Noam Chomsky engages in a spirited debate with biologist over the evolution of language

Source: • "Chomsky on Evolution"...

[@mathewwright4129]

Really good video, it’s taken KZbin almost seven years to recommend this to me since I discovered Noam. Wish I found this earlier.

[@MayorMcC666]

idk how youtube knew to recommend this to me but chomsky's academic views of language are very interesting to me :)

[@scorps192]

It's called an algorithm bumhole heed

[@Junksaint]

I wish I would have seen it 3 months ago! My algorithm is slower 😂

[@personal3314]

This is actually such an interesting debate and both sides are articulate enough for someone who doesn’t know much about the subject to understand what they’re talking about

[@tookie36]

Yup that all went over my head

[@JaydedWun]

It's a couple of different arguments but they're essentially arguing over why language exists the way it does. Chomsky says that he believes a good way to find out why it exists is to see how it is used, which seems to be mostly as internal thought. Because of this, it is likely to have come about over several stages of evolutionary development (he provides the example of a hand, first a mammal must develop limbs, then wrists, then a layer of complicated hand bones and muscles, then another, then a segment of fingers, then another. You can't randomly just end up with a hand, it must happen in stages). The biologist says in response that he doesn't understand why so many people have this view when communication with others seems to be to him the main point of thinking. If this were the case, it could come about randomly as evolution tries to find a way to communicate.

[@psicologiajoseh]

What is he referring to when he says "linking the interfaces"?

[@Cenyon]

God damn I love Chomsky. Love seeing him spar with this biologist.

[@hotstixx]

And then there's all his political work.How the hell does he do it ? I could spend 10 lifetimes and be lucky to produce..

[@spoontssuzy649]

His political work is very simplistic: everything is the fault of the USA and Israel.

[@hotstixx]

@@spoontssuzy649 Its far from simplistic. There seems to be 2 kind of people when it comes to Chomsky - Those that hate him and those that have read him.

[@spoontssuzy649]

@@hotstixx I don't hate him. I've have read several of his books. No matter the issue, Israel and the United States are to blame. He is so predictable.

[@hotstixx]

@@spoontssuzy649 Its not news to so many of us that Amnesty international declared Israel an apartheid state.. We've know it for years. And if you like I can list the neo-imperialist foreign adventures of the criminal and brutal Empire U.S.A? The list is very long.

[@spoontssuzy649]

@@hotstixx Go ahead. That wasn't my point.

[@obcursus]

i wanna see a long discussion about this tbh

[@ganjamozart1435]

Evolutionary arguments for the development of language as a communicative tool seemed so 'obvious' to me as a layperson; Chomsky shredded it 😂.

[@denisakicmerova2628]

well, you should read Tomasello (Usage based grammer) and he will bring you back to your previous idea :D

[@arcticwolf6402]

Development of language as a tool for communication is not only still a quite strong theory, but most likely it's true.

[@mathias4851]

No its not. Then communication signs would be universal for the human species its not. It can be used for communication but the main use of language is a direct link to thoughts.

[@glawrk2861]

​@@mathias4851signs are different because cultures are different, just like with languages.

[@jamesoconnor9452]

Chomsky’s interlocutor to biologist: please stop talking.

[@bennyrodriguez8788]

What the biology guys is saying is basically evolution can only happen as an adaptive consequence (change overtime) What Noam Chomsky is saying is The saltation argument could explain where language comes from.

[@pablobendimez9304]

Unbelievable that the ponent’s microphone sounds way worse than the audience’s

[@OneBlurryLens]

How is the weather? Lol.

[@carlosroman2293]

Does anybody knows what does Chomsky mean by interface? The first thing that comes to mind is the interace of a computer, but when talking about the interface of the mind or the brain i’m not completely shure what he means by that.

[@psicologiajoseh]

I just commented a few minutes ago about the same question. Let me know if you get an answer.

[@liquidoxygen819]

@@psicologiajoseh What I believe he means is that we can communicate with each other grammatically without actually communicating the qualia of meaning. In other words, we can't really communicate what we truly feel through language, but two people can still converse because of the structure of a shared language. I could be totally and completely off, though. That was just my evaluation. I had to stop and think about it as well, because initially, I wasn't sure how to handle that phrase.

[@Junksaint]

Language is most all in our head, more people need to keep it that way lol

[@Oscarman746]

You included?

[@psicologiajoseh]

Lol 😂 Good one.

[@kobeoncount]

9:27

[@SurprisedPika666]

Chomsky is correct but the comments are seething.

[@splashlang5817]

I think at about 10:00 the biologist loses him and simply starts nodding to pretend he understands))

[@SurprisedPika666]

Such a bias comment section. Everyone is mad about Chomsky's political opinions so they attack his other theories.

