Пікірлер

• 
  @raymaharaj355519 күн бұрын

  One of Dawkins' best videos probably .

• 
  @AfsanaAmerica2 ай бұрын

  There's a difference between sincere altruism and fake altruism like someone doing good things in vain. Fake altruism wouldn't have the same outcomes as sincere altruism regarding immortality. I don't think the origins came from selfishness which works in the short term and has negative consequences. The quality of sincerity is important along with other valuable traits that led to human survival and domination.

• 
  @drg111yt3 ай бұрын

  I agree with Noam that the essential core leading to a better life and society is *spiritual* - within the individual consciousness.

• 
  @quantumfineartsandfossils21524 ай бұрын

  so full of shit toxic monster Chomsky is

• 
  @jeanettesdaughter4 ай бұрын

  “ You cannot be a rationalist and a racist; you either have a mind or you don’t.”

• 
  @corywilson20074 ай бұрын

  I like how this would perfectly explain the purpose of gay people.

• 
  @arendpsa5 ай бұрын

  I think compassion is part of our survival genetic structure. Think about love. Altruism is self-destructive.

• 
  @EdwardZeind5 ай бұрын

  A new Kant!

• 
  @plekkchand6 ай бұрын

  "Number one public intellectual in the world"? Why? What does that even mean?

• 
  @jeffbeaudoin45446 ай бұрын

  Noam got schooled

• 
  @estebansteverincon71176 ай бұрын

  It's like a religion, because 100+ years later, with all the well-wishing, and it still isn't here.

• 
  @johnjclawson7 ай бұрын

  “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” ❤

• 
  @bman60658 ай бұрын

  Has Chomsky ever said anything optimistic?

• 
  @Reed50168 ай бұрын

  5:15

• 
  @prataprajat42318 ай бұрын

  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.

• 
  @OneOopsimath8 ай бұрын

  Thanks for posting

• 
  @summerkagan60499 ай бұрын

  What about people and pets? KZread has endless examples of people devoting inordinate amounts of money, time, and energy to taking care of all sorts of animals.

• 
  @phyzix_phyzix9 ай бұрын

  Wow the lies this man tells are incredible

• 
  @gb78869 ай бұрын

  Blah blah blah... I think his point is that humans are only as smart as possible.... Which is ironic because he talked in circles and said nothing.... But ain't he smart....?

• 
  @lorenzomcnally66299 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

• 
  @lorenzomcnally66299 ай бұрын

  The Grand Pa soft spoken encyclopedia of Marxist politics, economics, semantics Aka endless Revisionist History. Always reinventing himself as a proper Anarchist Sociopath should do. Not doubt 60+++ years of the same "Analysis" just changing ' critical' words to seem appropriate and relevant for decades. Chomsky Parenti Wolf Zinn Cornel West And countless other "Academic" Left Wing Peopagandists all saying and reading from the same playbook. Since Democracy ( Demagogues) Murdered Socrates for pointing out their endless logical fallacies and Deconstructionist arguments that Every Dictator in recorded human history has used to work their way into Absolute power and murdered Tens of tens of tens of Millions OF HUMAN BEINGS IN PEACETIME. THE TIME HONORED OLD FASHION way Forced labor Starvation And the Final Solution That even Hitler couldn't out do DISEASE. THE PERFECT SOLUTION TO Uncooperative Socialist Citizens.

• 
  @edwardmurdoch50709 ай бұрын

  The question & answer part shows not enough people are familiar with the basic concept of instrumentalism. Any method and system help us to represent the world within the parameters of such methods and systems. They tell us nothing about an absolute reality.

• 
  @lorenzomcnally66299 ай бұрын

  Noam Chomsky is. A Marxist Revisionist fraud.50 years or better of Maoist semantics. Always reinventing the language of mass murder dictators fromlast century.

• 
  @brucenenke-vk5nk11 ай бұрын

  Yes meta~physics, the fun thing about meta~physics is you can't understand it until you experience it, well that is how tantra is taught. It works but how it works I not even sure the Guru knows but maybe there really is a God called Shiva.

• 
  @brucenenke-vk5nk11 ай бұрын

  Anarchists are Anarchists because like Noam, we are the smartest people on the planet, you too can be one of the smartest people just join your local anarcho~syndicist federation.

• 
  @TheLochs11 ай бұрын

  One of my favorite scientists. Dawkins is a force to be reckoned with.

• 
  @oioi937211 ай бұрын

  " Mind body is meaningless, there is no body, because we have no theory of material" Chomsky is just like Dennett, he just dismisses serious problems with some vague explanation of how necessity for theory of material is invalidating possible observations of unembodied or biologically unconstrained minds. That is an obvious absurdity that seems to me prove how Chomsky's dogmatism about Lockean conceptions of organized matter producing thought, is obscuring his view since he dismisses such obvious possibility as having soul. We are not so stupid to miss the fact that out of body perceptions supported by veridical evidence are in fact pointing to mind and biological body difference and ontological independency of the mind. Not to mention that such events are pretty common and natural, expected in survived patients with cardiac arrests, and otherwise accumulative, consistent and loyally universal in content. Therefore we should hold on with dogmatic judgements about inseparability of mind and body, when there is ever growing presence of counter evidence that threatens to kick the dogma out of scientific stage.

• 
  @tammylynn263611 ай бұрын

  Pizza 🍕 gates ... Hoping it is being exposed

• 
  @danielemondmusic11 ай бұрын

  Sm57. Just keeping track of microphones that actually capture Noam Chomsky audio.

• 
  @DirtBlockGames11 ай бұрын

  Does anyone know where one might find more info on the early 20th century corporate law he describes here? Has Chomsky written about it anywhere? Thanks :)

• 
  @Kostly Жыл бұрын

  Consciousness is "mystical" to Dennett...lmfao...what a weak perspective.

