Noam Chomsky: Mind Body Problem & Mathematical Realism

Consciousness has NOT been explained, says Chomsky.
Sponsors:
-Brilliant: brilliant.org/TOE for 20% off
-Algo: / @algopodcast and website algo.com
Patreon: / curtjaimungal
Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
Twitter: / toewithcurt
Discord Invite: / discord
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
LINKS MENTIONED:
-April Fools / Ranking every TOE: • Curt Jaimungal Ranks E...
-April Fools / Announcements for TOE: • You won't want to miss...
-Chomsky TOE playlist: • Noam Chomsky
-Chomsky TOE playlist: • Noam Chomsky
-Dennett's Quining Qualia: ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett...
-Michael Levin TOE podcast: • Unveiling the Mind-Blo...
TIMESTAMPS:
00:00:00 Introduction
00:03:41 Putnam and Mathematical Realism
00:09:06 Are numbers "real"?
00:10:01 Text vs. Meaning / Content vs. Meaning
00:13:28 Are all words "contrast words"? (only making sense in terms of their negation)
00:16:01 How can the word "meaningless" ever be "meaningful"?
00:17:38 Reference vs. Referent
00:28:32 Daniel Dennett's "Quining Qualia"
00:30:44 Consciousness explained?
00:34:27 Mind Body dualism ("body" is no more fundamental than "mind")
00:44:32 Is Chomsky an idealist?
00:46:29 We can't answer anything with certainty
00:50:53 Articulating what's ambiguous (what the heck is going on!?)
00:58:24 Studying consciousness from the 1st person vs 3rd person perspective
00:59:34 How do we generate "definitions"
01:04:59 Curt's question to the audience (for linguists)
* * *
Just wrapped (April 2021) a documentary called Better Left Unsaid betterleftunsaidfilm.com on the topic of "when does the left go too far?" Visit that site if you'd like to watch it.

[@kipwonder2233]

One thing I love about Chomsky is his ability to cut through the clutter. To some this may seem dismissive. I suppose it is. Life is short. A wise man carefully curates how he spends it.

[@denesetler]

93 and still rocking! There is a story that one of my math professor shared with us: when he turned 70, he started to notice that his mind was not the same as it had been before. Once when he was bewailing about it to a fellow professor similar his age, his friend replied: "Yes, maybe we are losing some of our capacities...but during the years at least we have gathered plenty to lose from!" Still sharp and teaching! People to listen to. Great job Curt!

[@niclasrachow]

You undogmatically ask the right people the right questions. Your channel is an important piece of work for the accessibility of scientific discourse.

[@robertpirsig5011]

The depth of Chomskys analysis is incredible. These days so many intellectuals make huge generalisations about topics that it is almost anti scientific in my opinion. Steven Pinker while makes some interesting points comes to mind.

[@tear728]

Whether you love him or hate him, Noam is impressive at this age. Very much like Penrose is

[@diazaa]

I typically watch documentaries and informational videos. I have watched the majority of videos of highly influential and knowledgeable individuals from multiple expertise aspects. It is unknown and questioned, within myself, why I feel inclined to align myself, to how you portray yourself on your interviews. You have obviously impacted me in a significant way and I commend you. Thank you for helping me. Your manurisms, politeness, proffesionalism and honesty or overall personality is what I work towards to emulate. Keep up the AWESOME JOB!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

I'm so glad man!

[@itssameLuigi]

@@TheoriesofEverything Honestly, your work is important, to not only you, but all of us watching you too. Thanks to you we get to have that information passed down to us to. Lol how else are we going to hear Noam Chomsky talk about shit like this, that deeply !

[@rezakarampour6286]

' Noam Chomsky : US Is World's Biggest Terrorist '

[@philosophicast2122]

Chomsky is the like the Descartes of our time, he seems to have an expertise in almost all fields of academic knowledge. Thanks Curt!

[@glenn-younger]

First and foremost, thank you for bringing Naom Chomsky again. Love this man! And with you, Curt, asking the questions, it's solid gold. The thought that I take away falls within the proverbial question category of, "What comes first, the chicken or the egg?" What comes first, consciousness or matter? I suppose it depends upon through which lens you view the question.

[@dhruvgupta794]

I wanna mention this in my resumé that I have watched all of Chomsky's interviews on TOE

[@Self-Duality]

From the bottom of my heart, thank you Curt ❤️‍🔥

[@TheoriesofEverything]

I'm just glad you enjoy them man

[@Self-Duality]

@@TheoriesofEverything Seriously, bless you! Believe it or not, your very presence alone is catalytic 🌬 Your service is teleological!