[@michaelschumacher1822]

And do we have sex mostly to procreate? Does modern man walk and run mostly to hunt animals? Was the reason we evolved taste buds to differentiate one wine from another? Was the original use of our mouths to kiss? It seems that even though today the characteristic use of language is thought, that that does not mean that it evolved for that reason. Do dogs imagine themselves barking? Do birds imagine their songs? These are both forms of communication, and it's completely plausible that human language developed originally as a way to communicate, to coordinate a hunt, for example, and that internal thought came (much) later. Even if you "introspect" about thinking, you'll realize that we are constantly internally in dialogue, as though we were speaking to someone else, that the mind is "split" into an ego and a superego. I would say that once we acquired language as a communicative tool, language enabled consciousness, not that language evolved to enable thought.

[@thesefilms]

This is an astute comment, but I think it misses something very significant, which logically follows from it and is in fact implied by it. The question of what purposes human beings or human behaviour evolved for is always a fraught one, because human beings are capable of reflecting on and transforming their own purposes. Language and thought are critical for that. Charles Taylor has explored this in his work. This is one reason why theories of behaviour, including language behaviour, which are modelled on computation, or which are reducible to evolutionary factors, are incomplete.

[@Tbone913]

Chomsky is obviously wrong, language got there the same way as everything else (evolution), but he's such an ideologue he knows that admitting it destroys his position.

[@robertpirsig5011]

Clearly you don't understand the point he is making. Of course everything got here through evolution. His main point is that language may have evolved as a way to help connect disparate centres of a brain interface and not principally language.

[@Tbone913]

@@robertpirsig5011 Well you know, its not easy to pin down what his hypothesis is. He revises his theories every decade or so, kind of a principle of Mao's continuous revolution. It’s not so easy to say what “Universal Grammar” or an innate “language faculty” consists of. So its a moving target. In any case it has never been specified in a precise way, or field tested against datasets of language variation.

[@robertpirsig5011]

@@Tbone913 Wow, you just tried to pass off Steven Pinkers thinking as your own almost verbatim. You will edit your comment now, no doubt. By the way, any honest scientist revises their theories based on reflection. It's actually the sign of a good scientific mind, and not a criticism. So try again.

[@Tbone913]

@@robertpirsig5011 So? Its correct and I will always steal good ideas.

[@scorps192]

The secret hidden really cleverly within this particular recording is.. Your mum.

[@noisepuppet]

😮🤔

[@psicologiajoseh]

Lol. It's good that 12yo kids are watching Chomsky's videos! (Ijk btw)

[@geoffduke1356]

These guys don't like being challenged, it feels like such parody of a 1st year biolingustics 101 and the lecturer laughing at the teenage mind trying to grapple with information it obtained through common sense.. And he does it with humility... With just the right amount of arrogance, a defense mechanism im sure he developed to allow him to wait to keep talking with people who have no idea what they're talking about . I live him Is it me or has he been quiet about the ukranian conflict recently !?

[@747Cone]

He’s talked about it. Look it up.

[@geoffduke1356]

@@747Cone i wrote this some time ago.. Seen his takes..what ye reckon!?

[@747Cone]

@@geoffduke1356 In summary he says the conflict could have been avoided if NATO had appeased Russian security concerns re. NATO expansion et al. However, he continues to say that the invasion is nevertheless unjustified and contrary to the UN Charter. He advocates for a diplomatic solution to resolve the conflict. He expresses concerns about back and forth brinksmanship between NATO and Russia escalating to nuclear threats/actions. That's the gist of it.

[@geoffduke1356]

@@747Cone great synopsis.. I agree with him also

[@blackenedblue5401]

@@747Cone he doesn't frame it as "appeasement ". That may be your view but don't ascribe it to chomsky

[@amundbrdahl7527]

"Internalized and Externalized " is an egg and chicken story; which came first? There is hardly an "overwhelming evidence" that the egg did.

[@zah936]

Nah! The biologist guy is right.

[@scorps192]

Nah! He got his arse kicked hard!

[@mathewwright4129]

He was definitely respected by Chomsky for that intersection. The guys smart and asked good questions. Just look at Noams smile at the end he’s so happy with the discussion.

[@Junksaint]

**buzzer noise** incorrect sir

[@accs4]

The biologist guy is still obsessing over this interaction. Is that to prepare for an inadvertent meeting with Chomsky?

[@luckyducki]

@@accs4 bahahahaha

[@amundbrdahl7527]

That language is mostly internal is nonsense no matter what's going on in a talkative linguist's head as soon as her lecture is finished and the uncommunicative students have left the building.