Noam Chomsky on the Big Questions (Part 4) | Closer To Truth Chats
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2023
- Closer To Truth is proud to present this four-part miniseries with distinguished theoretical linguist, analytic philosopher, and cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky. In our final part, Chomsky offers his thoughts and opinions on Closer To Truth's "big questions": Does God exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? What are the limits of science? What are the major issues in philosophy of mind?
Noam Chomsky is a distinguished theoretical linguist, analytic philosopher, cognitive scientist, political critic, social activist, and public intellectual. Called "the father of modern linguistics”, Chomsky helped bring about the cognitive revolution in the human sciences. At 94, he is one of the most cited living scholars. He is Institute Professor Emeritus at MIT and Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona.
Watch Part 1: • Noam Chomsky's Reflect...
Watch Part 2: • Noam Chomsky on Theori...
Watch Part 3: • Noam Chomsky on Lingui...
Register for free at closertotruth.com for subscriber-only exclusives: closertotruth.com/register/
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and produced and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Noam's a national treasure. I hope he lives longer than anyone has lived so far.
Great philosopher, terrible economist and political scientist and foreign policy thinker.
@@cbskwkdnslwhanznamdm2849 He is a polarizing person in all those fields. Another person might say Terrible philosopher, great economist and political scientist and foreign policy thinker. It just depends on your stance but any sane person knows he's very intelligent and hard-working.
You made Chomsky smile, and that just warmed my heart. I didn't know I needed that. Thanks.
I have noticed a new warmth in noam's smile, particularly at the end of a conversation. It speaks volumes.
What would we do without Noam.
Very nice interview, thank you.
This man is a treasure of humanity. His persistence, patience, humility, and his humane approach to science and to life are inspirational.
.... especially when he suggested that we lock up the unvaccinated and let them starve to death!!!
What a wonderful series of interviews with Noam Chomsky and thank you for letting him talk as long as he needed without interruption
Nobody interupts Noam😊
Much obliged. Some people do sport, some Yoga and for me nothing conforts my mind as much as listening this powerful amazing, incredible Noam Chomsky. What a pleasure watching Closer to Truth Chats
Indispensable series. What an absolute delight!
This 4-part series is A TREASURE👌
Never felt so in touch with Mr Chomsky, as when he said we left the question of motion unanswered as a hard problem in the seventeenth century with Newton
seventy years of speaking truth to power--courageously so...
seventy years of erudition, of sharing his ideas, arguments, insights, his vast learning--generously so...
the old saw about valued educators comes to mind: 'a good educator makes himself unnecessary...'
this bespeaks an all-too-rare generosity--and, thank you...
let your humane, civilized Light shine on, Professor Chomsky...
Thanks for conducting this interview!
Yeah, indeed free speach, no manuscript, no teleprompter, Noam as always in flow. Wonderful his voice like a soulmade. Evertime something to grasp, to learn, better to understand. Surely a Master Mind.
❤ Poem
Incredible series!
To anyone who criticizes Prof. Chomsky or thinks he is senile, etc. The man is sharp as a tack. Not just a genius, but really, really sharp. I can only pray any of us can be nearly as articulate and present as Prof. C. You can disagree with him, but you can't call him senile. Or arrogant. I happened to meet him briefly in person many moons ago. Here i was, a total ignoramus, and he spoke with respect and was a real gentleman.
Thank you for this fantastic series of interviews.
Very interesting talk. Thanks for this walk down history and context of current views
this is one superb series of interviews with noam chomsky I've seen so far thank you so much! carefully asked, beautifully answered. noam is pure gold of philosophy and an enormous thinker. instant subscribe 🖤
I loved this particular video ,what a refreshing ,stimulating and thought provoking treat
Chomsky at 94. Remarkable. Curious if there any transcripts of these conversations are available?
click on the ... ellipses under the right hand corner of the vid and it says "show transcript"
Thanks Chomsky. I'm happy to listen to this truthful man
Excellent interview excellent interviewer!!!
Brilliant discussions....love to hear from both of you....godbless...
I love you Noam❤️
This is a treat! Such a beautiful discussion of life's mysteries, with Noam's brilliant mind. Hope for us all. Thank you!
one of its kind closer to truth exploring the unknown arena which is from the very beginning intrigued the human species
“The simplest relation would be identity.” This statement is metaphysically-generalizable.
The final 15 minutes show how advanced Chomsky's thought is. To answer the interviewer's question: Chomsky is a realist, as he states that thought is part of reality!!
love chomsky
Wonderful conversation 🥰
Nom nom nom nom Noam Chompsky
If a dependent variable equals the product of a constant number and independent variable that assumes numeric values, or y = c . x for "." multiplied by, then x = 1 implies y = c when the convention c . 1 = c is accepted, however this is different from y being strictly identical to c and therefore, y ≢ c . 1.