• 
  @Kostly Жыл бұрын

  Dennett is a dwarf compared to Chomsky.

• 
  @JovisHolm Жыл бұрын

  If our cognitive abilities are the same as 50,000 years ago are you going to tell me this is the first time we have been this advanced . Okay! Thanks AI for the recommendation. Thanks for posting this lecture.

• 
  @venderpara7895 Жыл бұрын

  chumpskies rethoric is a joke 50+years

• 
  @uhadme Жыл бұрын

  bald wants you to consider him anyway, his society (culture) matters, and you must be oppressed or coerced by it. I think it went right over his stubborn head.

• 
  @pizzatopia Жыл бұрын

  what a disgusting persona Norm turned out to be. "let the antivaxxers die" or whatever was his exact, hitleristic quote. Fuck you noam, you were once one of my idols.

• 
  @kcufhctib2049 ай бұрын

  I concur with Noam let them kick the bucket.

• 
  @pizzatopia9 ай бұрын

  @@kcufhctib204 spoken like a true psycho.

• 
  @carlitosgl Жыл бұрын

  Dennett does not understand that "infinite" is different from "everything". Chomsky says that language can generate "infinite" elements, like the decimal numbers between 1 and 2 which do not include 3. So the fact that we can generate infinite thoughts has nothing to do whatsoever with the question of whether we can understand all the mysteries of nature. We generate thoughts and sentences within the limits of our human nature. I cannot understand how some people can take Dennett seriously. He seems embarrassingly stupid to me.

• 
  @claudetaillefer1332 Жыл бұрын

  Newton had to reluctantly give up the mechanistic doctrine because of the "action at a distance" (gravity); Einstein opposed the "spooky action at a distance" (quantum entanglement), but recent work in experimental physics shows that he was wrong (return to "occult forces"); quantum mechanics, although incomprehensible and utterly mysterious, is undoubtedly the most robust theory in the history of science; current physical theories, unlike previous ones, although more predictive, have less explanatory power, and hence, do not give us a deeper understanding of the world; the holographic principle, which states that there is an unexplained (mysterious?) relationship between the geometry of space-time (topology) and information; the cosmological constant (Λ), which is so finely tuned that it leads some physicists to abandon the Copernican principle; several physicists today claim that space-time is doomed; Gödel's incompleteness theorems, revisited by the algorithmic theory of information, have as a consequence that almost all mathematical facts escape reason (see Gödel, Chaitin, Calude); Turing's discovery that most problems are uncomputable; etc. No wonder that ignorabimus has become fashionable again. It makes us want to re-examine our usual assumptions about the comprehensibility of the world, or lack thereof, and question one of Einstein's most famous quotes: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." Today science and mathematics have consequences which many find perplexing. Personally, what I find the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it seems incomprehensible.

• 
  @casteretpollux Жыл бұрын

  "A pure sceptic" The guy in the white shirt asks a question that challenges Chomsky's scepticism. First Chomsky interrupts him to subtly disparage his lisp. Then Chomsky in passive voice accuses him of scepticism. MIT man Chomsky is as slithery as the nematode worm he mentions. And why the nematode worm turns left is no big mystery. What a charlatan, and how easily people are duped. If someone wants a summary of Chomsky's message is, its " we don't know anything, pass the pay check".

• 
  @casteretpollux Жыл бұрын

  Why does no one call out Chomsky's bull shit? "All there is is information" " material is no more real than ectoplasm" . Just another common or garden mystifier (and he pretends to poo poo the "mystery men") . He throws out a lot of verbiage and name drops but is thoroughly reactionary at base. The Emperor is stark naked.

• 
  @gmb1539 Жыл бұрын

  Another book report in search of praise.

• 
  @peterbarker8249 Жыл бұрын

  ...end two half's

• 
  @stevenhines5550 Жыл бұрын

  liberalism in its classical era was developed in a post-feudal but pre-capitalist environment crucial distinction nobody ever told me that no professor, no text book it just clears up a lot of confusion edit: McGee is impressed with the clarity

• 
  @Theslipperylemur Жыл бұрын

  gonna be helpful in a few years time when rishi sunak goes full in on his beliefs

• 
  @johnrossini3594 Жыл бұрын

  i am the type of old libertarian chomsky is talking about

• 
  @firstlast991610 ай бұрын

  Also known as communist. Stealing is not a virtue. It doesn’t make you humane.

• 
  @johnrossini359410 ай бұрын

  @@firstlast9916 different types of communists yeah some in the 19th century were libertarian not so much in 20th cent.

• 
  @lorenzomcnally66299 ай бұрын

  Libertarian Communist? Like a Catholic Nun executioner? This man is consummate dissimulating revisionist liar. Decades of Revisionist Lies.

• 
  @zxl2537 Жыл бұрын

  what you cannot understand you cannot identity.

• 
  @robertroecker851 Жыл бұрын

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

• 
  @sheilamacdougal4874 Жыл бұрын

  Remarkably horrendous comments even by yt standards.

• 
  @ravik7073 Жыл бұрын

  Self-promoting genes v selfish genes! I don't see much difference.

• 
  @Dr.IanPlect Жыл бұрын

  Where do you suppose this summation shows your level of understanding?

• 
  @dalenewton9697 Жыл бұрын

  Love Chomsky but if he genuinely considers that Newton's model of the universe resolves the mind-body problem then can't have understood one or other of the two. He surely must have understood them both, which leaves me wondering why he says this. The mind-body problem asks the question of how non-physical stuff (res cogitant/the mind) can exert influence of control over physical stuff (res extensa/the body). Newton's universal attraction applies only to res extensa, and says nothing about how it might interact with a theoretical res cogitant.