. I was amazed recently when I audited a Linguistics class at UC Berkeley and I started talking about the Chomsky Language Hierarchy and there was nothing but blank faces (including the professor's) in the room. They simply had no idea what I was talking about. Now I realize that Chomsky's formal analysis of language is not all of Linguistics... in fact I was just watching a talk from Chomsky where he's highly critical of certain aspects of the formal approach... which I thought was interesting because he can be so formal. Sorry... I digressed... my point is it just amazed me that people in a graduate level Linguistics class would not even know what the Chomsky language hierarchy was. And I've found this in many other areas, especially philosophy. In several philosophy classes I've audited at Berkeley... come to think of it in EVERY philosophy class I've audited at Berkeley people talk about materialism as if Chomsky's critique didn't exist. Its not that they deny it they just ignore it and most of them probably haven't even heard or at least understood it. I think part of that is his unpopular political views also make him generally unpopular, even in Academia. But also, that he's just as much outside the mainstream of philosophical thought as his is on political thought, and since his argument are so rigorous its easier to just ignore him and continue with their same BS.

@jassohal4273

7 жыл бұрын

Can anyone explain what's Chomsky's contribution to computer science ? I'm not familiar with his science work, just politics

@evalsoftserver

7 жыл бұрын

He basically DISCOVERED that ALL Language both Human Language LIKE English, Hebrew, and Computer languages ARE. RELATED AND have a Internal ORDER. THE Programming Language FORTRAN developed BY IBM John Backus Used Chomsky work on Formal Grammar , Which. Described a Symbolic RELATIONSHIP between ALL Programming Language THAT A Computer Can UNDERSTAND

That's dude on Reddit who shared this video. Cheers.

@typicalgold1568

9 жыл бұрын

***** agreed.... Mighty good find.

@SimonNathanael

9 жыл бұрын

Kyle Berge ...again :) floats to the front pages of r/phil and other subs fairly often since 2012.

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

Highly Recommended!!! Having watched many Chomsky videos, this is among the best. Great audio, camera, fabulous Q&A and his talk was 45 minutes instead of pushing 100 minutes. A very lucid conversation of our limits and understanding.

Seeing the audience, many of whom seem to be falling asleep, I can not get over the feeling that this content-wise brilliant lecture, filled with significant information, observations, and conclusions, is over the heads of many of them. And not because it is not comprehensible, but because Chomsky presents it in such a matter-of-fact way that it fails to excite an average mind into serious thinking.

@michaelarradondo4441

9 жыл бұрын

He doesn't have the same simple concepts to present like Hans Rosling, even though his presentation is straight forward, the attention requirements are comparatively steep.

@Dubravko49

9 жыл бұрын

Ron Kent Yes, ... "some" being the keyword.

@typicalgold1568

9 жыл бұрын

Dubravko Kakarigi I disagree... I think it is mostly because he in a place where most people appear to speak another language as their first language... The mere fact that he uses such complicated words to express his ideas is why people are probably lost.

@Dubravko49

9 жыл бұрын

Kyle Berge I agree with your statement. I fault Chomsky for not adjusting his presentation to take this fact into account.

@LAlba9

9 жыл бұрын

Dubravko Kakarigi That's how the Chomsk-master rolls! He's a data drone filled with encyclopedic knowledge second only to Yahweh.

Maybe my favorite Chomsky talk? That's saying a lot. I was wondering why so-called transhumanists didn't seem to like him. Now i know! Good times. Thanks for sharing.

@richidpraah

8 жыл бұрын

+M. Gilley You can also check out the interview with him called 'the singularity is science fiction' with a transhumanist advocate or the article called 'where artificial intelligence went wrong' - putting those loopy would-be-transhumans in their place

@Reaver717

5 жыл бұрын

I know this is like 6 years old but I've only found this video recently. I actually love Chomsky and his teachings and philosophy and I also believe in much of what transhumanism postulates. I don't where the idea that transhumanists dislike Chomsky though, can you elaborate?

@MassDefibrillator

4 жыл бұрын

@@Reaver717 I'm assuming it's got to do with Chomsky's position on the limitations of human cognition, and the inability to alter or augment it without first understanding what creates and defines it. Furthermore, the apparent reality that such understanding may lie outside our cognitive abilities; which he implied when talking about how neurosciences are making the same conclusions that philosophers did centuries ago: that human cognition is some emergent property of the brain with no mechanistic connection to the brain itself.

