Noam Chomsky - "The machine, the ghost, and the limits of understanding"

[@smitty2868]

How rarely humanity is gifted with an individual whose personal ethics are not completely corrupted by money or power, and whose intellect raises him to a level that cannot be denied. Then even rarer the man cares about the future of humanity and is still actively pursuing a more just world. IMHO a hero and a role model.

[@sweetbrown3476]

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

[@marcweeks9178]

His talk is one thing, but you begin to see his power when he answers questions.

[@Wretchedrenegade]

Kind of like a freestyle rap

[@julir3754]

I totally agree. His sharpness and mental clarity are astonishing.

[@hjuikkll]

Cower before his power Edit: power lol

[@chrisdolan9515]

Absolutely.

[@hennyzhi2261]

To still be sharing his experience and knowledge at his age is honorable. We'll all loose something when Chomsky is gone, and I'm glad I was able to learn of his view on the world.

[@coreycox2345]

I think the same, Henny Zhi. His work has changed my view of the world.

[@lorenzomcnally6629]

Devolution Marxist Anarchist sociopath Numb CHUMPsky. Decades of Deconstruction Revisionist Human history. Everything he preaches soundly rejected by 2000 years of objective reality. Called Civilization

[@arthurpenndragon6434]

who could've guessed the same could be said 9 years later.

[@johanneskiessling4085]

One of the things which surprised me in this lecture is A. for how very long Chomsky's comclusions have been known and B. how sucessfully our educational systems managed to hide these from us.

[@nicholasdedless4881]

I've often thought that Chomsky's scientific ideas are not given nearly the attention they deserve in the common culture because his political ideas are so in conflict with the main stream view. Its impossible to overstate his influence on turning the "soft" sciences into actual science. Both Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Psychology were based on his ideas. Also, his influence on computer science is seldom appreciated. After Turing and Von Neumann I think Chomsky is one of the most influential theorists who enabled the modern computer. If you take a class on how to write a compiler (the software that is used to create most computer programming languages) the Chomsky Language Hierarchy is essential theoretical background. Also, in Natural Language Processing his early theoretical work helped explain why the naive context independent approaches to machine translation could never work.

[@evalsoftserver]

THE EDUCATION SYSTEM LIKE MOST SYTEM WILL RESIST ANNY MEANINGFUL CHANGE , THESE ARE ALL POWER STRUCTURES ANND CENTERS JUST LIKE THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL POWERS . CHANGE CAN BE FEARFUL, AND MAY LIMIT THE POWER OF THE POWERFUL , I THINK THIS IS THE REASON WHY SOCIAL CHANGE IS SLOW OR NON ESISTENT.

[@nicholasdedless4881]

One more point regarding how Chomsky conclusions are hidden. Its obvious this happens in regard to his political writing and also why it happens. In fact why they essentially ignore Chomsky's political ideas is part of what Chomsky himself explains (e.g., in Manufacturing Consent). But his scientific and philosophical ideas are also very much ignored. I was amazed recently when I audited a Linguistics class at UC Berkeley and I started talking about the Chomsky Language Hierarchy and there was nothing but blank faces (including the professor's) in the room. They simply had no idea what I was talking about. Now I realize that Chomsky's formal analysis of language is not all of Linguistics... in fact I was just watching a talk from Chomsky where he's highly critical of certain aspects of the formal approach... which I thought was interesting because he can be so formal. Sorry... I digressed... my point is it just amazed me that people in a graduate level Linguistics class would not even know what the Chomsky language hierarchy was. And I've found this in many other areas, especially philosophy. In several philosophy classes I've audited at Berkeley... come to think of it in EVERY philosophy class I've audited at Berkeley people talk about materialism as if Chomsky's critique didn't exist. Its not that they deny it they just ignore it and most of them probably haven't even heard or at least understood it. I think part of that is his unpopular political views also make him generally unpopular, even in Academia. But also, that he's just as much outside the mainstream of philosophical thought as his is on political thought, and since his argument are so rigorous its easier to just ignore him and continue with their same BS.

[@jassohal4273]

Can anyone explain what's Chomsky's contribution to computer science ? I'm not familiar with his science work, just politics

[@evalsoftserver]

He basically DISCOVERED that ALL Language both Human Language LIKE English, Hebrew, and Computer languages ARE. RELATED AND have a Internal ORDER. THE Programming Language FORTRAN developed BY IBM John Backus Used Chomsky work on Formal Grammar , Which. Described a Symbolic RELATIONSHIP between ALL Programming Language THAT A Computer Can UNDERSTAND

[@gnarlylove290]

Highly Recommended!!! Having watched many Chomsky videos, this is among the best. Great audio, camera, fabulous Q&A and his talk was 45 minutes instead of pushing 100 minutes. A very lucid conversation of our limits and understanding.