What a great session!!!
Wow! Such a great interview. This one goes over much more ‘philosophical’ topics, that one can see online normally. Much thanks goes to the fine interviewer. He doesn’t interfere and asks great follow up questions. Always learn so much from Prof. Chomsky.
Very enlightening video. A little off topic maybe, but there’s this woman I got in touch with during the market downsizing which cost me my job. Ms. Norman Davis helped me manage my assets by introducing my to the best trading platform and strategies, I earned a lot of $$$ working with Norman at the comfort of my home. I still keep in touch with the amazing lady
As a single mother with 3 kids, it wasn’t easy having to raise them alone after my husband had passed. I remember the hardest part was when my eldest son got into college and having to pay for his tuition would not have been possible without the help of Ms Norman whom i had gotten in contact with the previous year. she assisted me and taught me how to earn extra income
Love and light from Florida, I’m trying to create long term wealth to set towards property one day . How can i reach out to her? she could be of great help
< normandavis
I have a master in mathematical finance, so it wasn’t so easy to get me convinced to begin an investment without me carrying out proper research on her. I had her broker ID checked and she’s fully verified! So I began with a few bucks, only to get huge returns in a month. I reinvested and now I get long term monthly returns… So glad I don’t rely on pay checks anymore.
This is still a window-shopping market. But there are a lot of intriguing stocks to watch from a variety of sectors. You don’t have to act on every forecast, hence i will suggest you get yourself a financial-advisor that can provide you with entry and exit points on the shares/ETF you focus on. kudos to Norman, great remarks!
This format suits you much better
Wow, this was so deep and interesting I had to listen to it twice... The idea that the structure of language is innate... The idea that conversational communication is an incidental byproduct of a calculating mind for inner thoughts... Darwin didn't actually think that the world was a mechanical developing place... And other great takeaways from this conversation... My biggest Takeaway, was listening to such a wise and educated man who has devoted his life to studying the phenomena of language and communication, and his Takeaway is that it's all one big mystery... I guess you can file that under, the more we know, the more we know we don't know... Thanks for this post, I love your series on closer to the truth...
I'm gonna cite Aristotle if the land assessor tries to claim my farm shack is a house dwelling!
is there something that makes any use of language in general important, before the use of specific words and meanings? children already give importance to language, no matter what words or meanings are used? maybe the feeling or emotion attached to language provides it with importance?
Yes a treasure of humanity for sure. When shall we in not-too-evolved societies be able to benefit from the treasure ? It's a question that occurs to my mind and saddens me a little bit.
I wish I knew with certainty the secret of how such men maintain clarity of thought through to an age when most are unable to think at all. I have been fortunate in my time to meet 3 or 4 whom get wiser with age, the common cause variation I noticed was 1. Their only media of information was the book. 2. They were either single or spent long years away from spouse and family and resided in the academy😊
In the Beginning was Words... 🌈🦉Darwin refuted, Aristotle revisited! Fascinating. Prof Chomsky no materialist...
"Thinking is a property of organised matter"
Listening to the various guests Robert hosts, I really enjoy trying to 'model' their thought processes... NC seems cantankerous and a bit quick to reach for absolute positions but imho there's lots of cutting through to some great insights too.
Very interesting conversation.
I hope I have all my marbles when I get older like both of these guys. Both are Awesome human beings.
Wonderful conversation with real substance and nil clutter👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I think Chomsky was right the first time, this basic reasoning capability he identifies that we use for much more than just external communication, was developing for over a million years before the development of language. So what were we doing for that time that might be related? I think it was the development of tools, including the use of fire. Making tools is a highly complex procedural process involving a range of cognitive tasks. Seeking identifying and gathering components, composing multiple items to be used in the procedure. Then following a complex set of procedures involving iterative steps with several stages to manufacture a variety of different products. Compound items such as a spear with a haft, bindings and glue requires hierarchical thinking and understanding and composition of complex logical relationships.
All of this would require exactly the sort of sophisticated cognitive machinery he identifies as needed for language. 200-300 thousand years ago when he thinks language probably started coincides with the middle stone age when the sophistication of stone tools made huge advances and the first compound artefacts with multiple parts were developed. So while he correctly points out that this is all one faculty of the brain, I think his viewpoint as a linguist has elevated the role of language development in his estimation. It seems to me that tool making is most likely where all of this started. It also brings us back to a long term iterative process of evolution for this complex mechanism.
And at what point did sleep dreams develop? Before or after speech, before or after tools were created. I've never heard Chomsky's thoughts on dreams which are important yet mostly misunderstood by society at large, today.
@@bellakrinkle9381 Since we have strong evidence that all mammals seem to dream, all the way down to mice, it seems like dreams are quite a fundamental low level behaviour of our brains.
designer of a structure provides purpose, while users of a structure add meaning?