[@strategies4health]

@@Self-Duality What a great word and reference to Curt's work. I had to look it up. Here from Britannica -- Teleology, (from Greek telos, “end,” and logos, “reason”), explanation by reference to some purpose, end, goal, or function. Traditionally, it was also described as final causality, in contrast with explanation solely in terms of efficient causes (the origin of a change or a state of rest in something). Human conduct, insofar as it is rational, is generally explained with reference to ends or goals pursued or alleged to be pursued, and humans have often understood the behaviour of other things in nature on the basis of that analogy, either as of themselves pursuing ends or goals or as designed to fulfill a purpose devised by a mind that transcends nature. The most-celebrated account of teleology was that given by Aristotle when he declared that a full explanation of anything must consider its final cause as well as its efficient, material, and formal causes (the latter two being the stuff out of which a thing is made and the form or pattern of a thing, respectively).

[@Talmurid]

I found you again, ha

[@Self-Duality]

@@Talmurid 😌💭

[@0.G.]

Seriously the best discussion with Chomsky yet; or is ‘yet’ to be, or become? The intuition of language, and to know what truly is matter ‘itself’ or without it are we anything at all? fantastic questions from all again 🙏🏼 thanks Curt, this is definitely the channel of Noam 🙌🏼

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thank you so much

[@steveflorida8699]

If consciousness is not "matter" then the human condition is an experience more than the material world.

[@Ivearted]

Another solid interview!! Thanks for posting these!!!!!! 😎

[@elcapitan6126]

"the microphone in front of me is not a dog, that much is clear" -- Noam 2022

[@bernardofitzpatrick5403]

This is what gratitude feels like! Thank you Curt and Prof.

[@anniemal9312]

Love this dude. I just wanna give him a hug

[@stephenwallace8782]

Love how the concept of Dog has re-curred throughout this series -- first as personal dimension, here as philosophical dimension.

[@bugabateinc971]

This old man blows my mind. He breaks down my empirical views of the world, and the language I use to refer to it, leaving me wondering: Have we missed, or realized something, that is, or is not there, respectively,

[@bstev98]

these are always dope interviews. when did the interview take place?

[@rthegle4432]

Very awesome podcast, I cannot believe that someone is interviewing Noam Chomsky several times , thank u so much for your efforts, hope you have more discussions with him

[@strategies4health]

Awesome dialog, Curt. While a fair amount goes over my head, I want to express my gratitude to all the erudite posts/discussions in the comments. Thanks mates, for the insights, perspectives, questions that provides me with further study. Anyone here who has followed Chomsky closely over his career ever hear him reference Korzybski? (The map is not the territory).

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Well said

[@patparker4280]

Did he not mention Korzybski in one of the the previous interviews? Or have I conflated that with Leo Gura who added a quote from Wyatt Wood Small who said "the better the model (map) the bigger the problem"?

[@cepamor]

Excellent! Informative. Quite enjoyable. Thank you.

[@TheFrygar]

Next time you have to ask him about Mysterianism, and mention how Joscha Bach says that it's the position that something cannot be understood if it cannot be understood by Noam Chomsky. He might smirk. Or better yet, do a Noam Chomsky ^ Joscha Bach episode.

[@petermorsestudio]

@curtjaimungal Great interview! Regarding your last question about the 'field of articulating definitions', I am no expert, but you might look into philosophical hermenutics. Specifically the scientific hermeneutics of Wilhelm Dilthey, and subsequently Hans-Georg Gadamer and others. I suspect Karl Popper also has much to say on this, as well as David Deutsch - who you don't seem to have interviewed yet.

[@Bolden47]

Around 47 mins I realized that he’s a materialist. He believes we already understand consciousness and that the real mystery is matter. To me it’s somewhat the other way around. I feel to understand consciousness, you first have to understand matter, which we’ve yet to do. The universe came about first with a thought. whatever consciousness is, imposed it’s freedom of physical expression into the womb of spacetime. Consciousness is free flowing in different forms of matter but in varying degrees of frequency and interpretation.

[@kipwonder2233]

Interesting position...that the universe came first from a thought. Thought presupposes a thinker. What was the thinker made of???

[@tr7b410]

Exactly just like Bertrand Russell. One must also acknowledge that the brain & nervous system of a fully self realized being like Ramana Maharshi,Sri Ramakrishna or Neem Karoli Baba is radically different- influencing their perceptual experience. It would be like comparing the senses of a goldfish to that of a human being.

