It's tiring to listen so much vocal fry in every sentence.

My thoughts have always been that like workers councils interacting with other workers councils in the form of delegations would only be given authority over things pertaining to interaction between councils/groups. Like the difference between this more federation-like structure and a republic like the US would be that they can't say, decide on behalf of the group to impose the will of the other group on the group they represent. Something like a vote in the house of representatives causing the will of Texans to be imposed on Californians because of majority rule would never happen. Is that right does he ever go into detail on this?

He talks in circles and never really says anything

Thank you, Noam

Reciprocal altruism is still a kind of refine selfishness

Powerful and meaningful words

"...extract ourselves from the nastiness of the nature and live by our values..." Dawkins nails it down so well

I'm not sure I can conclude that Ron Paul is guilty of advocating for the things he was said to believe in this video. I have always liked Ron Paul more than other US politicians but in the end I always feel like there is something less than 100% right (correct), that I do not know how to articulate. That said, he does remain the only presidential candidate I ever supported.

some citations: 2:36 David Hume, History of England Vol- 6, Chapter 71 (LXXI.) 9:34 Philosophical Writings, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe and P. T. Geach 10:31 The Philosophical Works of Descartes Rendered Into English by Elizabeth S. Haldane And G. R. T. Ross, Discourse on Method, Part V, p. 116 Discourse on the Method, pt. V. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch, Vol 1, pp. 139-140 56:07 David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section IX Further readings 10:24 Chomsky Noam, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 10:31 Chomsky Noam, 1966 Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist, Creative Aspect of Language Use p. 3 in first ed. and p. 59 in third ed.

i will not pass on my genes, lest i give this garbage "gift" of life onto an unsuspecting soul. you like hurdling about on this garbage rock, as an ape, killing, stealing and lying to each other, doomed to annihilation longterm? be my guest. but i will not drag my children along for the ride. what a joke of a universe this is.

Chomsky is a mental comunist, but critisized libertarians...they accept selfresponsability. Unknown to state dependents

But if, in Dawking's hypothesis, the gene is selfish, and the organism is completely functional to the gene, what follows is that the organism is completely altruistic towards the gene. So altruism is not only an emergent property of selfishness, it is its very counterpart. Hence, the statement that "all the nature is selfish" shows to be incorrect.

I first learned of Dawkins in an Evolutionary Psychology course I took in university about 25 years ago. I didn't like him at all back then, now Dawkins is one of my favorite humans. The most pleasant surprise is how kind, hopeful and honest he is. I wish Dawkins had gotten into the mechanisms for altruism; for example, do hormones such as oxytocin, estrogen and testosterone play a role?

Miller Maria Walker Shirley Thomas John

Dennett is misrepresenting what Chomsky says. Chomsky simply points out that our brains didn't evolve to do science they evolved to maximize reproductive success of Late Pleistocene hunter gatherers. Thus, it is very rational to hypothesize that there may be certain questions which we may not even be able to ask let alone answer. It is speculation but it's based on very solid science. In fact Evolutionary Psychology research from the last few decades is filled with results from studies with infants that show we are predisposed to conceptualize the world in certain ways. See the book edited by Hirschfeld and Gelman called Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. There is even at least one example of how these predispositions to conceptualize the world in certain ways made scientific advancement difficult (at least that's the hypothesis and I think there is good evidence for it). In that book one of the Cognitive Modules (that's the name ev-psych people use for innate concepts and ways of cognition) that there is the most evidence for is contact mechanics. Infants assume that for two objects to affect each other they must come into physical contact. This view dominated science of the Enlightenment and was a major reason the best minds of his day pushed back against Newton's theory of gravitation. Because that theory did away with contact mechanics and replaced them with gravitational fields which were seen as "occult forces" by the scientists of Newton's time. Newton himself thought this was a major problem with his theory. See Chomsky's video: The Ghost, the machine, and the limits of understanding. Side comment: I hate the mocking tone Dennett takes. I've listened to Chomsky talk about everything from philosophy to linguistics to politics and no matter how rude the opposition he is always polite and uses reason not cheap appeals to emotion as Dennett does here.

Dennett is such an ass 😂

Hernandez Sarah Taylor Jeffrey Johnson Eric

Walker Helen Lee Maria Jones Kevin

Jones Gary Walker Matthew Lee Michelle

24:00

Thompson Ruth Lewis Donna Harris Kevin

Mysterianism is obscurantist.

