Noam Chomsky - Mysterianism, Language, and Human Understanding

Chomsky on mysterianism, consciousness, language, and limited understanding.

[@deepbluechick821]

I'm so happy that my youngest daughter says he is her idol.kieran is ten years old.,❤❤❤❤❤

[@PiceaSitchensis]

thats awesome

[@GoldenGateNum9]

Can she understand him? she must be a wiz kid 🤔💡👍

[@davidwalker5054]

my theory is .when something is incomprehensible and beyond our intuition. We give it a spin that make's it more in line with the way we think it shoul be. Take the universe i think it has always been. And always will be. But the human brain refuses to accept anything that does not have a begining and an end that is why we invented the big bang. To make the universe conform to the way we expect it to be

[@StefanTravis]

I wonder if, in 100 years time, Chomsky will be remembered as a great philosopher, and his political works will be a footnote.

[@riccardo9383]

+yabadabadu To everything.

[@AbCDef-zs6uj]

More likely: he'll be remembered as a great linguist with his political current events commentary being a footnote.

[@MikeTooleK9S]

opposite.

[@KaiWatson]

I think it's sideways reverse-- first his pedagogical theory which isn't divorced from guys like John Dewey. Second the political philosophy which extends from the pedagogical and lastly, "student of the Enlightenment tries to understand language" will be to his field what Calculus was to Newton. Ultimately he is a great teacher.

[@johncracker5217]

The philosophy of Kantsciousness .. transcendental idealism of course.. the final frontier… you could call it epistemological idealism of course but is the philosophy of consciousness. Kant predicted all idealism would be transcendental and he was right.

[@giacomofisher9655]

Can anyone tell us who the authors are that he mentions, he almost never spells it out for you which is idiotic but whatever, you would think someone at some point would point that out to him, defeats the purpose of dropping a name for someone to explore.

[@hyden1940]

The Buddha and the ancient vedas have given some insight about consciousness.

[@HubbardGavin-e1x]

White Frank Robinson Melissa Johnson Carol

[@JoyceElroy-z9w]

Thompson Larry Hall Anna Wilson Cynthia

[@TheodorosPitikaris]

Cartesuan dualism is not the René Descartes perception of dualism

[@giacomofisher9655]

Who is "UDO Teal" can someone tell us what person he actually said?

[@radaphhesig]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udo_Thiel

[@Davemac1116]

Brilliant.

[@philkariuki1109]

Side note. This is from this lecture: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bpqpqZ-KlrmYhJI

[@charlesmartel7502]

9:25 Describes how we moved from the intelligibility of nature to the intelligibility of theories about nature. Calls it "a step of considerable importance in the history of human thought, more so than is generally realized." This means that we abandoned "the thing in itself" (intelligibility of nature) merely for ideas about the thing in itself. A disaster. The correction must lie in phenomenology. When the “thing in itself” is equal to the experience of/intentionality of/meaning of the thing, then no theories are required. With intentionality we have returned to the thing-in-itself but from the phenomenological/process/experiential perspective. This requires a radical shift away from the idea of subject/object externality, or the notion that things have existence apart from their meaning (which, to be sure, includes a thing’s meaning-to-itself).

[@exalted_kitharode]

How analysis of our experience must unravel the thing in itself? Our experience is just the way world presents itself, don't you commit the same mistake that Kant diagnosed in Decartes, thinking that inner sense somehow can't be mistaken about what gives rise to its representations? I actually see your way of proceeding as exactly aligned with what you are trying to criticize. Just presupposing that nature is intelligible won't make it so, and thinking about your experience won't make all world part of your experience. Your approach seems utterly paradoxical, but maybe that's my fault, could you please explain, why thinking about structures of our thought would result in sudden restoration of intelligibility of nature?

[@kinngrimm]

8:30 Newton did not know Quantum Theory. So nowadays he may not be neglecting the possibility for such interactions. Also i have no clue if that at all would be true or not. 24:00 If nothing on earth compares with our way of thought process, i wonder ... maybe we are the aliens here after all. Though our DNA tells us thats not the case. 49:00 even though we may not understand creativity, google's Deep Mind will try to include a replicated form of it into their code. Whatever comes out of that may seem similar, but in the end is nevertheless different. Then again, if they achiev as they intend to, we may just learn a little more about how creativity really works.

[@kinngrimm]

We do share quite bit of the same DNA with a lot of species here on earth, i suppose an alien would not. Then again, if we would have gotten here with other species together, made the biom better suitable to our needs by planting species from a distant home, then again we could be the alliens. Yet Ockham's Razor trlls me it is more likely we evolved here. If we come from a direct line of DNA wich evolved due to metorite impact , there is still a case to be made we would be alien to this planet.

[@coreycox2345]

I will be interested in seeing the result of modelling creativity, kinn grimm.

[@KaiWatson]

1. He didn't need to. Quantum theory confirms the, "mechanical view of the universe." It isn't magic. 2. There are other organisms that possess something like basic language. Dolphins, Bonobos, Octopus, ect... 3. Do we need formal systems to understand creativity? Did Vermeer need to know the precise workings of the central nervous system to paint his masterpieces?

[@fredrikmontelius5215]

He has stuck to his own linguistic model quite faithfully, it seems. I still find it too materialist, but he's a man of science so there is little choice. Interesting, all the same.

[@KnowledgeVariable]

needs to be on joe rogan

[@d7dh523]

Brilliant. He destroys evolution with just two sentences oh my god I love you Chomsky .

[@kieronmcnulty6177]

How has he done that then?

[@ReigninAmazin17]

@@kieronmcnulty6177 Don't worry, biological evolution is still alive, well, and intact--especially for Chomsky

[@arthurpenndragon6434]

What a deeply troubled statement to make.

[@walterdryja5201]

SPEAKUP CHUMPSKY

[@tomato1040]

The explanation of consciousness isn't as extensive as genuinely experiencing the awakening of "normal" egocentric🧠consciousness 2👣Concentric🎯Super🦸Hu-man🧘Consciousness, b'right😎here🎺 Now!