[@raymonddeoliveira2588]

I think he’s merely pointing out that it’s not clear if materials and matter is as simple and reductionist as it might appear to materialists. He said that we can’t tell (in a rigorous way) if an atom has consciousness or even what it is. Given that we don’t know, it might very well be dual-aspect monism or it might be another account of suchness, but I don’t think he’s prematurely concluding materialism is correct over non-materialistic physicalism or dual-aspect monism or so on.

[@tr7b410]

I would add "CREATIVITY"seems to be an inherent part of how the DESIGNER of each universe,s plays with matter. Ken Wilbur thought this out quite admirably by indicating feedback loops abound & seem to create from the simple to the complex,back to the simple again.

[@Bolden47]

@@tr7b410 yep.. think about it. We are as far as we know the most conscious life force in this universe.. everything is consciousness, all material matter but not as conscious as humans because we are the iteration that it wants. We learned how to build and plan and act with our emotions(creativity).. we learned how to manipulate material matter to get things like fire or weather machines or mechanical machines or art, we created and continue to expand the collective conscious

[@Eta_Carinae__]

Chomsky's discussion on the mislocation of the explanatory gap in reducing consciousness reminded me of a brewing thought. We usually think in ontological reduction: reducing the complex to the simple "substances". You might construe substances as: the sorts of objects which cannot be of the form of a complex, so that who's essences don't derive themselves from something like 'arrangement' or 'form'. These sorts of things we figure are _not_ multiply realisable, as complex objects like minds may be. But at the test of a theory, I might imagine something of an epistemic analogue to substance. With the example of physics, at it's current precipice you could observe off the steep shear this thick, swirling fog of alternate hypotheses. The universe from this vantage looks rather boundless epistemically, each hypothesis given equal vindication by the stuff - the dare-I-say, "substances" - of science. You might think of these kinds of theories as complexes of their own atoms - maybe things which look like approximate Bayesian-certitudes, whose dynamics could be described, much as if you had stepped back from the shear slope, and peered behind yourself, you would see the ontological complexes of everyday phenomenal objects, minds and the like stretch behind you, where the epistemic became progressively more simple, more durable, more substance-like. The hypotheses more afar in that direction, say like the basic inferences made from the Quinean "observation-sentence", affixed perhaps with "I percieve" seem so unbreakable, one may wonder if breaking them apart - that is to say refutation - makes sense at all. I think that's what gripped me so much with Friston's work. It seemed like for all intents and purposes, that he was describing the dynamics of complexes of _epistemic_ substances, not least considering the broad sweeping application of free energy to quantities which all seemed out of place in the physical reduction, but all out of place in the same way. Science seems not to be in the business of absent wandering. We are cartographers and bridge-builders, I think. It is possible to find ourselves improvements in both aspects, in both directions. After all we can see the marked improvement of our current physics on prior physics _both_ ontologically and epistemically: we are able to explain more, and those explanations are hardier and sturdier. If Chomsky believes the gap toward the physical, off the cliff with the rest of physics, we ought to consider the epistemic ramifications as well: the potential ceasless multiplication of all the possible explanations with an assertion like that. To hope that an explanation does not thicken the fog, but yields us clarity.

[@alcannistraro]

Overall, this was another superlative interview. I can't believe how lucky I am (we are) to be privy to this stuff, and to be alive at just the right time for it. Re Chomsky's rather prosaic thoughts on consciousness and on the mental merely being one of several aspects of the physical, I wish he could have been pressed to to elaborate on the Hard Problem, and on those who apparently appreciate it.

[@nyomanbw8423]

This is amazing. Thank you for interviewing Professor Chomsky.

[@mrbertaro4822]

Another Chomsky interview on TOE?! *Intercom* ‘Susan clear my schedule.’

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

sounds like a Carol Burnett skit

[@mrbertaro4822]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Haven't seen that!

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@mrbertaro4822 It's a whole series of Tim Conway as a Scandinavian immigrant office boss and Carole Burnett is the "noir" secretary who could care less. It is repeated over and over. Look up "Mrs. Wiggins" and "Mr. Tudball" thanks

[@mohammadjihad569]

saving this for the next long bus ride thx!

[@DouwedeJong]

Thanks for making this video.

