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

[@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.

[@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..?

[@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..?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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” ❤

[@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.

[@mindauggas]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@radicalpolemicist]

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

[@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

[@MrSolver100]

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

[@TheSpiritOfTheTimes]

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

[@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]

[@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?

[@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?

[@AsparagusG]

This is one of his best lectures.

[@chadbrockman4791]

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

[@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 10:31 The Philosophical Works of Descartes Rendered Into English by Elizabeth S. Haldane And G. R. T. Ross, Discourse on Method, Part V, p. 116 Discourse on the Method, pt. V. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch, Vol 1, pp. 139-140 56:07 David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section IX Further readings 10:24 Chomsky Noam, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 10:31 Chomsky Noam, 1966 Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist, Creative Aspect of Language Use p. 3 in first ed. and p. 59 in third ed.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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!

[@edmonddantes935]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@juliegrimme]

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

[@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.

[@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 🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕

[@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.

[@sphires]

Wow, this was a phenomenal lecture.

[@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?

[@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.

[@Tritdry]

What is the title of the book he is referring to by John Archibald Wheeler ~49:00

[@sweetbrown3476]

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

[@Pennoid]

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

[@g00gIeruinedYT]

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

[@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.

[@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]

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@cybmor1856]

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

[@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...

[@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

[@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.

[@Diosukekun]

i love him. i hope he never dies

[@needicecream100]

When Chomsky distinguishes between reduction and unification around the 25:00 mark, does he mean to imply that the gap between the sciences may exist forever, but only conceptually? That the unification could be completed without our understanding it?

[@needicecream100]

D777Mac Could you explain what you mean? I don't understand you.

[@ndkiwikid]

Part 4: We hope to be able to construct a useful model of *what* happens, but we'll never understand the foundation of *why* it happens because it is intrinsically occluded from us by the native structures of the human mind which evolved to survive on the Serengeti and not to uncover the deepest mysteries of the universe.

[@ndkiwikid]

Part 3: When he speaks of the impossibility of "reduction", what he means is that we will never have any fundamental understanding of the *noumena* (the totality of the way that things *really* are beyond the limited glance mediated by the structure of our native perceptions). For example, when you look up to the sky you don't see radio waves or ultraviolet because it is not available to your native sense perceptions, even though it is right in front of your face. Likewise, it is overwhelming probable that necessary conceptual frames required for understanding the noumenal world are not even conceivable by human brains or by any computer designed by them.

[@ndkiwikid]

Part 2: Now, to put a Kantian spin on it, what he means by "unification" is the development of an internally coherent model that provides predictive power for an *intelligible* explanation of empirical *phenomena* (the way things appear to us in perception, both sensory and conceptual) which is scientifically useful and productive for our benefit. By "intelligible" I am referring to the delimited scope of our understanding with is restricted to the native categories of our mind which structure our perception of the world as a given and beyond which we cannot speculate because we lack the conceptual hardware to even conceive of anything beyond those limits in the first place.

[@ndkiwikid]

Part 1: In answer to your Chomsky query, I'll provide an analogy. For this analogy to work assume that you're familiar that you're familiar with the internal tension created within the standard model of physics by the fundamental contradiction between relativity and quantum theory of which string theory is an unsuccessful attempt to resolve (so far). If not, take a few minutes to familiarise yourself via Google.

[@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.

[@tolooleh]

@ Fritzbedeek, The question about the Higgs boson and photon wasn't posed clearly. What the fellow should have asked about is the notion in modern physics that the 4 fundamental forces are mediated by carrier particles, of which the photon would be an example (for the electromagnetic force) but not the Higgs (which has to do with the origin of mass, as Chomsky points out). Gravity is postulated to have its own carrier particle, the graviton, which has not been discovered yet, although ...

[@tokotokotoko3]

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

[@mamastefurak]

Is there a way to get my hands on the transcript for this speech?

[@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)

[@m0690d]

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

[@philosophyandwritings4627]

Hey!My question is do we should hybrid thinking now or at the end(when we have nanobots in brain --we connect the cloud) or at the big computer--singularity times ? ..any writing?

[@cosimoto1]

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

[@mrchristian87]

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

[@fharooq1]

16:02 to 16:30 how was the hope dashed by 20th-century science?

[@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"

[@mendali]

Great lecture. Thanks for posting.

[@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.

[@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..?

[@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.

[@e.c.3844]

Sra. Wisniewski Profesora de Español

[@brettmiller5443]

1:21 -- That experiment doesn't demonstrate anything about how decisions are made in the brain, nor does it enumerate such mechanism, yet your 2nd point tends to underscore many peoples actual point of curiosity in this subject. Much of the interest of the questioners seemed to point toward issues of free-will (or the impression of or its seeming absence) on the socio-psychological front. I could explain why I have difficulty seeing freewill from the point of view of the big bang (despite the Heisenberg), as well as the brain. I may be missing some level in my thinking, but to me, if we aren't angels we could not possibly disturb nature by making a choice, since nature has been started and run long before we evolved.

[@BlindPacemaker]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@ndvb88]

at 33:00 he talks about childhood learning and in case of language that babies already get attuned to the specific language their mother speaks while still in the womb, and the beginning steps of language learning where a baby needs to select the appropriate "data" that is language related in the mess of "data" available. Then I think he is making the case that this is an example of a cognitive ability which can not be explained by natural selection . . . am I correct he is making this case? And if so . . . Why the hell wouldn't it be explainable by natural selection? He says it takes only a moment to show that can't be true but he does not take that moment to show it . . .