It's funny to hear contemporary scientists to find "new, radical ideas" that were commonplace of philosophy decades o centuries ago. The education of scientists should include philosophy to avoid this amnesia and reinventing of the wheel.

@capitanmission

8 жыл бұрын

+Carlos Paz Despierta Science needs different proofs. But yeah, we need more interaction, in both ways.

@gunkwretch102

8 жыл бұрын

+Carlos Paz Despierta The philosophy was even more commonplace before Christianity, I like Chuang Tzu myself but the "hard question" is the "cornerstone" of basically world mystical thought

@kierkegaard240

8 жыл бұрын

+Carlos Paz Despierta If only. It seems like, at least with how scientists are home grown today in institutions of higher education if not due to personality, those who think scientifically as a profession are just much more likely *not* to think philosophically -- more broadly and deeper into the assumptions that we take for granted about things. That is, although science is analytical, it's very unanalytical when it comes to science itself, for example, or other big questions. There even seems to be a sort of pride in thinking scientifically rather than philosophically -- which is really funny, you know, because science has all sorts of complicated philosophical presuppositions built into it, meaning the scientist who scoffs philosophy is sawing off the branch he's sitting on. Maybe this is why Einstein said the man of science is a poor philosopher.

@gunkwretch102

8 жыл бұрын

hmmm good point, I have noticed this as well, never mind the fact that science grew out of natural philosophy and people like Aristotle. I think it might be a bias related to atheism, as many of them like to think that demonstrating causality somehow disproves all spirituality. Now I can see that there is a bit of justifiable defensiveness due to the atrocities of Christianity and all that bull, but the idea that there is an order to nature and this is the best means of studying the "divine" or whatever you want to call it was the basis on which scientific rationalism was justified. For example, if you think as Greeks did that nature is sacred, then science and the study of nature is Pagan theology and from this we get alchemy and eventually science. Chomsky's idea of a universal grammar isnt even original, it comes out of Christian occultism which sought to find the "Adamic language," that is the language spoken before the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel. While there was no such language and the tower is a myth, the search for this was actually how linguistics was founded

@bobphilo

8 жыл бұрын

+Carlos Paz Despierta Excellent observation todays scientists are often naïve about philosophical concepts but go on to make philosophical statements. For example, Carl Sagan defined the Universe as "All there ever was or ever will be", but astrophysicists say that the Universe all started with the Big Bang with no proof that there weren't other Big Bangs. Anything that didn't begin with our Big Bang must be another Universe. How can their be another everything? What's most annoying is that theoretical astrophysicists are calling themselves cosmologists, which is a branch of metaphysics, without ever having studied the subject. The role of science is to measure natural phenomena. To speculate on unmeasured or unmeasurable phenomena using reason is the realm of Philosophy. When scientists venture into this area they must work with philosophers.

I know what you mean; it gets easier after you've done that for a few years, and it's a great way to build up your vocabulary. Reading his books has been by far the most productive educational endeavor of my life on many levels. Vocabulary isn't the most important, but it's a nice side benefit. His book "Understanding Power" was amazing, but I'd say that about all of his books that I've read so far.

I love Noam Chomsky and I have to listen to every word to grasp where he is going with this. Wow.

“Concerning the gods, I cannot ascertain whether they exist or whether they do not, or what form they have; for there are many obstacles to knowing, including the obscurity of the question and the brevity of human life” ❤

Just stumbled upon this... one of the most interesting talks by Chomsky, and I've seen a few...! Excellent. Thanks for upload.