[@SpruceGumRules]

Postulate: Consciousness is neither linear nor discrete. Consciousness, including ‘self’, involves dynamic modeling of sensory input against models of various sophistication that can be temporal (memory), material (brain) and physical (body). Evolutionary biology maps out the development of consciousness generally as a result of adaptation and/or selection pressures. Analyzing consciousness, particularly the modelling processes, are but one method often focusing on reductionist processes that typically often driving linear and discrete judgements. Reference influences - Anil Seth, Robert Prechter, Bret Weinstein

[@Aaron25thinfantry]

Another great interview! There is something special about hearing a wise man who has studied and took in knowledge, experiences for many decades speak.

[@ZahraLowzley]

If your question is sincere; As a child I started my 30 year attempt to render a translation utility for non-lexical thinkers, not to discover "truth" but because I don't think in words, numbers , images etc and I don't want anyone like me to not have a voice . I don't have a hypothesis, it's just a translation. My brain doesn't habituate or expedite differentiation, of course it is a disorder but I can design a ready-to-build facsimile of my faculties ,. I don't understand human posturing over ideas so I have no idea if science is just for entertainment. I teach music theory because that's closer to my thought. it is true that "no one knows" because it isn't knowledge-based if an action has been intergrated, but my brain doesn't isolate . My language isn't concurrent, i can only attempt to revise it adjunctly. Anyway. Just incase.

[@patienthm8364]

Great stuff, man. You should try to get Dr. Steven Hayes on to talk about relational frame theory as it applies to language and meaning. It’s a very interesting post-Skinnerian account that has large implications for human psychology and psychological change if true. Having spoken to Chomsky, it would be a really neat historical connection as well. I love your interview style and think it would be fun to hear you two together.

[@atheoma]

thanks for the great inerview, excellent work! noam is huge 🤯

[@sinasedighi9981]

Regarding "Text vs. Meaning / Content vs. Meaning @ 00:10:01" What is meaning? An event, action, or entity is deemed to be "meaningful" if the presence or absence of said event, action, or entity is felt; it is a "difference that makes a difference" in the world. A message sent through text may convey a different "meaning" when presented orally due to the additional auxiliary contextual information contained in the oral message (i.e. inflections and tone which additionally convey mood/emotional state information). The additional contextual information is a "difference that makes a difference", and the two messages therefore convey different meanings. A reduction of an oral message to pure text/word can be understood as a form of lossy compression involving a degree of information loss and thus a potential change of meaning. If we imagine that a message has the effect of inducing a state transition on your instantaneous model of reality, then the "meaning" of the message encompasses the direction and magnitude of the change in state induced. How "meaningful" the message is can be related to the magnitude of the change. Within this framework, a search for meaning is rooted in the general desire for one's existence to make a difference in the world (and in the lives of those you love, friends, family, etc.), and for the hypothetical absence of one's self to be felt by those around you.

[@lelz0394]

Ive watched an unreal amount of chomsky videos in my life and you really asked the best questions!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thank you so much. Have u seen the other Chomsky interviews on this channel?

[@0neIntangible]

Phlogiston, my new word for today! Thank you, in all my 67 yrs, I never knew what phligiston was. I always thought it was some kind of medical treatment for a nasal condition, judging by the sounding out of it's consonants, up to when I heard Noam talk about the word and now defunct theory of Phogiston, duckduckgo'ed it, and found it to mean; source of fire. Well I'll be hosh darned.

[@mysticlawlotus]

Gotta take yer hat off to this guy. I never come across anyone in life save maybe Nichiren Daishonin whose ideas, thinking and conclusions so perfectly even maybe magically matched my own. Very much A man after my own heart. To hear such verification of ones own thoughts and feelings I think must be a rare and special thing indeed but then maybeI it just makes sense to us all at some level when we all get down to it. I lay down my KB! ;)

[@notadane]

"Galen Strawson, fine *young* philosopher" Lol. 33:00

[@paimon1250]

How could you ever explain matter when all we know about it resides In and is made of perceptions, senses, and experiences? Like does he truly believe that speed means anything beyond a model our mind makes and the visions of apparent objects traveling through "time"? What about temperature? All of these things are based in and of perceptions and mental models. You won't find matter because you have defined matter wrong. Matter cannot exist outside of conciousness. Matter resides within conciousness, as all we know is dependent on and composed of conciousness. I respect Chomsky but really let's just be honest about the actual limits of knowledge and the nature of the way we know the world. We cannot speak of the "unconcious" independent reality. We cannot be acquainted with such a thing, we cannot even make a sensible referral to such a thing. It is non-sense in both absurdity and the literal sense of the word. It's time we stopped being religious about this word called "matter" and start working with what we truly know, instead of betting on things we have never spoken of or truly conceptualized in any way that is genuine to the meaning of the term as understood from a physicalist perspective.