[@Dubravko49]

Seeing the audience, many of whom seem to be falling asleep, I can not get over the feeling that this content-wise brilliant lecture, filled with significant information, observations, and conclusions, is over the heads of many of them. And not because it is not comprehensible, but because Chomsky presents it in such a matter-of-fact way that it fails to excite an average mind into serious thinking.

[@michaelarradondo4441]

He doesn't have the same simple concepts to present like Hans Rosling, even though his presentation is straight forward, the attention requirements are comparatively steep.

[@Dubravko49]

Ron Kent Yes, ... "some" being the keyword.

[@typicalgold1568]

Dubravko Kakarigi I disagree... I think it is mostly because he in a place where most people appear to speak another language as their first language... The mere fact that he uses such complicated words to express his ideas is why people are probably lost.

[@Dubravko49]

Kyle Berge I agree with your statement. I fault Chomsky for not adjusting his presentation to take this fact into account.

[@LAlba9]

Dubravko Kakarigi That's how the Chomsk-master rolls! He's a data drone filled with encyclopedic knowledge second only to Yahweh.

[@DjViceroy]

That's dude on Reddit who shared this video. Cheers.

[@typicalgold1568]

***** agreed.... Mighty good find.

[@SimonNathanael]

Kyle Berge ...again :) floats to the front pages of r/phil and other subs fairly often since 2012.

[@sweetbrown3476]

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

[@highlonesomed]

Maybe my favorite Chomsky talk? That's saying a lot. I was wondering why so-called transhumanists didn't seem to like him. Now i know! Good times. Thanks for sharing.

[@richidpraah]

+M. Gilley You can also check out the interview with him called 'the singularity is science fiction' with a transhumanist advocate or the article called 'where artificial intelligence went wrong' - putting those loopy would-be-transhumans in their place

[@Reaver717]

I know this is like 6 years old but I've only found this video recently. I actually love Chomsky and his teachings and philosophy and I also believe in much of what transhumanism postulates. I don't where the idea that transhumanists dislike Chomsky though, can you elaborate?

[@MassDefibrillator]

@@Reaver717 I'm assuming it's got to do with Chomsky's position on the limitations of human cognition, and the inability to alter or augment it without first understanding what creates and defines it. Furthermore, the apparent reality that such understanding may lie outside our cognitive abilities; which he implied when talking about how neurosciences are making the same conclusions that philosophers did centuries ago: that human cognition is some emergent property of the brain with no mechanistic connection to the brain itself.

[@senorbeavis112]

No matter if i agree with 100% of what Dr. Chomsky says, I do love his genuine, humble pursuit of knowledge and truth. Always stimulating.

[@awrproductions191]

Of all the hundreds of Chomsky lectures/videos I have seen, this has by far the best introduction. Chomsky seems also surprised and happy for that (short) introduction.

[@gregvinson7640]

I know what you mean; it gets easier after you've done that for a few years, and it's a great way to build up your vocabulary. Reading his books has been by far the most productive educational endeavor of my life on many levels. Vocabulary isn't the most important, but it's a nice side benefit. His book "Understanding Power" was amazing, but I'd say that about all of his books that I've read so far.

[@augustkuhbrot]

I enjoyed this: "There is not a single effect in nature such that the most ingenius theorist can arrive at a complete understanding of it." --- Galileo

[@sweetbrown3476]

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

[@jimmythegent4414]

This has to be in another country. Look at all the people standing in the walkway just to listen to this genius for an hour. Even though Noams itelligence on certain sources contradicts his own opinion or interpretation, for example politics and economics, there is still no denying that his scholarship and knowledge of material is spectacular. A true awakening for someone expanding their knowledge

[@johnjclawson]

“Concerning the gods, I cannot ascertain whether they exist or whether they do not, or what form they have; for there are many obstacles to knowing, including the obscurity of the question and the brevity of human life” ❤

[@briansalzano4657]

I was familiar with Kant before hearing this lecture, and I know about Darwin's skepticism about our cognitive faculties. But I wasn't aware so many great thinkers were skeptical about our ability to do metaphysics. It's funny to me how in Newton's case he viewed the world as mechanistic because it was intelligible and how that idea turned into a view of the cosmos as dead an inert since many ancient philosophers esp the greeks thought of the universe as a living organism. The only fault I can ever find with Chomsky is to what degree he's cynical about the powers of institutions, his analysis is factual, but to what degree can we have a society without power struggles. Yet, he really does inform us about the agenda of powerful institutions.