@epic6434

Жыл бұрын

Eugene ics seems like it's being done in the yoga pants but people act and learn word's and I still need myself to understand how to put them together to be understood some people are influenced out of their programming from parent's kids don't find anything in common with them coming from different cultures but think we're the same it's like we get what we can but didn't get everything we wanted compared to U.S. well we got tossed into the threat of change looking back my teacher throws me into desks once she lost her cool for what reason I didn't get a warning busted my head open my mom didn't press charges she didn't know that she didn't attack the teacher but someone must've angered her cause it was after lunch. I noticed the change in staff the less activity the assignment on the board so we had to show annitiative not sure if I spelled that right but yeah my interest in studying change not that I was reading big books it was angry kid's to fight we had the gangs become popular it was attitude the leadership was favorable to theirs I went to visit family in Mexico 6th grade they were smarter the culture is social always greeting people talking everyone is walking around to the market or plaza I missed it but it was poor some lived relatives lived on ranch dirt floors outhouse but they had a horse they rented out the acres for growing food but they were poor or cheapskate cause they had a truck didn't like going far. The ones in the city was more modern plumbing nice places not huge tho another in a colonia it's like a walled off area but everyone built there home cinder block homes the had areas for kids to play soccer but that's about it.

I agree, this more than any of his others has really made me think... I think one of the signs that Chomsky is such a genius, is not so much how he answers questions, but how he knows what questions we should be asking.

I think I'll rewatch to really process it all. Chomsky's a champ.

One of the best things on youtube ... fantastic.

Well I thoroughly enjoyed this video even though I feel more confused than ever.

He doesn't take down corporations. He's an old man, he critiques them. He spreads the message, it's down to the new generation to bring them down.

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

No matter if i agree with 100% of what Dr. Chomsky says, I do love his genuine, humble pursuit of knowledge and truth. Always stimulating.

Great lecture. Thanks for posting.

Wow, this was a phenomenal lecture.

I saw videos of this guy debate Skinner, he does not age. I love his explanation of "ghost in the machine" in his arguments related to origin of language and language development.

That was awesome...what a beautiful and inspiring exchange of ideas in the Q&A portion too.

i love him. i hope he never dies

A truly fascinating watch! Very eye-opening.

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

@LiamPorterFilms

3 жыл бұрын

@@sweetbrown3476 Not bad thanks - kinda cold - and how is the weather condition over there?

@LiamPorterFilms

3 жыл бұрын

@@sweetbrown3476 🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕

I'm impressed with his confidence. An obvious consequence of wisdom.

I was familiar with Kant before hearing this lecture, and I know about Darwin's skepticism about our cognitive faculties. But I wasn't aware so many great thinkers were skeptical about our ability to do metaphysics. It's funny to me how in Newton's case he viewed the world as mechanistic because it was intelligible and how that idea turned into a view of the cosmos as dead an inert since many ancient philosophers esp the greeks thought of the universe as a living organism. The only fault I can ever find with Chomsky is to what degree he's cynical about the powers of institutions, his analysis is factual, but to what degree can we have a society without power struggles. Yet, he really does inform us about the agenda of powerful institutions.

I love you, Chomsky! You contribute to my world!

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

This has to be in another country. Look at all the people standing in the walkway just to listen to this genius for an hour. Even though Noams itelligence on certain sources contradicts his own opinion or interpretation, for example politics and economics, there is still no denying that his scholarship and knowledge of material is spectacular. A true awakening for someone expanding their knowledge

Noam Chomsky never ceases to amaze and inspire me! Great lecture.

at this point i have heard of everything, im just listening to more chomsky to get a dose of logic, intelligenc and sanity when needed...

@ashton1860

4 жыл бұрын

chomsky (or any scientific mind) wouldn't be too impressed with you presuming that you've 'heard of everything'

@bntagkas

3 жыл бұрын

@@ashton1860 yes you are right, i meant everything i could find on the internet from chomsky also heard is different from fully remembering or partially or fully understood, but thats a different discussion

@MrKrisstain

3 жыл бұрын

You get addicted to it, the concise nature of his logic and rationality, and also constantly awed by his ability to dish out information.

thanks for this interesting upload !

We love you Noam .... enough said !

I enjoyed this: "There is not a single effect in nature such that the most ingenius theorist can arrive at a complete understanding of it." --- Galileo

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

This is one of his best lectures.

@chadbrockman4791

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. This is a fantastic explanation of a profound thesis.

now that is the question! finding the limit of your cognition!

Chomsky would choose Liquid Swords over Cuban Linx for sure

@kingmu1

5 жыл бұрын

Lol

@blygox129

5 жыл бұрын

I love this comment so much XD

@gaulindidier5995

4 жыл бұрын

That’s a tough choice. Knowledge god is such a great song tho!

