Noam Chomsky speaks about Cognitive Revolution - Part 8

[@user-np9xj5ry7m]

KZbin may be the best thing that happen to our generation.

[@vibhupratyush5663]

I think you mean Chomsky is the best thing that happened to our generation?

[@davidas5049]

@@vibhupratyush5663 the combination is the best that happenedd to our generation ^^ haha

[@brendonbarratt7551]

This series of lectures is absolutely incredible and invaluable provided for free via KZbin. Thanks - going to take me a long time to digest all this.

[@infiniteinfiniteinfi]

Sound gets better from 11:30

[@FuaConsternation]

cheers.

[@HCadrenaline]

0:50:10 vision 1:00:00 Sense & reference externalism Putnam's twin earth thought experiment 1:55:00 word innateness, Fodor et al.

[@rustyshimstock8653]

Its ironic (or something) that Chomsky's questioning whether there is any point in using the microphone even though the room-speaker is working boils down to whether or not we (invisible future people) will be present in the audience. Lucky for us, our advocate (the A.V. tech) had his way.

[@moussaa3145]

There is a missing part between part 7 and part 8, discovered it by chance while looking for a better sound quality version kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6iofpZ5fp2SbKc The missing part starts at approx 4:30:00 if anyone is interested

[@macelharen]

01:06:00 after 7 previous videos, i reach the point where my puny intellect just isn't up to the task of realizing what the HELL Chomsky is up to with "refer"

[@brawndo1255]

His view: referring is an action that people perform using words. The "things" referred to are typically complicated abstract objects like houses, which are identified by the role they play in our lives rather than a specific physical object. The view he opposes: reference is a mind independent relation between a word and thing that exists with some essential nature of its own. He says that everyday language doesn't really refer in the sense of picking out some essential nature out there, but science does attempt to set up reference relations with the real constituents of the world. and in that way differs from natural language. Mixing up these two (reference in science and natural language) is the root of various dead ends in analytic philosophy of language.

[@tommytwobrews]

@@brawndo1255 thanks bro very clear explanation

[@brawndo1255]

@@tommytwobrews a favorite example of his comes from aristotle (see metaphysics, zeta 17 through eta). what does 'house' refer to? it refers to a form realized in matter (the physical entity, the wood and bricks or whatever), which, for artefacts is its function, i.e. sheltering. the form of a house, its sheltering function is not a physical object. what it is to be a house is to carry out this function. house is not the same as a physical object (matter) because the same physical object could be filled with books and librarians and it becomes a library or something else. chomsky is very aristotelian, although he puts in epistemological or cognitive terms what aristotle puts in straightforward metaphysical terms.