Chomsky on the "Limits" of Knowledge (1977)

A few clips of Noam Chomsky discussing the limits of knowledge and thought in a 1977 interview with Bryan Magee, and sounding like a dyed-in-the-wool Kantian in the process. This is a version of an upload from the previous channel. The full interview can be found here: • The Ideas of Chomsky -...
Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Justice & Human Nature: • Chomsky-Foucault Debat...
#Philosophy #Chomsky #BryanMagee

[@dustinbrown2248]

Yeah glad this channel is around. Chomsky was very far ahead of his time

[@meilstone]

It would be interesting to include the effects of physiological processes in that discussion like sports, meditation, music, arts, drugs.

[@GabrielSousa-nh3ib]

Brilliant!

[@jonascabrera8230]

What I got. Within that limited rigid structure or domain we are able to reformulate infinite possibilities or at least imaginative leaps that seem infinite when viewed through our current level of understanding. However outside of that there are even bigger infinites that we can't even think of let alone attain. Or as mathematicians would say not all infinities are the same, some are bigger than others. So being limited to a rigid biology is not the same as being limited period. Not to mention what our biology will look like hundreds of eons from now if we make it. Look up the infinity hotel.

[@skhotzim_bacon]

"Look up the Infinity Hotel." LMAO! Yes, I'm aware of Hilbert's Hotel and the different types of transfinite numbers from Cantor and set theory. I'm not sure what you think you're talking about is relevant or applies to what is being discussed. This is philosophy, but if we're just going to recommend random interesting subjects in mathematics, I'll play along and recommend you look up the Mandelbrot set. Better yet, delve into the Monster from group theory, which I find far more fascinating than transfinite numbers.

[@GabrielSousa-nh3ib]

Brilhante!

[@arabpride9939]

Just noticed something very strange here. Bryan Magee Is younger than Chomsky? WHAT? Bryan Magee was born in 1930 while Chomsky was born in 1928. How was Bryan Magee 48 years old during this interview? He looks like he was in his late 60s here, while Chomsky looks to be in his late 40s which he was here. He was 49 and was about to turn 50 at the end of that year.

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

Yeah, I noticed the same thing before. I definitely would've thought that Magee was older than Chomsky. However, I don't think Magee looks like he was in his late 60s. To me, it looks like Magee is in his 50s here. And not that it really matters, but the year that this was actually recorded was 1977 (the program was first broadcast in 1978, which is why that's the year referenced).

[@MikBak1814]

@@Philosophy_Overdose We Brits typically age a bit faster!

[@keyvanmehrbakhsh4069]

I might just talking for myself but it seems somehow we even forgot that the knowledge could get percepted into a variety of domains we made it feel so linear or it's just the commercialized type of knowledge or the natural science .

[@wallaceOne5900]

How does does the structural,functional,and material make up of the intellectual faculty of a being influence its ability to synthesise abstract ideas and how does it determine the precision by which abstract concepts in various fields of scientific endeavour are formulated?These are two big questions which undoubtedly require an answer.

[@stonetrouble5053]

Or you could just whoosh-bonk it and come up with a similar result.

[@keyvanmehrbakhsh4069]

I think its just the natural way the pieces tend to fit as getting into abstraction and getting into a variety of recognition frameworks and the mental power is just a mirror.

[@tjhunger8644]

I Imagine a synthesis of ideals happens in the mind through the myriad of aggregate ideals that flow in the conscious and subconscious forming the singular idiosyncratic ideal I imagine this is a process that happens infinitum

[@hittman1412]

The fact you say things require an answer is part of the egotistical mind thinking it can possibly know everything. There’s nothing abstract about science, it only describes the physical after all. We have just written a language through mathematics to describe it, similar to how python mediates between the programmer and the machine. Actual abstractness such as defining consciousness, qualia etc remain unknown and possibly always unknowable. I liken it to simply comparing a dog to a human. You could attempt to teach it English for the rest of your life, but the dog simply will never be able to comprehend let alone speak the language. We are just a level above in that we know it’s there, we just cannot see or touch it empirically.

[@spantik4696]

"How we act creatively" - His answer in simple words: I don't know, no one knows.

[@waldwassermann]

"The end of knowledge is the realization that the meaning of Life is Love." - Wald Wassermann

[@maiqueashworth]

I would love to know on the basis of what evidence he holds these beliefs..

[@jcoltrane8976]

You’ll have to start with the moon and then move to Uranus.

[@dahrayyem2648]

I think very closely to the question you are asking. It is very common with Chomsky to start with abstractions and go off to what inexistent and irrational in the real world. He causes his listeners to chase shadows. I wonder why people don't see this.

[@user-gs1lz2pw9v]

Alchemy geometry half wholes

[@rezamahan7109]

Why Chomsky is so calm?

[@ernstthalmann4306]

Wisdom

[@CamRebires]

Ch in Chomsky stands for Chad

[@badeduun1650]

@@CamRebires Chadomsky

[@meilstone]

Why shouldn't he be?

[@gomes2151]

@@meilstone Becaus he has got Woody Allen DNA.

[@cvetannikolov2823]

Soon to be rated out of this World . Sad

[@nevilleharris4466]

And yet, here we are in 2023, wherein scientists are considered omniscient and to dare to question them is to risk being labelled a 'science denier' or 'conspiracy theorist'. So much has changed since this interview; science is now Absolute Truth: "Follow the Science (OR ELSE!!!)"

[@noisepuppet]

You must be joking. Elected and appointed officials all the way up to the highest offices openly deny scientific consensus or peddle the dumbest balderdash, and not only are they not silenced-- it doesn't even hurt their chances of reelection. Mass media celebrities make entire careers, and some build unbelievably lucrative business empires, out of appealing to the public's love of rank imbecility and snake oil. I'd love to hear some concrete examples of people considering scientists omniscient and forcing others to do the same, "or else." Name who, when, where, and what. It sounds like you're describing some alternate universe. 😂

[@isaacbruner65]

Doesn't really sound like you know what science is. Nobody challenges established science more than scientists. If you put in the time and effort to get a doctorate then you would also be qualified to challenge ideas that you think are wrong. But instead you're probably a high school dropout who works at the local Walmart acting like you know more about epidemiology and climatology than people who have devoted their lives to these topics. Sit back down Karen.

[@ithinkthereforeitalk935]

It's the best tool we got. They are not afraid to say that they don't know something and are always pressured by their intellectuals peers to back up their theories with proof. What other tools do you have? The theories of ignorant people who are too often poorly educated but question scientists that spent years or even decades studing a particular field? Pious people who do not seek any evidence as they already got all the answers? Politicians or youtube influencers with no scientific background? You? Who?

[@gomes2151]

@@ithinkthereforeitalk935 A manichaeistic parallel to outfit a complex question of human knowledge, who cares?

[@feyzacelik723]

@@ithinkthereforeitalk935 that’s exactly it though, the “scientists” you follow are not the innocent image of integrity, honesty, and commitment that you are always fed with on television and popular media. These are greedy, corrupt superpowers that manipulate large sets of data and all sorts of numbers to showcase the narrative that will make them even richer than the mega power that they already are. They cheat during the data collection process, the data interpretation process and the data presentation. The proof is in, for example, documents they didn’t want to to release for 50 years and were forced to do so following judicial orders. Look at some of the informative videos and documents published by Canadian Cov*d Care Alliance for more info. (I’m Canadian )

[@thesongtowoody]

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth....He is the true light , that give light to all men....

[@isaacbruner65]

God isn't real. If he was real then the world wouldn't be such a fucked up place. No loving God would create HIV or cancer or allow genocides and mass starvation.