[@mindauggas]

One of the best things on youtube ... fantastic.

[@carlospazdespierta]

It's funny to hear contemporary scientists to find "new, radical ideas" that were commonplace of philosophy decades o centuries ago. The education of scientists should include philosophy to avoid this amnesia and reinventing of the wheel.

[@capitanmission]

+Carlos Paz Despierta Science needs different proofs. But yeah, we need more interaction, in both ways.

[@gunkwretch102]

+Carlos Paz Despierta The philosophy was even more commonplace before Christianity, I like Chuang Tzu myself but the "hard question" is the "cornerstone" of basically world mystical thought

[@kierkegaard240]

+Carlos Paz Despierta If only. It seems like, at least with how scientists are home grown today in institutions of higher education if not due to personality, those who think scientifically as a profession are just much more likely *not* to think philosophically -- more broadly and deeper into the assumptions that we take for granted about things. That is, although science is analytical, it's very unanalytical when it comes to science itself, for example, or other big questions. There even seems to be a sort of pride in thinking scientifically rather than philosophically -- which is really funny, you know, because science has all sorts of complicated philosophical presuppositions built into it, meaning the scientist who scoffs philosophy is sawing off the branch he's sitting on. Maybe this is why Einstein said the man of science is a poor philosopher.

[@gunkwretch102]

hmmm good point, I have noticed this as well, never mind the fact that science grew out of natural philosophy and people like Aristotle. I think it might be a bias related to atheism, as many of them like to think that demonstrating causality somehow disproves all spirituality. Now I can see that there is a bit of justifiable defensiveness due to the atrocities of Christianity and all that bull, but the idea that there is an order to nature and this is the best means of studying the "divine" or whatever you want to call it was the basis on which scientific rationalism was justified. For example, if you think as Greeks did that nature is sacred, then science and the study of nature is Pagan theology and from this we get alchemy and eventually science. Chomsky's idea of a universal grammar isnt even original, it comes out of Christian occultism which sought to find the "Adamic language," that is the language spoken before the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel. While there was no such language and the tower is a myth, the search for this was actually how linguistics was founded

[@bobphilo]

+Carlos Paz Despierta Excellent observation todays scientists are often naïve about philosophical concepts but go on to make philosophical statements. For example, Carl Sagan defined the Universe as "All there ever was or ever will be", but astrophysicists say that the Universe all started with the Big Bang with no proof that there weren't other Big Bangs. Anything that didn't begin with our Big Bang must be another Universe. How can their be another everything? What's most annoying is that theoretical astrophysicists are calling themselves cosmologists, which is a branch of metaphysics, without ever having studied the subject. The role of science is to measure natural phenomena. To speculate on unmeasured or unmeasurable phenomena using reason is the realm of Philosophy. When scientists venture into this area they must work with philosophers.

[@bntagkas]

at this point i have heard of everything, im just listening to more chomsky to get a dose of logic, intelligenc and sanity when needed...

[@ashton1860]

chomsky (or any scientific mind) wouldn't be too impressed with you presuming that you've 'heard of everything'

[@bntagkas]

@@ashton1860 yes you are right, i meant everything i could find on the internet from chomsky also heard is different from fully remembering or partially or fully understood, but thats a different discussion

[@MrKrisstain]

You get addicted to it, the concise nature of his logic and rationality, and also constantly awed by his ability to dish out information.

[@000xyz]

I saw videos of this guy debate Skinner, he does not age. I love his explanation of "ghost in the machine" in his arguments related to origin of language and language development.

[@TheSpiritOfTheTimes]

I think I'll rewatch to really process it all. Chomsky's a champ.

[@radicalpolemicist]

Noam Chomsky never ceases to amaze and inspire me! Great lecture.

[@AsparagusG]

This is one of his best lectures.

[@chadbrockman4791]

Agreed. This is a fantastic explanation of a profound thesis.

[@MrSolver100]

Well I thoroughly enjoyed this video even though I feel more confused than ever.

[@BlindPacemaker]

I agree, this more than any of his others has really made me think... I think one of the signs that Chomsky is such a genius, is not so much how he answers questions, but how he knows what questions we should be asking.

[@edmonddantes935]

I'm impressed with his confidence. An obvious consequence of wisdom.

[@TheDungeonMaster666]

Will is the experience of causation. Just because something is determined doesn't mean it's predictable or understandable.