Young John Lee Lisa Miller Donna

Of all the hundreds of Chomsky lectures/videos I have seen, this has by far the best introduction. Chomsky seems also surprised and happy for that (short) introduction.

Truly a hero to the cause

smartest guy, stupidest questions

who is the mechanical philosophy well known artisan - jack deon consung???

Sra. Wisniewski Profesora de Español

Dawn Wisniewski Profesora de español

Señior Wiz

Can someone help to explain to me what he means by " not having body / there's no notion of ' physical ' / ' material' " ? I get lost here (I have little knowledge about linguistics or philosophy of mind, other than slight knowledge about Kant and Hume, sorry )

Jesus that was annoying when Krauss piped in. Put a Krauss content warning next time!

In this world we have...the social-paradox......the abstract and the reality...we see.... very interesting....and Chomsky is right... after...Newton...is nothing different.....F=ma.....over and over....👍👋😄

EVERYTHING THAT IS LIVING…. IS THE SAME ONE LIFE…..JUST WITH DIFFERENT PROGRAMMING….. you think your are YOU 🤪

Programming…rna dna 🧬 …. That’s y there’s 8 billion +…..it works. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿😎

IMO. Shill. Female.

Saying we can't understand something is saying we know all the things we could understand . Saying we can understand something is saying we know all the things we can't understand . Saying there is possibility of knowing something is saying we know all impossible things of our understanding .

Saying we can't understand something assumes you know all the things we can understand. I disagree , it only assumes what it asserts : that we can't understand some things . It means assuming knowing all the things we can understand regarding specific topic , not all things in reality . To make example , i can say we will never bulid buildings that float in sky , it only assumes knowing that in engeneering we will never have such knowledge , it doesn't assume babies will or will not be born , nuclear war can't happen etc .But let's go for topic argument and say it is what that ment . I would put tht argument on it's head and say : it is lack of humility to say we will understand everything , because it assumes we have no lack of understanding of reality .Saying we can know something also assumes you know all the things we could understand . Saying there is possibility of knowing something also assumes we know all the things we could understand because we assume we have knowledge on all possibilities . Whatever person argues it is with same outcome : 1) saying p thus x where p is ( knowing all things we can understand ) and x( we can't understand something, we can understand something , there is possibility of understanding something) . If you want to go down that path you would have to say : we don't know something we can't understand , we don't know something we can understand and we don't know there is possibility of understanding . Anything else is the same in all 3 examples : we are saying we know all things we could understand so we say something won't happen ( because we know all the things that will) , something will happen ( because we know all the things that will and will not happen so that something happens ), something might happen ( we know that all the things that are impossibe to happen so we know something is possible )

Frans de Waal, featured here as an opponent of Dawkins and his "selfish gene" theory, notably takes the work of the naturalist Peter Kropotkin quite seriously. De Waal's criticism of what he calls "veneer theory" traces the longstanding, establishment view of nature as inherently brutish, violent, and most importantly structured upon selfishness, which he dates back to at least the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. In Kropotkin's day, around the turn of the 20th century, perhaps the most major proponent of the view of nature as a "war of all against all" was Thomas Henry Huxley, whom Kropotkin criticized as taking a wholly reductive view of natural phenomena and merely upholding the ruling social sensibilities of the Victorian ruling class. Kropotkin developed extensive arguments that, while selfishness is certainly observable in the natural world, it is rather a tendency toward "mutual aid" among life-forms which stands as the key principle of evolution. This effectively reflects the general opinion of the Russian school of Darwinian naturalism at the time. This clip of course does not feature much of de Waal's serious counterpoints to Dawkins, and clearly cuts out at moments when de Waal is only beginning to explain his argument. Even for the sake of understanding the other side, whether or not one might ultimately agree with it, reading de Waal's writings on "veneer theory" is essential. So too should more people interested in this debate read Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" and his "Ethics: Origin and Development"-these studies remain a critical point of reference for challenges to theorists of natural egoism such as Dawkins.

you're an ancom. why are you restricting this video with a statist copyright monopoly right?? consider relicensing under creative commons (its in the advanced video settings) (or at least clarifying that you aren't going to use copyright against the rest of us wrt this video somehow)

Covid 19 allowed corporate take over of democracy

So Dan putters around for three and a half minutes of saying Chosmky is wrong and then says yes of course there could be limits. Got it.

One of Dawkins' best videos probably .

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.

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

so full of shit toxic monster Chomsky is

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

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

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

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