[@novaterra777]

@@davi-lr4nd What a lot of people seem to assume without questioning when this subject comes up; the consciousness referred to as being (strictly) tied to humans, which is a very silly notion when examined further.

[@steveflorida8699]

@@davi-lr4nd I will venture to say not all human experiences can be defined and measured by science. And human consciousness like love and goodness are some of these experiences. Like creativity these attributes origins are not material forms/objects. Therefore, the human condition is more than the material body. Leading us to the proposition that science has limitations regarding all things of the human life.

[@vinceofyork1757]

@@davi-lr4nd the measurement of matter is the measurement of mind. Anything outside consciousness is speculation which leads to religious ideology and other dogmatic beliefs.

[@cuantrail]

What's your definition of "mental models"? Don't you run into the same problem defining them as defining "matter"? Seems like it's hard to get anywhere without assuming something exists. I agree with Chomsky, reality is just whatever there is, there are just phenomena. If you want to call them mental or matter or whatever, the best that we can do is investigate whatever there is. Hard realism and hard idealism seem fruitless to me.

[@steveflorida8699]

@@cuantrail if reason, goodness, and creativity are human experiences , and lifeless molecules don't have said attributes, then what is that source? The source is probably not a material substance, and then does the human condition venture into philosophy and religion for answers.

[@cameronboden]

Great idea keeping things existential and philosophical. There was a time when Chomsky had invaluable things to say about our political scenario (and in particular the media’s influence on our interpretation of reality), but as of late I’m not sure where his head is at on that front..

[@emilianosintarias7337]

I really feel like chomsky has earned the right to not have his current political views criticized. He is over 90.

[@lisabowden1679]

Noam Chomskey is the most influential intellectual of our time, imo..thank u, Curt for another great interview.

[@Vinny141]

Cool Chomsky! when did the interview take place pleasE?

[@kjekelle96]

What is the music from the beginning?

[@nyworker]

50:53 Dr Mark Solms gives an excellent explanation of how our consciousness is formed from structures deeper than our neocortex which we access via our reticular formation. His works include "The Hidden Spring". He's an excellent doctor, philosopher and speaker. Check his work.

[@portiermartin]

TOE is part of what needs to happen for survival. Thanks for doing it. If I start a Prog Rock band...and I might...can I call it Jaimungle?

[@portiermartin]

Cool! Actually...That's as good a reason as any to do so. Or white a Country song about it... Hmmmm...

[@portiermartin]

White...a country song lol. Omg

[@cuantrail]

Regarding definitions, consider a mountain with two summits close together, Is it one mountain or two? It's not a factual question, it's your choice. If you are a mountain climber you say there are two because you want to climb more mountains, if you live in the town below it's easier just to call it one. Our definitions are contextual and change depending on utility. In some cultures the word red also includes what to us is green. We decide how many colors we define not the external world. Since definitions are in our heads we end up not agreeing on fundamental questions like abortion. When does life begin? Where do we draw the boundary on life? I agree with Chomsky that science is an attempt to give precise definitions to phenomena which is contrary to our intuitive definitions that are context depended, messy, and individual.

[@pepe230385]

Lex Fridman, Joe Rogan and TOE Podcast are the 3 best and most informative shows in the whole world for me! …3 different and unique guys making the best content out there..thank you..

[@mithrandir2006]

After thinking about it for years, I came to the conclusion that definitions have to be proved not just motivated. That means there is a gap in math books since it began and people almost never talk about It.

[@luisathought]

Thank You

[@askingEveryone]

Hah, in "Content vs. Meaning" he says "'content' means..." so even defining "content" we already using "meaning", getting into self-referential territory (which somehow reminds me of Langan's CTMU).

[@elizabethblakley2876]

My goodness! How interesting

[@eliranmal]

on the definition of life; it seems to me that any current definitions are attempts to ascribe properties to the concept of "agency" (which may explain why our intuition leads us to believe that we're alive, whereas a cup is lifeless). once we remove that concept (by breaking down discussions of "free will"), the mere pursuit of a definition (to life) becomes quite vague and disincentivized.

[@christat5336]

Excellent cognition for his age....