[@sweetbrown3476]

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

[@bemister1989]

He doesn't take down corporations. He's an old man, he critiques them. He spreads the message, it's down to the new generation to bring them down.

[@sweetbrown3476]

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

[@IzabelParis]

Just stumbled upon this... one of the most interesting talks by Chomsky, and I've seen a few...! Excellent. Thanks for upload.

[@epic6434]

Eugene ics seems like it's being done in the yoga pants but people act and learn word's and I still need myself to understand how to put them together to be understood some people are influenced out of their programming from parent's kids don't find anything in common with them coming from different cultures but think we're the same it's like we get what we can but didn't get everything we wanted compared to U.S. well we got tossed into the threat of change looking back my teacher throws me into desks once she lost her cool for what reason I didn't get a warning busted my head open my mom didn't press charges she didn't know that she didn't attack the teacher but someone must've angered her cause it was after lunch. I noticed the change in staff the less activity the assignment on the board so we had to show annitiative not sure if I spelled that right but yeah my interest in studying change not that I was reading big books it was angry kid's to fight we had the gangs become popular it was attitude the leadership was favorable to theirs I went to visit family in Mexico 6th grade they were smarter the culture is social always greeting people talking everyone is walking around to the market or plaza I missed it but it was poor some lived relatives lived on ranch dirt floors outhouse but they had a horse they rented out the acres for growing food but they were poor or cheapskate cause they had a truck didn't like going far. The ones in the city was more modern plumbing nice places not huge tho another in a colonia it's like a walled off area but everyone built there home cinder block homes the had areas for kids to play soccer but that's about it.

[@tarnopol]

I often wish we lived in a world in which Chomsky could have spent 100% of his time on stuff like this. This is an extremely illuminating discussion about a truly deep issue. A lot better for all of us to think about than the latest entirely predictable crimes of the powerful, but unfortunately the world will not just go away--ie, become tolerably just.

[@sweetbrown3476]

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

[@juliegrimme]

I love Noam Chomsky and I have to listen to every word to grasp where he is going with this. Wow.

[@MarkoKraguljac]

Chomsky's attitude toward non existence of free will is perplexing. How could he say "whats value of saying there is no free will if there is none"?. Its trivial; as all other information it has potential to influence people's behavior. Seen things cannot be unseen. Similarly, people who get and accept (dependent on previous conditioning) idea of non existence of free will can no longer seriously blame others and hate them the way they did before. It has incredible society changing effect!

[@chriscaughey8460]

Chomsky would choose Liquid Swords over Cuban Linx for sure

[@kingmu1]

Lol

[@blygox129]

I love this comment so much XD

[@gaulindidier5995]

That’s a tough choice. Knowledge god is such a great song tho!

[@knowledgeckr786]

He should be the ideal for future generations of students of knowledge.

[@thariqrudywilloughby660]

That was awesome...what a beautiful and inspiring exchange of ideas in the Q&A portion too.

[@nathanpearson1434]

wow. he said he dad "75 years of conciousness" but i did not realize he was that old. it makes sense and he's still wise beyond his years. Did anyone ever read or listen to a single word he ever said in public school? We should put him in our textbooks so at least our children will have enough knowwledge to make a basic decision.

[@funknotik]

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis.

[@siba96]

I have enjoyed this rich and thought provoking lecture. I found interesting the argument that "misterianism" i.e. the doctrine that there are limits to the ability of humans to solve conceptual problems finds its natural place in evolutionary theory, as soon as one accepts that the human genetic program implies both scope and limitations.

[@francoisduvalcork]

go to setting > speed > 1.25, enjoy

[@richidpraah]

+francoisduvalcork YEEESSS

[@byakugan2173]

+francoisduvalcork Thank you. It's actually easier to comprehend this way

[@fiercekrypton]

+francoisduvalcork life saver

[@popmop1234]

YOU SIR, BLESS

[@DForce26]

Set to 1.5... Works even better

[@BennyOcean]

He's a genius. I hear him speak and just wish I could get near this kind of insight and understand on any topic... and yet he shows a depth of knowledge on politics, physics, and of course linguistics and so many other topics. The dude is ridiculous.

[@sweetbrown3476]

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

[@BennyOcean]

@@sweetbrown3476 Interesting response to an 8 year old comment. I am doing ok and it is cold but not snowy. Normal weather for this time of year. How are you?

[@sweetbrown3476]

@@BennyOcean It's my pleasure coming in contact with you here, please contact me on my email so we can get to know each other more better. I have something very interesting i will love to share with you. Also we can get to know each other more better. Name: Sweet Brown Email: [e-mail]

[@LiamPorterFilms]

A truly fascinating watch! Very eye-opening.