Chomsky says here that either he doesn’t understand Continental philosophy or doesn’t find it interesting (46’ on.) Later on he says that consciousness is easy, it’s the physical that is the hard question: “We all know what consciousness is. It is what we experience now “ and he later says mind is part of the world (of physicality). With words like “experience” “world” and “now”, he is bordering on the domain of Continental philosophy which explores these concepts at considerable depth and actually could enrich OUR understanding of Chomsky’s views of consciousness/physicality considerably (Lord knows HE has done enough in a lifetime!)
47:07 lol🍀
Conscious mind development in living beings begins with Intuition and Understanding in terms of micro-organisms and vegetation continues with Courage, Knowledge and Council in the development of insect, bird, fish and animal life. The Human attainment of Worship and Wisdom is what separates us from the animal kingdom, further endorsed by the bestowal of personality. Furthermore, personality is able to attain Cosmic Mind and Spiritual Insight.... The Urantia Book.
Why is there something vs. nothing?
Nothingness=Equilibrium
Something can exist by substitution for a duration;
Nothingness->Symmetric pair->Nothingness
The duration can become a cycle allowing duplication and multiplication of the initial fractal pair.
This occurs via self-referential relativity of the fractal building block of the universe (proton/neutron system). The source of consciousness and matter are one and the same thing. Everything is relativity of self-referential relativity and various degrees of awareness towards it.
Sounds like you rely on duration . So in your model there wasn’t nothing . Time existed.
@@tonyatkinson2210 no. I think of equilibrium as dynamic vs. static. Static does not have a potential for failure=nothing.
Dynamic has potential for "transient failure" which has a duration (a time component). It's the creation of a self-referential relativity that creates the survival factor which leads to cycle=continuum (which is responsible for time as we know it).
@@andrewbrodis1239 I have no idea what you just said . Sorry . 🤷♀️
How can anything be dynamic absent time ?
I doubt I will understand your answer btw 🤷♀️
@@tonyatkinson2210
If equilibrium was static, nothing would exist.
We exist.
Therefore equilibrium, as an origin, was dynamic.
Dynamic means subject to failure.
There can be isolated transient failure of equilibrium but without some connectivity, there's only transient duration. There's nothing to connect one event to another.
I can't really describe my entire theoretical basis in a single comment. But maybe you followed some of that.
@@andrewbrodis1239 yep. A little bit .
But if nothing is subject to failure. He doesn’t that mean an event has to occur ? That by failing it has changed in some way?
Presumably , if nothing isn’t stable and fails , it’s state changes from nothing to something .?
But isn’t all of that temporal ?
as sharp as he is he seems a bit shallow when it comes to the big questions. he seems to have some kind of aversion against metaphysics. i would love to hear if hes got an opinion on quantum entanglement or what he thinks of roger penrose's ideas.
Hvae playback apped of 1.75. SOunds better.
A nice coup for Lawrence to land this set of interviews. I’m pretty sure Noam doesn’t grant interviews with just anyone.
His politics and mine don’t always coincide, but here he sticks to linguistics, and reveals his impatience with metaphysics at the end, though not stridently.
I suspect he cares a lot more about his canine companions than he does the answer to questions like, “why is there something rather than nothing?”
Have you read Noam Chomsky's books "The Political Economy of Human Rights" vol. 1 and 2 or "World Orders: Old and New" or "At War with Asia" or "Year 501: The Conquest Continues" - that will be a much better four part "coup" series. thanks
Biggest Question
How do we remove the current cornerstone called ignorance (greed) from life and replace it with the cornerstone of truth (love)?
Love and truth are two completely different concepts.
@@Tom_Quixote Ignorance isn't absence of knowledge. Ignorance is absence of love.
There is no 'why' language evolved. Chomsky addresses this very specifically starting at the 11:28 mark in which the host begins by asking: “In terms of the purpose...” Chomsky states in this video, and in many others, that evolutionary changes don't happen for any purposeful function, as if there is some invisible hand involved. We can produce thoughts without any communication or with incoming communication. When we communicate, whatever the modality (speech or other sounds, visual, touch, etc,) thought must precede the act of communicating, since that's what forms the content of that communication. Even if there exists telepathic communications, thought would have to precede it. Biologists don't have a problem with that basic logic. It's from such domains as cognitive psychology, some areas of philosophy and a majority of linguists that depart from the rest of science. Language and thought are intrinsically bound in the human species. They are what make language and communication work for the human species.
I can't imagine the loss if the realm of the Humanities and Sciences had not crossed paths with one of the greatest thinkers and human beings, Noam Chomsky.
🙏🏻🙏🏽🙏
Animal and bird calls are the first rudimentary language. This nascent use of sounds by animal may have been a forerunner and even could have had a bigger significance than sounds used by prehistoric ape man.