[@elcapitan6126]

yeah it's quite encouraging seeing how lucid people are capable of being through old age. hopefully he's around for another decade at least

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Chomsky "mental computation going on... bits and pieces of it reaching awareness...fragments usually but so interpenetrated with what's conscious that you just can study them separately"...is referring to what Roger Penrose calls "protoconsciousness" from Bernard 'd Espagnat. He says that the mental computations are interpenetrated and can't be separated - I have discussed this with Chomsky via email. This is the noncommutativity math that Penrose relies on to explain protoconsciousness and it is explained - noncommutativity by Fields Medal math Professor Alain Connes.

[@denistremblay8029]

i concur.... Penrose but especially Connes is onto something very important...Music is less a mathematical affair than the opposite: Mathematic is an objective concrete musical affair not a logical or human discourse affair ...The center of mathematic is divine, the peripheral is human work and limited understanding...All the Pythgorean paradigm is completed by Ramanujan, Grothendieck and Connes and put to another level for the first time in the last 2,000 years... a True Goethen view mathematical version of platonism can emerge... Reality is not mathematical but mathematics is CONCRETE part of reality...No more only just human abstract discourse at all....Another mathematician is on the same road and probably misunderstood : Mochizuki...

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@denistremblay8029 I accidentally discovered the noncommutative truth of music when I was in high school as I did intensive music training. Then I learned "Dirac's Dance" from my quantum mechanics professor Herbert J. Bernstein, my first year of college. I realized it was the same music secret but I didn't quite grasp the logic. Then I discovered qigong master Effie P. Chow in 1995 and I realized the secret of qigong and paranormal power was the same music secret I had realized. Finally in 2001 I discovered Alain Connes discussing music and I realized what I had been calling "complementary opposites" in music was the same noncommutative secret of music that Alain Connes was discussion as per his "Music of Shapes" lecture he gave in 2011. I had an article published on this recently and then I got a long positive response from quantum mechanics Professor Basil J. Hiley on noncommutativity as the truth of reality (he works with Penrose also). My recent book "Music as Meditation" includes that response from Hiley or my article "Fundamental Frequency Force" on viewzone dot com gives the noncommutative music details.

[@denistremblay8029]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Thanks for Your references . o will read your article...

[@user-lc3qo5ny7c]

Simplicity is the key to sophistication that’s Chomsky!

[@HigoWapsico]

I gotta say, obviously Chomsky appears older and older every time he comes on, as this is the main side effect of getting old, but he seemed more coherent than last time. He is as impatient as I’ve ever seen him, but at least this time it was directed towards what and who he deems less than interesting (specially since the meter is running “en route to the last supper”). Last time it was cringe and uncomfortable, he was punching down, his contempt for the unvaccinated and those who are suspicious of the likes of Bill Gates, Pfizer, WEF, etc was mind-blowing to me! Specially coming from an anarcho-libertarian tradition...talk about inconsistency.... but again, he was really pulling a Biden at the time...

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

You must have suffered from Polio. I'm sorry.

[@lilbrottv8838]

Let's go bros.

[@poimandres]

*Lexical semantics*, maybe? Thanks for s great interview.

[@jnananinja7436]

Love Chomsky, don’t get me wrong. But.. Consciousness has been THE major topic of Eastern philosophies for millennia. For example, Caitanyamatma: Absolutely free consciousness is the nature of Reality. -Síva Sutra 900AD

[@mrcollector4311]

i wonder what he thinks about bernardo kastrup's analytic idealism

[@dr.kbelieve7404]

My god this was good

[@emmaborutta9622]

Thanks so much to both of You for this great interview. Since about 20 years I wonder if the things or whatever is defined by people, agree with the definition. If I want for example to define a river it is impossible to define beyond doubt where it ends and the sea begins. Dead or alive? Only fresh organs are suitable for organ transplants. If you want to be sure that the donor is dead, then the organ is dead as well. In the same way, people define embryos when deciding on abortions. Dead and alive. When I was seven years old, most of my body cells were replaced at least once by new ones. That means that at the age of eight, the mass of my dead body cells was larger than that of the young living ones. And what happened to those which had died? They had become food for another body - dead or alive. So for me Life includes everything. Who could take away an atom or even a thought? I'm nor a philosopher nor a scientist. If I'm mind or matter or both depends on definitions, but I'm sure that there ain't no Life without me!