I have enjoyed this rich and thought provoking lecture. I found interesting the argument that "misterianism" i.e. the doctrine that there are limits to the ability of humans to solve conceptual problems finds its natural place in evolutionary theory, as soon as one accepts that the human genetic program implies both scope and limitations.

He should be the ideal for future generations of students of knowledge.

go to setting > speed > 1.25, enjoy

@richidpraah

8 жыл бұрын

+francoisduvalcork YEEESSS

@byakugan2173

8 жыл бұрын

+francoisduvalcork Thank you. It's actually easier to comprehend this way

@fiercekrypton

8 жыл бұрын

+francoisduvalcork life saver

@popmop1234

8 жыл бұрын

YOU SIR, BLESS

@DForce26

7 жыл бұрын

Set to 1.5... Works even better

What a beautiful mind

Seems like a smart guy! I'll get back with this later!

excellent. thank you.

yes, being super-awesome is great for your complexion

Hey!My question is do we should hybrid thinking now or at the end(when we have nanobots in brain --we connect the cloud) or at the big computer--singularity times ? ..any writing?

Does anyone know if Chomsky has written a book about this topic of diskussion? Extremely interesting!

You are doing well, my friend.

Great talk!!!

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

The questions we ask are not just the verbally formulated. Every movement of relating is a communication within a field of communication, Consciousness, experienced as a movement of Being. To relate only within accepted definitions is not to fully relate, but to transact/exploit in mutually agreed self-interest, defined over and against an actuality actively ignored. Unifying answers serve an illumination of relation/communication rather than a self-certainty of a defined part over the whole.

Many thanks!!

I often wish we lived in a world in which Chomsky could have spent 100% of his time on stuff like this. This is an extremely illuminating discussion about a truly deep issue. A lot better for all of us to think about than the latest entirely predictable crimes of the powerful, but unfortunately the world will not just go away--ie, become tolerably just.

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

wow. he said he dad "75 years of conciousness" but i did not realize he was that old. it makes sense and he's still wise beyond his years. Did anyone ever read or listen to a single word he ever said in public school? We should put him in our textbooks so at least our children will have enough knowwledge to make a basic decision.

Is this transcribed or parsed down into an essay or two by Chomsky somewhere? That would be incredibly useful! Thanks!

Are there any brand names in Norway? Nobody seems to be wearing their favorite baseball team's logo, etc., etc.

Seems that some people have well and truly convinced themselves that total absolute freedom without limits of any kind is nonsensical. Bravo! it really takes no effort to win that argument. The concept of free will however is not, however, a question of whether or not one is absolutely free, without limitations or constraints of any kind, to act. Framing the argument in those terms is not only absurd, but completely obscures what should be interesting about the question of freedom of the will.

Thanks Bill Hicks!

I think his argument boils down to: You can't represent the mind as a series of "purely deterministic" equations. Mind = Brain = Atoms = Quantum Mechanics (QM). x = a + b + c + [Non-deterministic Quantum Variables]. In QM simulators, random number generators are used to provide values for these quantum variables. A simple equation would be nice, as you could use algebra on it to get hard rules for the brain. At best,these equations will be: x = a + b + c + [some fuzzy value]

Great talk. Mechanicalism (if I can coin such an ism) can be understood as a result of political pressures on what was otherwise allowed to be studied by our forebears. A distinction was made by the Church between 'science' and the 'supernatural'. Science was allowed to be studied but supernaturalism wasn't (the penalty could be death at various times in our history). The problem confronting Newton (and later Einstein) was how to study gravity (amongst other things) without such being regarded as a study of the supernatural. Scientists had previously succeeded in arguing the study of mechanics was a science (and not the supernatural) which the Church then took to mean that science was the study of mechanics (rather than mechanics was part of the study of science). So when something like gravity (as a scientific idea) came along scientists had to find a way of describing it in terms of mechanics lest they be accused of entertaining study of the supernatural. The problem is that it couldn't be entirely described in terms of mechanics. And the way it could be described, such as "action at a distance" was positively supernatural. Einsteins problems with quantum theory inherits some of this history without really understanding it's origins in such political pressures. The Haunting (1963) Trailer ( Julie Harris, Claire Bloom and Richard Johnson)

@beerj1992

3 жыл бұрын

Interesting point

Does anyone know if Chomsky has a book where he talks about this in more depth?