Ocean creatures use sound to communicate, whale or dolphin sounds are superior to the sounds used by the lesser forms, the very fact that even the lesser forms are using sound is thrilling and exhilarating. There needs to be a sound precision to get across one unit of meaning. Vast language has that very same basic construct. Your sound must never mean anything else but what you intend to relay.
Bird sounds more than others are not always mating calls or danger calls, they communicate an emotional wellness too.
Is music thought without language? I don’t about the traditional equivalence between thought and language which Chomsky seems to endorse here. It seems to lack imagination to a huge degree and fails to explain whether infants can have thought before language, and leaves out mathematics altogether as a form of thought. Unless, of course we are to say that mathematics is only a language, which would be problematic to say the least. Having said this, I am always impressed by professor Chomsky’s intellect in general.
In the analytic and linguistic view it’s not claimed that language is the only means of thought btw. Chomsky himself has written about how the mind must be a diverse and multi-faceted series of cognitive endowments (or ‘organs’ to use the biology analogy). The language faculty does seem to be a privileged or extremely important mode, from which other faculties (music, perhaps) may be epiphenomena, but it certainly isn’t the only one.
@@HkFinn83 it’s an interesting conjecture but it could also be the other way around. Chomsky’s own admission that language isn’t particularly suited for communication brings up several questions as the the hierarchy. One must first distinguish what exactly is meant by language in this case, then we can begin to get somewhat organized.
Forget ‘hierarchy’, that’s just me musing. The important part is there are multiple cognitive faculties, of which language is one. Why people actually like music btw isn’t well attested. I find the idea it’s an evolutionary spandrel of language convincing, but it’s not known.
@@HkFinn83 neither music nor language are well defined. In a sense everything is evolutionary. The only issue i take is with the finer distinctions which seem unwarranted before we even have a working definition. The linguist sees language where the musician sees music. The neurologist sees a brain where the philosopher sees thought. As to the historical question of the chronology of faculties, it isn’t a well posed question without a better established definition of both language and music, if they can even be said to be distinct. Still, the musings remain interesting and may well constitute part of the epic poetry of what we call human understanding.
Emotions come first, and over many species, and thought/language are built on them.
emotion is byproduct of thought
music is the language of emotion. Noam Chomsky acknowledges that music is a viable explanation for the origins of language. It's called Musilanguage.
So a hundred thousand+ years ago they didn't have language, so they didn't have thoughts (and according to Chalmers almost would be like zombies ;-)) However they did function in the world, so they knew how to distinguish objects. So they intrinsically had the logic of the law of non-contradiction before language (according to Aristotle's definition I believe). Nice, I wondered about that
The examples given for complex thought are such things as planning and inference. This is more complex than 'distinguishing' objects
I think they had non-verbal thoughts.
I wonder what Chomsky's favourite novel is
What is the difference between Being and Doing? Is matter being? If so what "allows" matter to "do"?
The whole problem of quantum mechanics is the failure of science to differentiate between matter and "doing" or action. After all is charge a property of matter or matter itself, a proton or an electron? If an electron in a certain kind of motion, action, gives us electricity, what does anything else in motion give us?
You blew my mind
All matter origins from light. Light is Being - this was even known in PreSocratic philosophy! Read Nobel physicist Gerard 't Hooft's article, "Light is Heavy." There is gravitational mass to light as a hidden "supermomentum" or time-reversed signal. That is the secret "doing" of the Universe. It's also called noncommutativity. You can study Fields Medal math professor Alain Connes for details.
could language come about to improve the effectiveness of individuals in a social group? what might have caused the need to improve the effectiveness of individuals in social groups through language? or might there have been non-physical situations that induced development of language, such as ontological reasoning, philosophical questioning, and human relationship to understand meaning beyond physical existence?
Noam's theory is that it developed as a way to think more efficiently- and his reasoning for that is that 90% of language takes place internally, in our minds. It's how we think. He argues that actually it's use as a means of communicating between individuals is just a biproduct of its primary function- efficient thought. He also argues it has no analogue in the natural world- that no animal communicates in any way that remotely resembles human language. He says even the higher apes that ppl claim has learned sign language or how to use symbols on a computer aren't really doing what it seems they're doing. He says they're just throwing up random combinations of words or symbols and we're interpreting it as communication.
It's really fascinating stuff- I have no idea how correct it is but it makes sense in many ways- when you think about it. I'm not sure I would agree that language's primary function is efficient thought and not communication between individuals- it would seem to me it could just as easily be the other way around. That language's primary function was communication and the fact that it facilitates internal thought just a biproduct. But I will say Noam's positions, generally speaking, are unbelievably well thought out and hard to challenge so- I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss them.
Small children today are born with the capacity to learn multiple languages until age nine. Then that specific skill disappears. Perhaps small children originally spoke words that adults learned. Thus, language was born, thousands of years ago.
