He's so lightning fast because he's done the work of struggling with all the ideas and considering all possible perspectives, and most importantly, which is often neglected, at the end he's managed to come up with clear-headed and well-integrated conclusions. If there are goals in philosophy I think he's nailed them - clear thinking together with (what is often lacking) philosophical completeness.
“Done the work” is exactly it, and that is what I’ve found lacking in so many over the past 20 years or so in my attempts at dialogue such as what is presented here in the video.
@@Itraininthebogsi don't think it has something to do with iq..... He is a logician like his predecessors bertrend russell and wittgenstein.... And they present there work very clearly
Just like in "real life" in the "real world" where the fate of mankind is being decided by "intelligent" and "constructive" people, huh? God help us all!
Good point, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa1. He wouldn't need the actual books. I have never seen a man with such an infallible seeming memory. He is human so he must make an error once in a while, but I can't imagine this.
After reading the comments, it's clear that even people who watch Chomsky mostly sit around and "feel" that he's impressive. The interviewer wasn't "destroyed" or "embarrassed" -- he asked deep, probing questions with sources and he should be commended for running such a thoughtful interview. Try to check your biases when you watch these discussions. We all feel a bias toward Chomsky because he's famous and we like him. The other guy is unknown and looks unimpressive, so we assume he's wrong on an emotional level. Try to just sit back and listen to the discussion as an intellectual discussion between two anonymous parties rather than a boxing match between a celebrity and an unknown.
I listen to chompsky because he seems to me to be right, mostly. Somtimes I disagree with him. I don't see myself having the celebrity worshipping attitude you wseem to sugest.
I enjoyed this interview. It is a skilled interviewer who can bring out this kind of slightly heightened response. If the reaction is the measure, he did a good job.
When I watch Noam talk, a large portion of my body goes into a trance, my mind becomes the most active participant. That is a very rewarding unique experience. Thank you Noam Chomsky.
👌👌👌👌👌 Exactly! 🤗 I’d a huge pleasure to read him 19:27 decades ago….till I happened to ‘meet’ the man on YT. Then I kind of fell in love of his exceptionally lucid mind and most remarkable humanity. Couldn’t probably survive without listening to some Noam speech on a daily base. Best teacher ever.
This interviewer is great - yes Chomsky has a better argument. duh, but its the journalist job to be critical and ask those questions that gives Chomsky more room to elaborate. He did great. He confronted him on his earlier words and got the replies he wanted. Good stuff. The other professor is much more open to dialogue and hearing new ideas, while Chomsky only wants to talk about truth
skankhunt42 could not agree more. Whenever Chomsky speaks unopposed he often says “if we were to go into it”. This guy makes him “go into it”. Although I don’t fully understand everything said in this video (lol), I feel I’m much closer to understanding the content than I normally would have
Definitely, of course people criticize him for not being able to keep up with Chomsky, he is still a critical thinker who came prepared and would smoke 99% if people in the comment section making over generalizations on his ability. Matching Chomsky requires profound context derived from profound knowledge and profound intellectual endowment in my book
Chomsky is so good at explaining complex philosophies from the 17th and 18th centuries. I am grateful he does not treat non-philosophers as unintelligent he finds interest in lower class writings, as well as upper classes.
For those dismissing the interviewer, or assuming he's a journalist, or that he's "getting destroyed" by Chomsky, please know that he is Peter Ludlow, a prominent philosopher of language, and an expert on Chomsky's work. He's doing what any good interviewer does on behalf of the audience: asking probing questions to tease out additional details and information. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ludlow
@C L I don't think he comes across as combative at all. The socratic method is a good thing; I'm a huge Chomsky fan, and I'd probably (try to) interview him in the same way.
As i understand it (and im not 100% sure i do), Chomsky claims the word "real" is used as an honorific term. Chomsky then refers to morality as "real", rather than honorific, using the term "real" honorifically, consistent with his earlier assertion. Chomsky is using the term "real" honorifically to describe morality as having value, and so "real", whereas "real" is not real, but honorific. Maybe the best way to think of it is that Chomsky is suggesting that the term "morality" holds more value than "real".