Gosh, I wish at least one of the persons who asks questions would've listened to what he just said in the talk.

we have logic and desires, we can follow whatever we choose that's the free will

He's a genius. I hear him speak and just wish I could get near this kind of insight and understand on any topic... and yet he shows a depth of knowledge on politics, physics, and of course linguistics and so many other topics. The dude is ridiculous.

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

@BennyOcean

3 жыл бұрын

@@sweetbrown3476 Interesting response to an 8 year old comment. I am doing ok and it is cold but not snowy. Normal weather for this time of year. How are you?

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

@@BennyOcean It's my pleasure coming in contact with you here, please contact me on my email so we can get to know each other more better. I have something very interesting i will love to share with you. Also we can get to know each other more better. Name: Sweet Brown Email: sweetestbrown27@gmail.com

@ Fritzbedeek, The question about the Higgs boson and photon wasn't posed clearly. What the fellow should have asked about is the notion in modern physics that the 4 fundamental forces are mediated by carrier particles, of which the photon would be an example (for the electromagnetic force) but not the Higgs (which has to do with the origin of mass, as Chomsky points out). Gravity is postulated to have its own carrier particle, the graviton, which has not been discovered yet, although ...

something like the new launguage you've given us there is kind of how much reason i see in Quantum Physics. I guess that makes me a student of philosophy and not Physics, but i love thinking about physics hahaha

Thank you for simplifying. Your question is framed in a kind of absolutist manner. So I will address that (having no choice) - It seems obvious that we all, always, are being and acting within the world around us, and certainly we are never free from the world around us. We are in it, and from it, produced by it, and act within it. To act outside of the world within which we are produced, has no imaginable meaning (other than acting in Heaven). So let's simplify further then and...

you..me..we who are many = us..whom never stop learning..question everything...self reliance, self responsibility..open eyes..open mind....to never stop thinking..that is all that is required.. & he expects this of us, just as we do of ourselves

Fantastic.

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

Man is the embodied breath of Life, triune unity of Body Word Spirit.

It seemed like Dr. Chomsky didn't hear the whole sense of the question the fellow asked about the search for the Higgs boson being a quest back to mechanical philosophy through the idea of physical contact action of matter. Does the notion of the Higgs boson at all imply that gravity is an exchange of particles? I wonder if there is any other instance of the Professor addressing this?

Has this ever been published in any version that we hear here?

just hoping i get to see Roger Penrose and Chomsky together in a conversation. Choose whatever topic you like, but just make it happen before Time snatches from us the possibility of it happening.

Outstanding.

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

@TJ_USA

3 жыл бұрын

@@sweetbrown3476 cold...wet...

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

@@TJ_USA It's my pleasure coming in contact with you here, please contact me on my email so we can get to know each other more better. I have something very interesting i will love to share with you. Also we can get to know each other more better. Name: Brown Email: sweetestbrown27@gmail.com

...and that motion, and decision, are even a possibility. This is the question of freedom of the will. It is not a question of whether or not we have total and absolute freedom to choose anything of any kind without limit whatsoever.

28:18 "Those who accept modern biology should all be mysterians instead of ridiculing it because mysterianism follows directly from the theory of evolution everything we scientifically believe about humans. So the common ridicule of this concept right through philosophy of mind at what it amounts to is the claim that somehow humans are angels exempt from biological constraints." I've never thought of it this way, but it has occurred to me how so many discussions which claim to be "based in science" are actually so PROFOUNDLY UNSCIENTIFIC. Just look at the proliferation of all these "positivist" (BTW, I don't know why they never claim this term, nor why no one questions them about this) talking head thinkers these days like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. The current profession of science appears to be in danger of going off the rails of having any logical connection to the conclusions reached by the universally acknowledged geniuses who made the science we have today possible.

thank you for your interesting reply. i think this is what we would expect given that the only evidence is our migration and the evolutionary anomaly that is our rapid expansion in brain mass --> creativity, language, law etc. The question still unanswered from Noam then is the contemporary one - is the taboo of these substances preventing a natural evolutionary course. Hicks, Carlin, Huxley, McKenna, Rogan and keepers of Shamanic tradition would say so. WIth limited experience, i would agree

I've seen Manufacturing Consent - good stuff!