@@bellakrinkle9381 LOL- How ridiculous- the drivel ppl like you come up with is laughable. Children have the capacity to "learn" languages- but nothing suggests they have the capacity to create it. They're children for God's sake- they haven't even experienced the world yet- how silly.
When we dream, we think only with images, without language, no?
That is when according to Chomsky articulation is on hold?
@@OnlyLogicWins That's cool. I wish I could learn these things in deep.
In Chomskian linguistics there’s no claim that language is the only means of thought btw
Amazing ! This is one of my gurus - if you can call him that- I’ve been studying linguistics for over 30 years. You are da bomb, Noam!😂🙏💜👏💕
That's a sign you need to mature. He was one of my gurus too when I was at university. Then I realised he's a fool. Now he's an old fool.
@@robbie_ perfectly said.
Don’t worry - calling Him a fool is nothing but the pathetic reflection of their own most pitiful foolishness…
I love you Noam Chomsky.
If those living on earth, especially humans, don't have purpose, why worry about the future of humans and the planet? And why not see the strongest who win wars as a part of evolution? Might makes right.
language can be used to relate information to others? language can also be used to gather information from nature and consciousness as thoughts?
I like how he so casually refers to a child/infant as "it" when discussing theoretical or experimental linguistics
Because that's the correct way of referring to it.
Are humans affected by dark matter?
language / thoughts as computational efficiency gathering information from nature and consciousness? nature and consciousness changed mental system allowing adaptation or selection of language to gather information from it, increasing computation efficiency?
Chomsky seems to prefer his "Continental" speculations as they are reserved for his multitudinous, ongoing critique and indictment of Western culture, politics, modern history and the like.
That he should consider this line of reasoning as constituting a competing or alternative, even peripheral mode against the sort of "analytical" tradition he evidently prefers e.g. science, logic, thought, mind; or that he is prone to advocate for the sake of personal ambition and recognition academically, could be said to make for a kind of false (at least ingenuous) distinction.
His remarks tend to suggest this much; yet he is popular in this very forum for an armada of assessments, warnings, and pronouncements quite removed from the intricate technicalities or current concerns of Linguistics as such.
Not all investigators into nature or society consider themselves competent, or relevant, to mastering such a wide range of disciplines, perspectives, and recommendations.
Still, as things stand, any distinction between the one or the other "brand" or tradition of the Philosophy Department per se is largely conceded to be a matter of history, an artifice of privilege, emphasis, and circumstance, perhaps.
Some thinkers choose the precision of science; others the literature of the human condition.
The history itself tends to run in reverse, from literary inquiry to the inquiry of the multitude of human artifacts: logic, linguistics and more besides.
The common property of both, indeed, is the appearance, the problem, of "thought" itself.
Cogito Ergo Sum ... Sum Ergo Cogito...?
I wonder why hinge the studies on evolution rather than simply mind and consciousness
To even refer to humans as a “species” right off the rip is interesting
His first two statements …humans have identity and subjective thought
This is somewhat lost
Nowadays
LOL- I'm pleased to see I'm not the only one who noticed.
He was referring to human thought and language faculties distinguishing us from animals. Asking the question of what the relation between the two could be, the first assumption would be that they form an identity, i. E. They are the same (or very closely linked)
Loss of identity results in loss of subjective thought.
This is a major cause of Dementia that no one recognizes.
@@bellakrinkle9381 That would be because it's not something we observe happening. When my father forgot who he was, that didn't mean he lost all sense of self- not at all. In his mind he was still him, he still said "I need x or Y"- "I need to go to the bathroom"- "I don't want to die." etc., etc. The only problem was that "I" he was referring to didn't know he was Josh- who was married with three kids, served in the navy, retired from the coal mines, etc. He couldn't remember any of that- but absolutely knew he was him- a separate person who had an identity. He just couldn't remember exactly what that identity was anymore.
I also worked in hospice care for over 20 years- I never saw what you're referring to- not once. What proof do you have to support your assertion that subjective thought stops with the loss of identity? I'm guessing none- it just something you worked out in your head- and that's not how science works- thank goodness.
@@stoneysdead689 great point
Brain is the CPU, language is like the Operating System.
