Noam Chomsky - Psychic Continuity II

[@danthefan5378]

Always Fascinating to read the different Imprinting & Reality Tunnels in Noam related comments.

[@MalAnders94]

Hey Mr Leary! I hope you keep reimprinting.

[@Chapperino]

Amazing man.

[@RitamBuchwald]

I wonder if Chomsky ever saw The Prestige, probably not.

[@TehMorbidAtheist]

On the 6th minute, Chomsky is sort of describing SOMA.

[@EllyCatfox]

Yep. Wonderful game...

[@jones1351]

Deep, yet simple. He runs rings around today's 'intellectual' poser's, whom - out of politeness, and a desire to avoid a flame war - I'll refrain from naming.

[@MalAnders94]

Simplicity is the highest art.

[@jamesgraham4242]

That's right existence is not a property. See Hegel "Phil of Mind" and A. MacIntyre "Hegel on Faces and Skulls." The concepts of knowledge of existence are universals/facts. Properties are the particulars we attribute to what exists. Say an apple exists....it doesn't stop being an apple because the particular properties, or differences, may or may not vary or change. True knowledge, reason, is this unity/combination of the subjective, extant universals. and objective particular properties that do not exist. See also, Lenin on Hegel's dialectic "the pearl in the manure of contradictions." Materialism and Empirio Criticism.

[@jamesgraham4242]

Practical material application? In law "the possession of material property is 9/10'ths of the law." Is that right? It's said, if a person can demonstrate possession in Court, where the ownership of material property is disputed, the Court will find in their favour and agree they have the legal right to own the property. Where does that "legal right" come from? The authority and will of the Court. It's imposed. There is no causal connection that dictates the immaterial existence of that person is determined by the particular material properties we attribute or ascribe to them. It's simply a false association that's made, like tartan paint, and people assume it is these particular material properties that make people who and what they are.

[@sirhcl]

stay in the box and reassimilate the traveler into the person in the box

[@coreycox2345]

This would require trusting the traveller, Sirchl P. Based on experience this would be stupid.

[@alexcypher4794]

I watched both those videos and Googled "psychic continuity" to try and understand what it actually is. I don't think I understand the concept any better.

[@磊王-z7g]

The idea is essentially that what we mean when we use the term “tree” or “person” reflects something inside our minds rather than something that really exists “out there”. This is linked to Hume’s question as to how we individuate objects, and Chomsky just describes what happens when you take it a few steps further. It’s about how we deal, cognitively, with sense experience, and out of it develop constructions which have properties (I.e. psychic continuity) possessed by no real object. This is an important epistemological challenge, and basically says that the universe can never be intelligible to us because we deal in “mental” objects which do not refer directly to the physical world.

[@JordanJohnson-wh3ke]

@@磊王-z7g Although a different conclusion could be drawn, namely that the world will never be intelligible to us in physical terms alone. To conclude the world itself will remain unintelligible is to assume it must be understood in physical terms (which Chomsky rejects). However, this isn’t to say Chomsky thinks human will be able to provide a full account of the world, particularly of human understanding. He does not.

[@havefunbesafe]

@@磊王-z7g Thank you for explaining this. So is it similar to ideas like The Allegory of the Cave and also like Kant's idea of Noumenal experience on how we cannot really know reality because we view everything. through a spatial temporal lens (transcendental idealism)?

[@fabiengerard8142]

Reminds me In some way of some texts by Pasolini (who had a true passion for semiology and linguistic) where he analyses the reasons why he chose at some point to become also a film director, and not only a writer.

[@stevenhines5550]

He says it succinctly It's not something physics can prove. It's what we impose on what we perceive. It's based on what we KNOW we know because of the biological continuity we share. It cannot possibly be transcended. He says it in many ways: "we are not angels..." etc. We are stuck in the biological world as much as we like to think we are above biology. We impose human order in the world because of our biology. It doesn't have anything to do with what is correct or not. We do have the system in science where we can try to check our ideas against a rational structure but we are usually so limited, even there, that concepts like order and cognition are about as well understood as they were 2000 years ago.

[@crinny]

Seems like the ship and it’s reconstitution is more a mathematical given rather than a cognitive glitch. The ship on the shore is just fractional reconstitution of the ship on the sea. The ship on the sea could be viewed as the genus for numeric expansion. A start point to further expansion and complication to the idea of a ship, which in this case is reconstituted on shore as a ship but why not something more useful like a monkey treehouse for aged wilder beasts.

[@jamesgraham4242]

In addition to below. I think Hegel confuses freedom and order, amongst others. The non-existent properties provide a context for what exists...that may be IN ORDER. Hegel has two natures going on....the external nature on the outside that's commonly known....and the nature of knowledge...or the natural order of knowledge. Plus there are two dialectical movements in Hegel's Phil of Mind. The main one is vertical and hierarchical....it's not horizontal or in a time series or historical, though he does acknowledge that as well.

[@slipperdipper]

Easy: they are both the Ship of Theseus.

[@tombias9489]

I suggest the definition of, "house" as: Roof on walls- structure... Well, perhaps there is psychic intent laden in the nomenclature. You don't expect a house to be a library. A psychic intent. (?)

[@wishcraft4u2]

lol but didnt his grand children know about William Riker and William Riker 2?

[@Joe8172yeaaaa]

whats with the background noise?

[@TheCommono]

5:00 Reminds me of Ricky Gervais talking to Karl Pilkington about 'Doppelgänger': Karl wouldn't want to have a double of himself - just because he would never know which one is him. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5e0qWyeZtKLi7M

[@2020raindrops]

How did you get so smart, Noam Chomsky? Is there away to "interpret" life back to the extinct, in terms of global warming?