Does he develop these ideas in one of his books? Please, if anyone knows, let me also know in what book he talks about his topic.

The introduction was short, sweet and Czech. Just the way it should be.

Just curious, what's physical matter? how is it distinguished from thoughts, consciousness, reason, mathematics, emotions, direct detection of forces of nature (not the consequences) or 95% of this universe and beyond. My understanding it's our interpretation of the behavior of existence defined in terms such as energy and matter in order to described phenomena within our limitations of human experience.

@ Fritzbedeek ..although the carriers of the other 3 forces have been observed. Roughly, the picture is that 2 particles exert gravit. force on each other through the exchange of the graviton, unlike in Newton's action-at-a-distance, where nothing mediates the force. Chom. doesn't address that. But modern physics has other "incomprehensible" notions, as Chom. points out, such as curved spacetime and quantum entanglement, which Einstein dismissively referred to as "spooky action-at-a-distance."

I can't believe how bad some of the questions at the end were

@ClintonCota

9 жыл бұрын

I'll have to watch. I'm a big Noam Chomsky fan.

@jimbogrey1368

9 жыл бұрын

wow deep stuff

@jimbogrey1368

9 жыл бұрын

What would you have asked ....

@lqacwaz1

9 жыл бұрын

Carolyn Ellis ah well some of the early questions were good - one can't make out the clueless types in an audience - even if they are all science nobel prize winners of fellows of the royal society or whatever ... philosophical maturity is unfortanately not so common...

@aduralkain

9 жыл бұрын

Carolyn Ellis Yes, I also thought some of those questions were bad, but that only made me appreciate even more Chomsky's patience and his exquisite intellectual attitude. He was never condescending or patronizing in his response, but gave intelligent answers that took those (probably stupid) questions seriously.

30:15. Charles Sanders Pearce. - in history of science fret discoveries are made almost simultaneously.

Is there a way to get my hands on the transcript for this speech?

1:26:00 Never has a question been shot down sooo hard lmao

@Numidium_

3 жыл бұрын

True

Free will implies decision making by the organism independent of internal or external stimuli. But it doesn't imply that it has to be accessible to consciousness. Your mind's made a decision independently and on its own accord, even if it was by the unconscious part of the mind.

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis.

His whole point may be that there is some principle, or organization, of the mind that allows free will, but without us as conscious agents of it. That is very mysterous. His point. We may not have the capcitity to discover, or, to understand what happens inside our own heads (or wherever the locus of our free agency is).

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

That the bending of the space-time fabric by matter causes gravity.

A virtuosic intellectual performance.

nice vid thanks

What is the title of the book he is referring to by John Archibald Wheeler ~49:00

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

"When you know nothing, everything is complicated"

16:02 to 16:30 how was the hope dashed by 20th-century science?

don't fret. people will build on his work.

You are right that will and the senses were subjects he felt were outwith the scope of his subject matter because they are aspects of human experience which philosophers fumble with and find it impossible to reach common understanding We can't explain free will because it doesn't exist. We appraise potential actions at conscious level, then formulate intentions, based on preference, When matched by implementation , then only in retrospect, do we think we have" exercised free will."

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

Will is the experience of causation. Just because something is determined doesn't mean it's predictable or understandable.

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

Land is to the fish what the ocean is a human. Consciousness may well be an emergent property of our reality, and our bodies are just an instrument which limits, and focuses it. The way the human mind is limited is obvious in our perception of time as linear. It's easy enough to understand you wouldn't exist without your parents preceeding you, but understanding your parents would not be your parents without having had you, gives only the slightest glimpse at the way things beyond your capacity of understanding actually work.

I think it is like saying that because time exists, that because there is a past, the (my) future will happen the way it was going to happen anyway and my will (desire, want, choice) can have no bearing on it, and that my choices and "will" are illusions. In response to that I say, what difference does it make if I believe that to be true or not? Even if my "will" is an illusion and does not exist, still I will "live" controlled by the world, and I will wait to see what the next moment brings..

does anyone know if there is a transcript of this talk ?

I think Chomsky would encourage us to promote understanding to those who are misguided.

@sweetbrown3476

3 жыл бұрын

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?