Noam Chomsky - The Mysteries of Nature

Chomsky on the limits of understanding and the mysteries of nature.

[@HKHasty]

Chomsky is an ocean of knowledge.

[@mcpuffenstuff6213]

I love how calmly this man talks about such deep topics in detail.

[@murat_yurttas]

The Boss.

[@jmichaelhall7433]

Worst fear (regarding the fate of mankind) isn’t perishing in a nuclear holocaust, or in some self inflicted or otherwise environmental, global catastrophe. Worst fear is that limits of intellectual capacity will reduce existence to nothing more than that of Noam’s rats in a maze,; “ left, right, right, left...” for eternity.

[@daviddavid9570]

In my opinion you can look at this in a different perspective. I think that in between capacities there can be eternity. I will try to give an analogy on this: The capacity from a 10 cm ruler is 1 to 10 on the other hand this ruler can be dived in to the smallest numbers inside this range which I would compare with the growing complexity of a subject as you work yourself away from or on top of the elementary models and work your way deeper into the matter or even like a family tree it’s branches and twigs growing further and further.

[@northhill3718]

Part of yes. we are the lab rats. no different to the real rats. but there is a possibility that we as a human being can beyond that, not just a lab rat. but now ,we are the rats. unless we change.

[@spooky_zen]

we dont know what we dont know:(

[@dearestlovelace880]

Danks Shepherd libe living test Mont.

[@villiestephanov984]

Danks Shepherd I know I am stupid, but you stupid, do not know even this.

[@RootinrPootine]

Chomskys philosophy, what speech is this from please?

[@villiestephanov984]

I speak loudly and my stick is quite small. Process of elimination/ilimination

[@theheathbar123]

It might be from "The Ghost and the Machine", not sure though

[@gort3969]

There can be no thoughts or discussions on things that we are unaware of

[@elischrag8436]

"the universe is under no obligation to be intelligible to you"

[@tasheemhargrove9650]

I definitely agree that we don't know a hell of a lot of things about our world and our existence. But are there limits or ceilings to how much we can learn? I don't think so. Humans didn't always have the ability to contemplate their existence because humans weren't always humans. Evolution is the result of our intellectual capacity today and if we want to raise that ceiling, we can probably do it. Maybe through some sort of forced or artificial evolution. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong...

[@Davemac1116]

No. If we are biological objects than we have a scope and limit to our understanding. It's just a logical fact that follows.

[@tasheemhargrove9650]

Davemac1116 Every living thing has what you refer to as "a scope". But that scope isn't static. Only 200 years ago, the scope of humans was limited to the earth, and for some, their native environment. People used to believe the earth was flat and that humans were destined to remain on the ground forever. In just the past few centuries, this scope you speak of has grown wider.

[@Davemac1116]

+Tasheem Hargrove I agree that we have as you say expanded the boundary of our knowledge. But there will be things that are intelligible to us. This is what Chomsky means by scope and limits. Fixed and rigid genetic endowment that defines the capacities. Just as the rat can't conceptualise the prime number maze, there are things we may never fully grasp either. He mentions Newton's gravity action-at-distance showing how the mechanical philosophy concept of the 17 C failed to explain gravity in terms of contact action. So science lowered its goals to developing theories of the world, rather than making the Universe intelligible - like a mechanical clock. Other things like 'consciousness' , free will, etc. It's intriguing stuff. :)

[@tasheemhargrove9650]

Davemac1116 I don't know, maybe you and Chomsky are right. But science is learning how to manipulate genes as we speak, so we could realistically see a future where our genetic make up is improved, or altered, to overcome these natural barriers. But who really knows.

[@chrisrea6841]

We may indeed have limits in our understanding, but what about the creatures that will evolve from us in the future? Just like we have evolved from ancient apes and have overcome their limits. Although I'm not sure if this intellectual evolution can happen on demand.

[@OlymPigs2010]

...Man had limits on his capacities but moving on through history man,time and again,overcame those limits !

[@mohamedmonem9653]

You clearly misunderstood the point

[@janscott602]

False analogy. Humans cannot be compared to thermostats. People that argue against free will do not believe they have free will. Some of then believe we are witnesses processes set in stone, including our own behavior.

[@jeniamtl6950]

+Jan Scott Of course people arguin against free will say they don't believe in it. But it's evidently there.

[@37Dionysos]

+Jan Scott Well then, as NC says, why do they write books about it? So that other reading robots of determinism will know what they "really" are too? To what end? And what would start such a labor and project in the first place? Sure, "careers" would be an answer. But it's an awfully simple and dim view of being alive.

[@impCaesarAvg]

+Jan Scott Suppose a philosopher writes a book arguing against free will. His publisher cheats him out of his royalties. The publisher is prosecuted. The publisher defends himself: he didn't choose to cheat, he has no free will, it's not his fault. Does the philosopher agree with that?

[@mohamedmonem9653]

c4p0ne “No one escapes the stream of determinism” quantum physicists would disagree