[@sweetbrown3476]

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

[@LiamPorterFilms]

@@sweetbrown3476 Not bad thanks - kinda cold - and how is the weather condition over there?

[@LiamPorterFilms]

@@sweetbrown3476 🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕

[@ZaphodMindL]

I think his argument boils down to: You can't represent the mind as a series of "purely deterministic" equations. Mind = Brain = Atoms = Quantum Mechanics (QM). x = a + b + c + [Non-deterministic Quantum Variables]. In QM simulators, random number generators are used to provide values for these quantum variables. A simple equation would be nice, as you could use algebra on it to get hard rules for the brain. At best,these equations will be: x = a + b + c + [some fuzzy value]

[@Diosukekun]

i love him. i hope he never dies

[@StefanLawson]

I think Chomsky would encourage us to promote understanding to those who are misguided.

[@sweetbrown3476]

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

[@sphires]

Wow, this was a phenomenal lecture.

[@tolooleh]

You've misunderstood NC. He claims that concepts like "material" or "physical" have been abandoned only in the intuitive sense understood by 17th century scientists, which was immediate contact between bodies. That's why scientists of the day accused Newton of engaging in occultism w/ his action-at-a-distance, & Newton agreed w/ 'em. NC says that physical nowadays means whatever we can somehow understand and deal w/ rationally, even if it's non-intuitive.

[@utkarshjagtap1769]

some citations: 2:36 David Hume, History of England Vol- 6, Chapter 71 (LXXI.) 9:34 Philosophical Writings, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe and P. T. Geach Further readings 10:24 Chomsky Noam, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory

[@albell2614]

28:18 "Those who accept modern biology should all be mysterians instead of ridiculing it because mysterianism follows directly from the theory of evolution everything we scientifically believe about humans. So the common ridicule of this concept right through philosophy of mind at what it amounts to is the claim that somehow humans are angels exempt from biological constraints." I've never thought of it this way, but it has occurred to me how so many discussions which claim to be "based in science" are actually so PROFOUNDLY UNSCIENTIFIC. Just look at the proliferation of all these "positivist" (BTW, I don't know why they never claim this term, nor why no one questions them about this) talking head thinkers these days like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. The current profession of science appears to be in danger of going off the rails of having any logical connection to the conclusions reached by the universally acknowledged geniuses who made the science we have today possible.

[@jeremyreagan9085]

I am with Noam on staying with the founders of science like Newton, Locke and others. I have learned much from Sir. Francis Bacon as well. Also, Carl Sagan also held philosophy had value for a scientist just as Noam here explains why it is so.

[@bobrolander4344]

+Jeremy Reagan Fun sidenote: Carl Sagan was a frequent weed smoker. He was high during writing, production and filming non stop. ... millions and millions of cannabis molecules... ;-)

[@000xyz]

i also find it interesting that in his debates about language, he doesn't necessarily say that Locke is WRONG but rather his theories doesn't account for all the information, and you kinda need to accept both Locke and Descartes, rather than choosing one or the other. to me this is has a lasting effect as to what it means to me to be a REAL scientist. You can't just stick to one theory that confirms your biases and reject all theories that contradicting theories. you have to have a lot of experiments and data that prove your theory, but also actively pursue experiments that disprove your hypothesis/theory to see if there are flaws to your ideas. you have to look at data from multiple sources and synthesize the data into something that retains consistency, and then have peers evaluate your work to see if their attempts at repeating your experiment and their data collection yield results consistent to your own. In short, science is a lot of hard work and has no place for those who seek instant gratification. In the case of language theory, you could be an empiricist or you could be a rationalist; say you are taking the empiricist view, you owe it to your argument to also look into the rationalist arguments. What is interesting is that though Skinner took the empiricist stance with a massive hard on for Locke, Chomsky didn't say "fuck that, Descarte all the way," but rather Chomsky said that the answer is an amalgamation of the two--not one or the other.

[@tokotokotoko3]

Gosh, I wish at least one of the persons who asks questions would've listened to what he just said in the talk.

[@MonsterPig007]

Today we live in a very sad state of affairs with this video nearly 10 years old and only 392K views. Meanwhile, the Kardashians buy a TV at Walmart and has over 1M views. Mankind is doomed and truly deserving.

[@CarolynEllisQtEllis]

I can't believe how bad some of the questions at the end were

[@ClintonCota]

I'll have to watch. I'm a big Noam Chomsky fan.

[@jimbogrey1368]

wow deep stuff

[@jimbogrey1368]

What would you have asked ....