I believe that what Chomsky describes as the 2nd and 3rd steps in evolution, namely _reconstruction_ and _windowing,_ are the same in nature only different in time scale and in their relative degree of sophistication. I would say that language consists in a set (maybe some form of logical tree) of words or concepts which make at least somewhat possible and obvious enough the kind of human communication needed-then and to a lesser degree, now-for a person and his group to survive. Individual words which were related to concepts incompatible with survival simply got 'windowed' out of the cultural and mental vocabulary of a group. Big or small differences in cognitive systems that were necessarily present from the beginning of language or immediately following it, at least to some degree, started (initially-what Chomsky refers to as reconstruction) to produce multiple contradictory and potentially competing representations of the real world, man's physical environment, both in human's mind and in various societies. But my main point I guess, is that the same kinds of differences continued to appear or reappear throughout history although more and more unpredictably and mostly either unnoticed or rationalized one way or another. Today most if not all human dialects would seem compatible with reality and translatable from one another. I even tend to agree with Chomsky that there is largely the same complex language system in every human, and this from the beginning of language, and I believe it to be sufficiently adapted to the realities of this world so as to remain coherent and further adapt to new scientific paradigms without breaking and losing coherence, but I do know that there are some realities that language can't change and must recognize, like "time is scarce", yet when other things which humans took for granted, like Newtonian physics, seem to contradict part of reality, then how can language adapt if not by in turn, itself start to contradict previous dictionary definitions, as well as the interpretation of some long-standing contract between speakers of different languages, and perhaps after some build up going against reality, conflict with deep concepts and notions. Probably and if the past is any indication, all those innate and shared notions, that are not always describable, should stand the test of time. I notice that arguments during which multiple words and meanings get clarified and, if need be, temporarily redefined or added to, for the purpose of the discussion at hand whatever it may be, usually turn out to be those arguments that are worth engaging in.
why he looks like Gandalf so much with the beard
might language be a response or adaptation to a change in mental system of nature?
deep structure has computational complexity?
I'm the one the world has been waiting for. I know everything, including, how we deep space Travel, I can answer every question mankind has in absurd detail. How do I reach this man. This guy said absolutely nothing. You all have no clue.
You're less smart than you think
Please make a video
I would say the work of V Ramachandran is rather more convincing as an evolutionary framework of language
The evolution of language in 4200 years since The Tower of Babel. Thanks Noam!
Kolko the Gorilla really could express complex ideas and emotions. Maybe her sign language wasn't gramatically correct. haha. Obviously her "helper" had to interpret the context of Kolko's signs - and so the male scientists dismissed it all. Recent research shows primates make hand gestures that hands also understand.
He's lost some where along the way.. sad but true.
Aren't we all?
Eukaryotes, then multicellular, from individual minds, to multimindular--right now, individual minds, currently drawing environment towards it, like a precursor to multimindular-- just look at the foaming blue green algae of the internet.
Love Chomsky. A poet, like Wittgenstein
I love Noam Chonsky.
What a rich, hugely important episode, with super-sleuth Robert teasing out the essential points with Noam Chomsky.
At 10:36 Robert asks about the point in human history in which "the language event" occurred. Chomsky responds, "... those are hominids, homo sapiens, our species, separate species, its origins seem to be in the order of two to three hundred thousand years ago."
At 11:10 Chomsky cites genomic analysis that reveals that "the language faculty existed before the early separation of humans, which leaves a very small window, means that something pretty simple must have happened fifty, hundred thousand years [ago]..."
What was that something?
Let's get this right. If I am interpreting this correctly, then language usage among homo-sapiens *preceded* by a wide margin, the event that converted us from hunter-gatherers (who were still homo-sapiens) into the creative, advanced sophisticates that provided the seeds for Greek/Roman culture, the European Renaissance and all else that followed.
Fascinating. So again, what was that *something* that Chomsky might alluding to? Could it be... love? You know, parental love, love of humanity... just guessing here. Deathly inter-tribal squabbles marked by annihilation and cannibalism will experience deficits of love. Love, as in humanitarian love, by contrast, is the idea that my enemy is not, really, all that different to me. Or if references to "love" leave us empiricists feeling rather queasy, rolling our eyes, maybe it was something more empirical than that. Perhaps it was numbers. Maybe it takes a *critical mass* of *numbers* of people gathered together to force cooperation, before a more sophisticated world view can emerge. Lone, isolated tribes won't require the level of cooperation and division of labor that larger communities do. And indeed, humanitarian love and large communities need not necessarily be mutual exclusive. These questions have their parallels at the cellular level. What manner of critical mass must be accomplished, before colonies of microbes can self-organise into colonies of multi-celled organisms, like you and me? But I digress.
In my comment on a previous episode a week ago, with Chomsky (Part 3), I cited a New York Times article (Jan 2, 2002) commemorating the work of the late Thomas Sebeok. Sebeok is recognized for the insight that apes can never learn language because they lack the physiology on which language depends (for example, in the 1979 book, Speaking Of Apes). Sebeok's thesis relates directly to my own conjecture, namely, "bodies wire neuroplastic, DNA-entangled brains". Thus we can infer the relationship between human mind-bodies (with hands and vocal chords), language and culture - it makes perfect sense that bodies with hands and vocal apparatus will be predisposed to language in ways that animals not thus equipped won't be.