[@elcapitan6126]

one way of thinking about it is the binary distinctions we make between things is largely informed by what was useful / discernable through our entire experience, influenced also by the consensus among those we interact with at various scales. the notion of "quibbling over definitions" (in one of the question in the video) seems to underestimate the importance of reconciling and negotiating these distinctions among us in order to better coordinate our lives and values with others. I guess where we draw distinctions also largely influences the kinds of decisions we can make which is very interesting.

[@dimas2672]

So according to Noam’s metaphor - if unicorns don’t exist then poetry or songs don’t exist; if he says only things made of atoms exist then it’s a trivial answer. I think it’s much more interesting to answer what is real - unicorns or a story

[@bradmodd7856]

Well done Curt

[@bradmodd7856]

It is not easy to coax Noam to step out on a philosophical limb but the closest I saw was in a similar interview where he was pressed on metaphysics and Noam said, with a Noamish shrug, "it's all metaphysics"

[@Jack-in-the-country]

Hi Curt :) You seem to be very interested in language and its relation to consciousness and the unconscious. Wiith that in mind, I sincerely recommend that you read Lacan if you haven't already. You will find it enlightening and exhilarating.

[@sebastianvanced4425]

Kurt, if you are interviewing the same person again, you should really point out what "round" it is, for example in the thumbnail!

[@curtjaimungal]

Great suggestion. I'll do so shortly

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Completed now. Thank you for that note.

[@Sebastian_S_Azar]

@@TheoriesofEverything That's great, thanks for being so in touch with your audience -- must be difficult! We're both commenting twice from different accounts -- great minds think alike i guess...

[@attackdog6824]

Best Chomsky interview out there

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thanks so much

[@attackdog6824]

@@TheoriesofEverything no worries Kurt, most interviews focus on his political leanings, but his technical and philosophical thoughts are especially covered here, which is lovely.

[@Graviton13]

Curt can you please do podcast with Nima Arkani....and someone from the E8 community. It would be awesome. 🙂🙏

[@StephenPaulKing]

Numbers do not require axioms to exist, but do they exist outside of the operations of arithmetic?

[@stella_7mccarty649]

His mind is incredible journey who will give to next generation idea of the light of thoughts.

[@rossevans11]

My definition of consciousness is subjective experience, projected through time.

[@harsh25186]

Can you invite Terrence Tao ?

[@TheSpectatorProject]

Brilliant mind. there always something to learn from him.

[@TheFrygar]

I love how he calls Galen Strawson a "fine young philosopher" - because he's 70 years old, but still 23 years younger than Chomsky. 😁

[@Sourcemind333]

I have had the same question about how we seem to know something is right or even wrong before we are able to articulate it, why should it be a two factor analysis I.e I seem to know it internally but also need to prove it through some externalisation. Sometimes you can look at a mathematical equation and just know the thing is wrong but then take days to be able to show why to someone else even years. I suspect we need to be careful about how that question is defined in the first place so as not to get lost down a rabbit hole with what you are asking. So if you are talking about a term like “life” you’re presumably looking at how your inner psychology has constructed some label and the semantics you will allow the metaphor to be used for, in that sense the question isn’t worth pursuing beyond thinking in psychological terms about how the brain works. Whether something is labelled alive is probably as meaningless whether you are happy to say a plane flies or in other languages glides. There is no fundamental underpinning so the pursuit is a personal one and in that sense a waste of time unless you are interested in mapping brain structures in your own head in the region encoded for language and then investigating how unconscious processing becomes conscious. However, I suspect that’s not the case for something like a mathematical equation which can be proved to be wrong, there you are perhaps asking something closer to something noumenal as it is a constant for all people then you can start to think in terms of how people have insight or intuitions as to the objective or subjective factor of the world and how that comes to conscious agreement but I’m not sure it’s a linguistic question. However it is a very interesting question which I’ve puzzled over for years. My instinct is to try to investigate things which are constants between ppl, so there is a nativist aspect too it or the question won’t be addressed scientifically and will just go down a rabbit hole. Then you have to start engaging Jung and it really gets messy. Oh and just to add fuel to the fire, how do I know that I know that the equation is wrong, what “I” am I investigating? Now that really cooks my noodle. The amount of work to show something is wrong as per my intuition can be massive even though I know it instantly internally, so what am I tapping into? Does my brain really work it all out instantly on one level or am I tapping into a collective consciousness but now we are in the rabbit hole lol.

[@DouwedeJong]

You should have a look at the philosophy of Henri Bergson.

[@CoreyAnton]

Please carefully read the book: Roman Jakobson's Approach to Language by Elmar Holenstein.