First of all, Chomsky does not want to deny that there is a distinction between our concepts (our minds) and the external world. What he rejects is the unscientific use of the term 'real' when describing not only properties of our own concepts, but the actual stuff in the external world picked out by those concepts; he finds every such attempt to be impossible, since it necessarily leads back to the reflexive investigation of our own language and its properties (the mistake is metaphorically similar to that of a dog not realizing that the tail which it chases is its own).
Thank God for Bertrand Russell... without his History of Western Philosophy this conversation would have made no sense to me! (and thank God for Chomsky, who led me to Russell in the first place) (and Thank Buddha for Sam Harris... for providing comic relief)
Jas Sohal I don't think he's worked directly in anything computer science related. His main focus is on thought itself, an effort to try and understand how the brain "produces" thoughts. He focuses on linguistics specifically because in that aspect we have a very specific and easily observed mental "object", language itself, with all sorts of complex rules and interactions. In order for computer scientists to develop Artificial Intelligence it would make sense for them to make an effort to understand actual biological intelligence itself... but computers and brains are such totally different systems that talking about computers "thinking" is kind of like talking about submarines "swimming" (Chomsky's words, not mine).
Mionysus I think Centrist Liberals all round are having a hard time. They've abandoned most of what makes them liberal in a vain effort to suck up to Neo Cons and right wingers, and the right wingers don't want them. Instead they mock them relentlessly and call them cucks. Pretty pathetic
8:56 In 1753 the Seneca leader Tanacharison called George Washington Conotocaurious or "Town Destroyer. " Living up to his Indian reputation, during the American Revolutionary War, in 1779, Washington ordered the Major General John Sullivan to destroy at least 40 Iroquois villages in New York. ... High School history texts have forgotten this atrocity. Will history remember President Donald Trump in order to "make America great again" re-instituted the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline ignoring the appeals of the Native Americans at Standing Rock to protect not only their water but also the water supply of millions of Americans living downstream on the Mississippi River?
having watched this video a few times i realise it's difficult to understand without appreciating Chomsky's Pragmatic influence. The argument goes something like this: "things that have predictive qualities are more important than things that don't. don't worry too much about what is and isn't QUOTE real UNQUOTE. worry about what explains the world in a manner that leads to useful predictions. everything else is stories. they're fine, just don't get hung up on it"
I’m not well-versed enough in philosophy or in Chomsky’s linguistic writings to say whether or not your interpretation is accurate, but it makes a lot of sense to me and is very well expressed. Thanks for your synthesis of a complex issue.
It is dedicated work to build a relationship with a body of knowledge. We are fortunate to have Chomsky's foundation and like minded soul such as Chris Hedges et al.
On the issue of what is “real,” Chomsky elsewhere has said that we use “water” and “H2O” interchangeably, but they in fact belong to separate languages and are incommensurable concepts. This doesn’t mean that “H2O” is real and “water” isn’t, however-it just means “H2O” refers to, as he puts it, “the way the world works,” and “water” is a more fungible term with all sorts of associations that are useful in everyday language.
H2O is the way the world works under the strictest scrutiny that our science and mathematics can muster, but both remain edifices of the mind that are largely though not quite complete. "Water" is the empirical reference to the same thing that is rougher and thus far less useful, though it leaves open the possibility for additional discoveries through observation that may necessitate revision of the present formulas, even if such revisions are likely to lead to nothing but modifications of an extraordinarily subtle kind.
Chomsky's powerful intellect ranges with deep understanding across many fields of knowledge, so he is able to be extremely precise in discussing many complex topics with total clarity. For us mere mortals, we can quickly get lost in these discussions because we have not delved deeply enough or broadly enough in all of these disciplines to understand the precise meanings of terminologies, processes, descriptors, properties, etc. Still, by hanging on every word we can expand our understanding just by trying to follow where Chomsky's academically trained teaching style leads us. Absolutely breathtaking to any cultivated mind that can respond to utter brilliance...