But Chomsky introduces this new ingredient, a new "something" for which Sebeok's conjecture, on its own, is insufficient.
To place all this into perspective, the Paleolithic (hunter-gatherers?) began about 2.5 million years ago, taking the hunter-gatherers to about eleven or twelve thousand years ago, so this event that Chomsky is referring to takes us into the era of the hunter-gatherers, but long before the rise of modern civilisation.
There is more to explore in this important, extensive episode. Let's leave this question, here, unanswered: What *was* this mysterious event that made the difference?
THE NATURE OF CONCEPT
Chomsky discusses the nature of concepts, and this brings us invariably to the topic of semiotic theory.
20:01 - "The most elementary features of language have no analogue whatsoever in the animal world."
20:34 - "... with most intensive efforts, impossible to teach the most elementary mimicry of language even to higher apes."
29:36 Chomsky introduces Aristotle - 29:43 - "not what's the meaning of house, but what *is* a house"
The semiotic theory of Charles Sanders Peirce would tie in nicely here. What is the nature of a concept? Motivation (affect), association and habituation. Peirce brings it all together under his categories (in simplified terms, motivation, association and habituation). In language, we associate words, as concepts, together to form new, combined concepts. This relates to the nature of illusion.
ASSOCIATION AND THE ROLE OF ILLUSION IN THE CREATION OF *MEANING*
Some startling illusions provide examples of how association works, and increasingly they've been making a presence online. I won't include links to them because then my post gets blocked by yewtube's spmm blokker, but they're easy enough to find with our search engines:
- [Ames Window]
- [12 fascinating optical illusions show how color can trick the eye] (Washington Post article of February 27, 2015)
- [Optical illusion of color: See if you see same or different colors] (Aureolls)
The illusions aren't always just visual. They include associating other senses as well, such as touch, or smell. For insight and some laughs, google terms such as:
- [rubber hand illusion]
- [rubber hand experiment]
- [fake hand experiment]
Optical illusions are the most common because they are the easiest to reproduce online, across computer screens. But *all* experiences intercepted by our bodies are associative, and so it follows that touch, smell, taste and sound can also be deployed to create illusions.
The principle that makes association so important is very simple. It's the combining of concepts to yield a new concept, context, meaning or illusion. It's fundamental to how we, and every other organism, makes the inferences that are essential to survival. Association plays out also at the cellular and neural levels (refer Eric Kandel's work on Aplysia). Not just humans, but also birds do it, fish do it, ants do it and cells and neurons do it.
Illusions aren't just fun party tricks to amuse us. They point to association as perhaps the most fundamental principle for all kinds of consciousness. We encounter illusions through association every day, in the media, the people we meet, and the nature that surrounds us. A full moon in a clear night sky above is pretty, but when that moon is near the horizon, our brain makes associations between it and the objects on the horizon, to attribute to that moon, a sense of its size. The size of the moon on the horizon, the depth of a street along which we are driving or walking, our sense of vertigo standing high up on a ledge, all these are association-based illusions creating the *meanings* upon which our survival depends.
Maybe the Buddhists have a point... everything is illusion.
He’s academically brilliant but really not too sure about the ontological integrity of Noam Chomsky’s perspective. Moreso than anyone else’s. Can’t place why…
🙏🏻, Father, it’s nothing different from the Homosay people? Just like your analysis, beliefs are their main focus of living😔🙏🏻.
Father please 🐁.
Chomsky opiotimizes the ivory tower view of the world.
Considering the long history of social political action he has taken, this is false.
When Chomsky talks about politics or international affairs he sounds like a genius to me but when he talks about things I actually know something about (psychology) he sounds painfully wrong. It makes me wonder if what he says about politics and international affairs is wrong too
You would have to read his books on politics and international affairs. He's probably written 50 books on that area of study. Take a couple years to study his books. I recommend "At War with Asia" and "political economy of human rights" and "Year 501: The Conquest Continues" and "World Orders: Old and New" -
it's wrong too. he's a fraud.
How did caveman think without language? What did he hear in his thoughts? Or was his thinking just impulses?
Beware of those who know everything. I think hes full of it.
I respect noam a lot and especially his political views. But seriously, thought and language go together. We are social species, mammals. It doesn't make sense that the primary function of language is to generate thought rather than - Thought being a way of communicating with other members of our species. He's wrong on this.
I think Noam disagrees with the notion there is a "function" of language as it contradicts evolutionary biology, I'm paraphrasing him but he says things don't evolve for any particular reasons, traits simply come to be and they might benefit the organism or they might not.
As to communicating with other members I don't think he'd disagree language provides a tremendous toolkit to our social capabilities, what he disagrees with is the bias that it has evolved from vocal communication like that of other animals, for example the howling of wolves. Simply because there is no evidence for that being the case, and on the contrary, in his research he has found evidence that language arises from our symbolic and abstract thought processes, leading him to believe that language is intrinsically linked to human thought rather than animal vocal (or body) communication.