[@lqacwaz1]

Carolyn Ellis ah well some of the early questions were good - one can't make out the clueless types in an audience - even if they are all science nobel prize winners of fellows of the royal society or whatever ... philosophical maturity is unfortanately not so common...

[@aduralkain]

Carolyn Ellis Yes, I also thought some of those questions were bad, but that only made me appreciate even more Chomsky's patience and his exquisite intellectual attitude. He was never condescending or patronizing in his response, but gave intelligent answers that took those (probably stupid) questions seriously.

[@g00gIeruinedYT]

Does anyone know if Chomsky has written a book about this topic of diskussion? Extremely interesting!

[@m0690d]

There are three scholars whose words I will accept at face value, Marshall McLuhan, Julian Jaynes, and this guy here Noam Chomsky.

[@simonmodig]

I love you, Chomsky! You contribute to my world!

[@sweetbrown3476]

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

[@LooperCarl]

Great talk. Mechanicalism (if I can coin such an ism) can be understood as a result of political pressures on what was otherwise allowed to be studied by our forebears. A distinction was made by the Church between 'science' and the 'supernatural'. Science was allowed to be studied but supernaturalism wasn't (the penalty could be death at various times in our history). The problem confronting Newton (and later Einstein) was how to study gravity (amongst other things) without such being regarded as a study of the supernatural. Scientists had previously succeeded in arguing the study of mechanics was a science (and not the supernatural) which the Church then took to mean that science was the study of mechanics (rather than mechanics was part of the study of science). So when something like gravity (as a scientific idea) came along scientists had to find a way of describing it in terms of mechanics lest they be accused of entertaining study of the supernatural. The problem is that it couldn't be entirely described in terms of mechanics. And the way it could be described, such as "action at a distance" was positively supernatural. Einsteins problems with quantum theory inherits some of this history without really understanding it's origins in such political pressures. The Haunting (1963) Trailer ( Julie Harris, Claire Bloom and Richard Johnson)

[@beerj1992]

Interesting point

[@RobertSnyder3333]

Seems that some people have well and truly convinced themselves that total absolute freedom without limits of any kind is nonsensical. Bravo! it really takes no effort to win that argument. The concept of free will however is not, however, a question of whether or not one is absolutely free, without limitations or constraints of any kind, to act. Framing the argument in those terms is not only absurd, but completely obscures what should be interesting about the question of freedom of the will.

[@mrchristian87]

now that is the question! finding the limit of your cognition!

[@RobertSnyder3333]

Chomsky said that genetics sets scope and limits for us, and that it is obvious that this is so because if it were not so then we would be formless blobs. He did not say that this rules out free will. On contrary he drew specific attention to free will throughout his presentation, and he said that with regard to free will, the mind, in utilizing its free will, does so within the confines of the scope and limits imposed on it by our biology, and that otherwise is to believe that we are angels.

[@Andrade1969]

"When you know nothing, everything is complicated"

[@livingcircle]

The questions we ask are not just the verbally formulated. Every movement of relating is a communication within a field of communication, Consciousness, experienced as a movement of Being. To relate only within accepted definitions is not to fully relate, but to transact/exploit in mutually agreed self-interest, defined over and against an actuality actively ignored. Unifying answers serve an illumination of relation/communication rather than a self-certainty of a defined part over the whole.

[@RobertSnyder3333]

Thank you for simplifying. Your question is framed in a kind of absolutist manner. So I will address that (having no choice) - It seems obvious that we all, always, are being and acting within the world around us, and certainly we are never free from the world around us. We are in it, and from it, produced by it, and act within it. To act outside of the world within which we are produced, has no imaginable meaning (other than acting in Heaven). So let's simplify further then and...

[@RobertSnyder3333]

The obvious fact that any individual has not the total and absolute freedom to choose (outcomes, as omzog says) does not diminish the mystery of the freedom of the mind to think and act. The mystery of it remains - even in a world rife with injustice, crime, constraint, and oppression.

[@sweetbrown3476]

How are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

[@AllenStarkwell]

Anyone know if Chomsky has published a book on the idea of that presentation?

[@ThoughtProvocker]

AllenStarkwell I second this question.

[@sanya1860-e2d]

ThoughtProvocker i third this question

[@marcch03]

I quadruple this question.

[@jamescampbell-page816]

AllenStarkwell Yes, buy "Chomsky's notebook" I think there is a text based version of this presentation with what are likely further explanatory details

[@ThoughtProvocker]

Thank you.