[@Dubravko49]

When Chomsky talks about human cognitive capacity for language (the thing that all humans share), does he mean the human measurable physical structure of the brain as it is? does he mean the potential for some neural structure to emerge as a result of experience but based on the given genetic makeup that itself is a product of some past mutation? does he refer to anything to do with the brain? What?

[@boriswied6134]

Dubravko Kakarigi Hi There!By "human capacity for language", Chomsky means exactly that. He doesn't mean structure of the brain in a living human (after all, many living humans cannot speak, maybe they have brain damage, etc) He also doesn't mean some potentiality of neural activity. He means the thing in the natural endowment of the biological generality that is a human, that enables humans (generally) to use language. Comparatively you can consider walking. A human with no legs is definitely an ACTUAL human. But in the understanding of a general human, the ability to walk is certainly part. So what is the "human capacity of walking"? Saying brains to the first question is as vague as saying legs to the second question. That is to say, we have a natural endowment to walk - but that has a component both in the brain in the legs, etc. etc. In Chomskys specific definition of language, i think he would say it is definitely all in the brain (he believes language capacity is distinct from the ability to express it orally, so mouth/larynx is irrelevant) but to say it is all in the brain doesn't say a lot. "What" these capacities are exactly, isn't something anyone knows. Just as we don't know exactly how the neurological background of dancing looks, we don't know for language either. We know some things. We can look at what part lights up when we do what - we can look at who can do what with this or that kind of brain damage, but there is no link. That is in part the subject matter of this presentation.

[@rolandhawken6628]

Dubravko Kakarigi In other words you want him to entertain them. Perhaps if he dressed up as a clown?

[@LAlba9]

Dubravko Kakarigi Yes ...and no. He's the the father of modern Linguistics theory.

[@LAlba9]

Roland Hawken Now there's an image you don't encounter everyday.

[@paulwillisorg]

30:15. Charles Sanders Pearce. - in history of science fret discoveries are made almost simultaneously.

[@Fritzbedeek]

It seemed like Dr. Chomsky didn't hear the whole sense of the question the fellow asked about the search for the Higgs boson being a quest back to mechanical philosophy through the idea of physical contact action of matter. Does the notion of the Higgs boson at all imply that gravity is an exchange of particles? I wonder if there is any other instance of the Professor addressing this?

[@sfmima8009]

Can someone help to explain to me what he means by " not having body / there's no notion of ' physical ' / ' material' " ? I get lost here (I have little knowledge about linguistics or philosophy of mind, other than slight knowledge about Kant and Hume, sorry )

[@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

[@frederico4d]

Probably people have already said it, but, about the muscles activating before there is a decision... Why does it have anything to do with free will? Can't it just mean that while you are thinking about it, your muscles are somewhat activated, even if you haven't reach a decision yet? or i'm I missing something?

[@GazaFloatilla]

Does anyone have the book on Morality by john michael that Chomsky talks about in this video? what is it's title?

[@namnack]

ISBN-13: 978-0757582578

[@ndkiwikid]

Elements of Moral Cognition by John Mikhail. It's available for for the Amazon kindle app. I also recommend A Natural History of Human Morality by Michael Tomasello.

[@ndkiwikid]

Elements of Moral Cognition by John Mikhail. It's available for for the Amazon kindle app. I also recommend A Natural History of Human Morality by Michael Tomasello.

[@sweetbrown3476]

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

[@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

[@tolooleh]

@ Fritzbedeek ..although the carriers of the other 3 forces have been observed. Roughly, the picture is that 2 particles exert gravit. force on each other through the exchange of the graviton, unlike in Newton's action-at-a-distance, where nothing mediates the force. Chom. doesn't address that. But modern physics has other "incomprehensible" notions, as Chom. points out, such as curved spacetime and quantum entanglement, which Einstein dismissively referred to as "spooky action-at-a-distance."

[@architect333]

Just curious, what's physical matter? how is it distinguished from thoughts, consciousness, reason, mathematics, emotions, direct detection of forces of nature (not the consequences) or 95% of this universe and beyond. My understanding it's our interpretation of the behavior of existence defined in terms such as energy and matter in order to described phenomena within our limitations of human experience.

[@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.

[@nota2cdtime]

Are there any brand names in Norway? Nobody seems to be wearing their favorite baseball team's logo, etc., etc.

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@paulf9054]

Just an observation...not a criticism...but this audience is probably the most white audience I can remember seeing (8:00)....and I've watched many lectures. Maybe it's because I live in CA which is very diverse, but this seems very odd to me.

[@tolooleh]

Free will implies decision making by the organism independent of internal or external stimuli. But it doesn't imply that it has to be accessible to consciousness. Your mind's made a decision independently and on its own accord, even if it was by the unconscious part of the mind.

[@jjgfun]

Nothing about Einstein was brought up until the very end. How do you not bring up the fact that Einstein proposed a physical explanation for why matter interacts, and how gravity works? Even if these proposals don't fit with quantum theory, I wish someone would have asked a question about it. For example; do you think that Einstein was on the right track when he was looking for a unified field theory, or is it unintelligible?

[@carlospazdespierta]

I think Higgs' boson was already found, wasn't it?

[@mirmalchik]

A particle was detected that fit, in all the ways tested, the predicted description of a Higgs boson, yes. There are always more questions to ask and quantities to be measured, but there's not yet any reason to believe the particle was not the Higgs. www.wired.com/2015/11/physicists-are-desperate-to-be-wrong-about-the-higgs-boson/