I mean we still have that communication and it isn't anything like language. We'll scream out of fear or pain, or laugh and socially yawn, all social behaviours found in other animals that isn't language.
That doesn't mean we don't use language to communicate with other members of our species and with great success, it just means:
1. It isn't biologically accurate to say that communication is language's purpose or function
2. There's not enough evidence to support language evolved from animal communication
3. Language is intrinsically linked to human thought so far as to say they are the same phenomena
This is just me interpreting Noam's ideas to clear up what might be a misunderstanding, they are not necessarily my own beliefs.
Ask more younger people, they do have in many parts much more wisdom. Life grows through steady dying!
I am not sure what you mean, do you have an example?
So WONDERFUL to see this guy looking so old. Soon he'll be gone and forgotten
Why do animals yawn? I still haven’t received a better answer than it allows more oxygen to be inhaled….
I have no idea , but I googled it :
Recent studies in animal behaviour, psychology and neuroscience now provide evidence that yawns serve as a cue that improves the vigilance of observers, and that contagious yawning functions to synchronize and/or coordinate group activity patterns.
Also that yawning increases blood flow and brain cooling-and likely alertness. Supporting the above hypothesis .
Sounds plausible maybe . ?
-Does God exist? Yes.
-Why is there something rather than nothing? Why wouldn't you want something rather than nothing? Isn't nothing also determined by perception of reality, thus rendering reality such if it were dependent on cooperation of system integrations? IE, the tree fell in the forest, and humans are extinct, would it make a sound? One here is simply arguing the definition of, "nothing." For if there is no man to hear, mankind hears nothing, while the animals around scurried long before the quake.
-What are the limits of science? That depends. Who's realm are you playing? In this garden, the only rule, happens to be, there are none. Sadly, if there were people stupid enough to make universal destroying plans or DDD's, that'd be the fault and choice of the collective to let it get to said point. Ideally yes, there is contingencies set in place to allow for an educated choice in the matter.
-What are the major issues in philosophy of mind? Too many too count with that broad of a question.. Narrow it down next time, yeah?
#Retired
*There certainly is a "Higher Power"/aka God, but it's definitely not the Man-made version and construct of the Hebrew Bible and Christian concept of "God" as a personification of the Human Condition. This Higher Power is indifferent towards Mankind, nonetheless. It is as it is. An enigma (for the time being). 🌌*
Agreed
💯
Homo sapien were the first animal to consume food rich enough to develop vocal cords which could externalise complex sounds.
rich in what nutrients? many animals meet their nutritional needs with little effort
@@NoPrivateProperty meh, not that simple. Food that is calorically dense and does not require much energy to consume. For instance, fire allowed food to be consumed with less energy spent digesting and chewing.
@@Hot_n_Spicy101 meh, I saw the same show. fire is not responsible for speech
you might be onto something! the next evolution of magical high density calories is american land whales that can breath on land
@@NoPrivateProperty not the only reason but a contributing factor - maybe
We are given language. We did not invent it. The original language is Sanskrit, all languages derive from it. Sanskrit is a language that is based on sound, each letter of its alphabet is based on an actual sound and it covers all sounds, a total of 49. This the real history of language.
An erroneous view of life is based on biology, whereas life, whose origin is not known by science, or how it began. Life if first causal, (ideational) then energy (force) and finally cellular, biology (physical) makes sense. Things evolving, from what exists causally, as force, leading to the elemental forces.
Reductionism, materialism and misinformation is likely responsible for the lack of meaning, of purpose and hope in a complex world and likely contributes to the depression and suicide amongst current generations and the need for drugs. Materialist concepts, and they are just concepts, must be pushed back against as they are erroneous, harmful, and not the truth as they do not understand or explain the nature of reality or its origin.
At least Mr. Chomsky is not a dogmatic materialist and he deserves credit for that, he is open to new research. The key to knowing will likely be, if not fully understanding consciousness, at least comprehending its role, as well as that of vibration and information, how these evolved and spread from the Big Bang to what exists and still evolves today. Consciousness is likely beyond objective knowing and that will not change.
Metaphysical jungian drivel
@@plaidchuck
How so?
I don't believe Noam Chomsky. He has a political philosophy he believes to be true, but it has never been tested. His theories on the development of language cannot really be tested. And I suppose he does not like the question "why." I think if he was serious and honest, he would admit he has no solution(s) to humanities problems. Therefore, why believe what he says in this interview?.
There’s a massive body of evidence in linguistics, grammar, analytic philosophy and concomitant fields of biology and psychology, comp sci among others. You’re free to believe or not believe anything you want to, but you’re really barking up the wrong tree if you think cognitive science is just a vague idea for you to ‘believe’ in or not.