[@tylerfraser13]

1:26:00 Never has a question been shot down sooo hard lmao

[@Numidium_]

True

[@cosimoto1]

Seems like a smart guy! I'll get back with this later!

[@jeffreycliff922]

you're an ancom. why are you restricting this video with a statist copyright monopoly right?? consider relicensing under creative commons (its in the advanced video settings) (or at least clarifying that you aren't going to use copyright against the rest of us wrt this video somehow)

[@prataprajat4231]

just hoping i get to see Roger Penrose and Chomsky together in a conversation. Choose whatever topic you like, but just make it happen before Time snatches from us the possibility of it happening.

[@funknotik]

7/11 was an outside job.

[@cybmor1856]

Does anyone know if Chomsky has a book where he talks about this in more depth?

[@tolooleh]

His remark about physicists not understanding physics is obviously tongue in cheek, which is why he laughs about it. He means physics theories are bizarre & very counter-intuitive, but not illogical. Physicists can't really picture the 11 dimensions of string theory any more intuitively than anyone else, but they know how to mathematically deal w/ it. Same w/ quantum entanglement and many other physics concepts.

[@HAL_NlNETH0USAND]

Identifying a voice is a way more simple endeavour than communication.

[@pragmaticcynicism6911]

Land is to the fish what the ocean is a human. Consciousness may well be an emergent property of our reality, and our bodies are just an instrument which limits, and focuses it. The way the human mind is limited is obvious in our perception of time as linear. It's easy enough to understand you wouldn't exist without your parents preceeding you, but understanding your parents would not be your parents without having had you, gives only the slightest glimpse at the way things beyond your capacity of understanding actually work.

[@tolooleh]

The "Higgs" question NC couldn't hear, but the questioner and host botched it also. The question seems to have been about elementary particles that are carriers of force in modern physics, like photons & gravitons, which you could argue do away w/ action-at-a-distance, but the Higgs didn't belong in that question. NC only heard "What about the Higgs?" & responded accordingly. The Higgs didn't belong in that question, and the host didn't get the jest of the question & mistranslated it.

[@nickacelvn]

We love you Noam .... enough said !

[@sammin89]

I wish more people knew about him. His knowledge is like discovering an oasis after walking endlessly though the desert...they're the solutions we've been waiting a long time for, consciously or subconsciously But I guess he never would get famous, media would never allow it...

[@Pennoid]

Is this transcribed or parsed down into an essay or two by Chomsky somewhere? That would be incredibly useful! Thanks!

[@architect333]

I agree, I'm just pointing out that wasn't the point of the lectures. It was to put things back into perspective in a world where through confusion we think we can understand everything. Let's keep in mind, he's in contact with allot of the prominent people involved in the various topics he discusses, if not personally, then through the latest scientific journals and publications he frequently quotes from. It's a broad topic and needed to make a point, for details we go to relevant experts.

[@sinplemistakes]

The Asian fellow asked the most interesting question, that if there are hard limits on our understanding, how can we know we will never exceed those limits? Perhaps at the level of the individual, it is true, however if we were to look at collective humanity as the organism, is it not apparent that we are exceeding the faculties of the individual via technology... I.e. that we are, collectively, becoming super-human, and said collective evolution could well lead to an expansion of our scope? Perhaps at that point we would cease to be ‘human’ rendering the argument moot... but it doesn’t negate our ability to generate a terrestrial ‘Martian’ that may chuckle at our rat-like inability to identify the Higgs Boson etc

[@nicholasdedless4881]

Not sure if I can leave links in comments but I'm going to try. Chomsky mentioned physicist John Wheeler in his response to a question. Here is what looks like an interesting paper on how information is as "real" in physics as quarks or strings. If the link doesn't work the paper is called: information physics quantum the search for links. jawarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/informationquantumphysics.pdf

[@e.c.3844]

Sra. Wisniewski Profesora de Español

[@tonygumbrell22]

i am proud to say that I can still understand much of what he said at my age. I find it hard to understand how he makes the claim that Newton's physics demolished the program of purely mechanical "clockwork" operation of the world. It seems to me that while Newton's mysterious action at a distance was deeply problamatic and troubling, the ablilty of the Newtonian mechanics to compute and predict the behaviour of moving bodies makes for a pretty good clockwork mechanism, however imperfect.

[@mendali]

Great lecture. Thanks for posting.

[@tolooleh]

NC doesn't say anything like that. He's saying that immediate contact, b/c of its intuitiveness, was the criterion for "physicality" at the time of the scientific revolution, but by now scientists are content w/ rational theories that allow explanation & understanding of the world, even if they're non-intuitive. That's what he means by "criterion of intelligibility" having been lowered due to our cognitive limitations. He's not dissing science.