[@user-hn9ov7fu2r]

Rightly pointed it's matter that how matter came ,it is problem of matter that is this body just a form is the feeling, consciousness are truth, mental is constructing physical but from where matter start

[@darrellowings2343]

Have you ever considered that what's holding us back is lack of understanding that power, success and meaning are intertwined? Without benevolence power is only temporary and that other species who have survived many millions of years have done so because they understand this? Maybe this is why they are so interested in us. Maybe this lack of comprehension it what makes us most unique.

[@unclebob3606]

My mongrel mob mate would say " who gives a fuck anyway" I some how think there's more.

[@StephenPaulKing]

Can Numbers exist without the possibility of their expression?

[@jreyn2]

16:36 he makes a simple speech error, saying “meaning” when he had in mind “thinking.” I suppose most will catch it, or understand him without even noticing, but for those who attend to every word, I thought it might throw someone off.

[@patparker4280]

Curt, look at The Way We Think by Giles Fauconier

[@nyworker]

59:34 My thoughts on languages. Put a group of physicists in a room with a group of art critics. They may or may not understand each other depending on how much they have studied the others field. Otherwise the others field will sound like jibberish. We can say that every field of science or art etc. Is also a language. Although academia or any professional field require precise definitions, we can all get sloppy with language with colleagues etc. As far as "alive", there are specialized areas of vision and mirror neurons that detect motion and movement of others, hence we have innate detectors of the motor movements of others. Imagine two animals opposite one another reading the others body movements? Hence even a cartoon is alive or we are tricked by a deep fake.

[@dreforeman1707]

Awesome interview Curt

[@jsharp9735]

Get Thomas Sowell on !! He is a national treasure !

[@kensho123456]

Containers contain _* content *_ unless they are empty.

[@jreyn2]

I think he answered you on study of definitions, intuitions: science. You might be running past it, but it might be just that.

[@str0m]

Sal Pais Part 2 when? 🔥🔥🔥

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Whenever Sal is ready. Should be weeks or months.

[@moesypittounikos]

Noam is younger here than in the last interview. It must be the shave he had that very morning

[@majamannhard443]

I’m swedish and I just wanted to add the random fact that our word for ”sentence” and ”meaning” is the same word: ”mening”.

[@anti506]

We dont fcn care.

[@majamannhard443]

@@anti506 cool, I usually don’t care to inform others about what disinterests me or speak for others. But you may be suffering from multiple personalities wtf do I know. Do you always cater to what you think others wanna hear? It’s an alien concept to me so I’m just curious.

[@anti506]

@@majamannhard443 you are cringe and boring.

[@colinellesmere]

I love Chomsky. But listen to any decent Buddhist talk on these topics. Its all covered and has been for 2500 years. Probably longer in Indian philosophic thinking as the Buddhist take is not unique on these questions.

[@colinellesmere]

Up to 25min. There is no scientific evidence to relate that conciousness is uniquely individual. ie. your conciousness is different to mine. The perception is different but that is due to the function of your individual brain. Science seems to believe conciousness resides in the brain. Many - but eithout proof either - say id doesnt. We dont know for sure. But the whole brain = conciousness paradigm has no evidence.

[@muscularintelligence]

Have you asked Chomsky about his ideas on the nature of "time" yet?

[@tr7b410]

For a brilliant breakdown of the different types of consciousness see on utube; Ramana Maharshi,Be as You Are,Chapter 12, Experience and Samadhi.

[@thst_bot5368]

Unicorns and Thor are most definitely in the universe

[@kipwonder2233]

I love Chomsky👏👏👏

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

If You have a Mind Body problem, You should consult your Doctor. The Perspective-Principle + Logic and Order = Mathematic. Rainbow holds the Naked Picture of Consciousness, colors pictures our Eternal Basic-Abilities. Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory.

[@tuvantrader]

I find Chomsky very interesting and am illuminated by much of what he says, but I can’t agree with everything here. Is it possible for us as humans to study consciousness from other than a first-person pov? Yes, we can study aspects of it from without thru fields such as psychology and neuroscience, but there is much about the consciousness to be studied that can’t except via our own individual consciousness (via meditation, for example). I would also say that such study gives one greater clarity on one’s subconscious or unconscious, though it may be forever inaccessible in any complete sense. Anyway, it’s all very interesting, but I still have to wash the dishes at the end of the day. 🙏

[@steveflorida8699]

If the nature of consciousness is not a material substance, then science will not be able to fully define consciousness.