[@RobertSnyder3333]

...and that motion, and decision, are even a possibility. This is the question of freedom of the will. It is not a question of whether or not we have total and absolute freedom to choose anything of any kind without limit whatsoever.

[@AsparagusG]

The introduction was short, sweet and Czech. Just the way it should be.

[@GoooObama08]

What a beautiful mind

[@NuLiForm]

you..me..we who are many = us..whom never stop learning..question everything...self reliance, self responsibility..open eyes..open mind....to never stop thinking..that is all that is required.. & he expects this of us, just as we do of ourselves

[@RobertSnyder3333]

Discussion of free will was not part of this lecture, which was interesting without it. A question about free will came up after the lecture during q and a. The only thing Chomsky said about free will, in response to the question, is that he agrees with Descartes' view on it - it is our most natural and immediate impression that we have it, freedom of the will, even though we have no explanation for it - it is among the greatest of mysteries.

[@BlindPacemaker]

Because to make a choice implies it is not done unconsciously, otherwise it's not a choice. That's logic surely...?

[@Diosukekun]

damn those discussions about freedom of the will. before you ask a question about it, give a clear and coherent definition of what you think of as free will

[@kyledonahue33]

Enjoyed this video but it raises more questions than it answers.

[@jamesderoc6717]

Kyle Donahue infact it shows the meaninglessness of answers

[@kyledonahue33]

Hm, didn't think of it that way.

[@gperson1967]

I think that is the point.

[@thepsycho-tropicsbyjdmckin9417]

Ya know, he really is rational and dignified. These are not "far out there." Ideas. They are simply rational and grounded in common sense. What's the big deal?

[@Mr3IMRANI]

we have logic and desires, we can follow whatever we choose that's the free will

[@civilfailure111]

well it's important to understand that he is not necessarily asserting the notion of communication being only within the realm of human interaction. He is, however, referring to the sophistication of this communication, as you said. I think that his point is that animal communication is related to base instincts whereas human language is related to intellectual expression. The infant "must select the language data." This would be for the development of intellectual purposes.

[@originalpartridge8764]

don't fret. people will build on his work.

[@johnmalcolm9980]

I have the highest regard for Noam Chomsky, and regard the effort required to maintain attention, a small price to pay for access to his brilliance. I would gladly donate to the project of having Henry Rollins read Chomsky, for the sake of the messages reaching those who need a different presentation style. The production values (low volume level and severe frequency restriction) in this KZbin video do not help at all. The sound quality compares to a bad telephone connection.

[@charliehutch3533]

+John Malcolm actually the sound quality for my set up was excellent...are you viewing this on a laptop?? well no wonder... couldn't be your laptop right? I have an excellent sound card in a desk top coupled with a Pile amplifier and through a lcd 40 inch high sound high resolution Monitor..by JVC and Sony 140 amp speakers....and it was like being there...in the room. I have to keep the amplifier in the lower 15 percent volume or I can't stay in the room too long over threat of hearing loss...Most laptops and the add on speakers for them are inferior in the sound department. but then maybe its from those speakers while you play that are behind you that could be the cause...heard of a hearing test?

[@johnmalcolm9980]

Your setup probably accurately reproduced the bad sound in the hall. It probably was exactly like being there. Your ad hominems say more about you than about me.

[@ishinadish]

Had to watch this four times over three months to even isolate the consequences of Chomsky's assertions. There's somewhere in Northern Europe (sorry, I don't know exactly) where they are storing spent nuclear fuel rods. One of their biggest concerns is the signage. We don't know what language people will speak in 10 thousand years (a very short time in the half life of the fuel rods) Isn't this the dangers of not accepting Chomsky's argument? We create things we don't understand. To our doom.

[@jujuandjesus]

At this, I must say that comprehension is relative. Constructs we call reality form from our culture, and not without. Without other humans and history, we are but beast that survive. We look at what we know, and always are frustrated we don't know the next thing, "Bah! Must be our stupid brain". We are ever scared our minds have reached their highest point. Likely, we have reached the highest point our society allows. New eyes, with a new reality, this is the mind that will achieve, not ours.

[@nathanpearson1434]

something like the new launguage you've given us there is kind of how much reason i see in Quantum Physics. I guess that makes me a student of philosophy and not Physics, but i love thinking about physics hahaha

[@paulwillisorg]

28:20 “those who accept modern biology should all be mysterians”

[@LOLERXP]

but not mystics! mysterians. I feel like there is great room for misinterpretation there