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🧠 Donald Davidson argued that there's no single concept of language, but Chomsky disagrees, distinguishing between technical and community notions of language. 01:20 🌎 Chomsky emphasizes that understanding language requires a different approach than trying to grasp abstract concepts like the meaning of life, relating it to folk science and ethnoscience. 04:51 💡 Chomsky clarifies that the term "real" is used honorifically, emphasizing the importance of science in understanding how the world works while discarding common-sense notions. 08:49 🌐 Chomsky discusses the ambiguity of defining events in the external world and the influence of perspective and interests on their characterization. 13:50 🖥️ Chomsky distinguishes between externalistic and internalistic viewpoints, highlighting that discussions on computational states apply differently to insects and humans. 17:19 🐘 Chomsky argues that even in studies involving external objects, like elephants, the focus is on the internal processes of cognition, emphasizing the importance of the "occasion of sense." Made with HARPA AI
i speak 3 languages, english, french, and my native language tagalog, currently i'm self studying japanese, and as far as i can tell, japanese is more tied to reality ( what we see, people. humbleness, kindness, respect, politeness ), as far as english goes, in my opinion, it's a language that became arrogant itself, french is a little between the two, but french is more close to japanese, my native language is a mixed of everything.. but in the end, we all try to express what's in our heart,,,vs those who express and manipulate with their head... this is why asians are more sensitive and more connected with their feelings,,, they die happy,,, look at westerners, they put their old parents at some factory and die alone which makes sense if you want to progress in life ( enslaved by money, life priorities etc ) but if you look outside these complications, we have unemployment and its because of competition,, rising cost of life while salary stays the same,,, the only one who profits from this system are those who are above everyone else and it's only a minority,... if we break this word called "privilege" give work to everyone, remove the currency system,,, everyone will only be working at most 2h per day for basic needs..the rest of the time can be attributed to a chosen field of speciality for human progress,,,, clean house,, learn how to cook, learn arts, learn anything you want.... These big corporations have been living in a delusional mathematical logic world that they've have forgotten that the real world doesn't translate to numbers, it does scientifically, but humans aren't made from numbers, that's why the human mind is unpredictable because there exist consciousness, and consciousness isn't mathematics, and they've trapped themselves along with everyone in it..I'm not good at expressing words and i'm very sorry for my english but People need to wake up from this madness.
I like the American Revolution example. The way I see it, is that events are not representations. Representations, in the scientific field, is an internal construction, not a relation between an outside event and internal event. To note further, scientifically an event does not relate to anything external, but what is what is an event is highly determined by various preferences and values of the people internally involved. From what I gather these preferences and values determine our perceptions. Thus, the key idea here is that there are no external events of knowing, but rather there are perceptions of knowing. This reminds me of Humberto Maturana's Theory of cognition, but more so Santiago's Theory of cognition, since I don't know his stance on consciences yet. The former sees conscience as being social phenomena within language, while the latter regards conscience as something that can be determined neurophysiologically. If someone reads this and wants to either correct me or build upon what I said, I will be glad to engage.
Yes, an event is an internal construction but to carry this further, our conscience is a bundle of internal constructions that determine our perception of entities and they do not rely on external objects, although they play a role in altering them. That would mean we are predisposed towards individuating to construct our picture of the world. The fact that creatures like humans can do this is both enhancing and restricting. Enhancing because we we don't have to be fed external experience but restricting because there must be some cognitive limitations, preventing us from fully understanding the way the world and humans work
The American Revolution example is a bad one - Washington was dubbed the "Town Destroyer" a long, long, long time before the revolution began. 1753 in fact. You can't say why do we blindly praise Churchill for WW2 when he was responsible for the debacle at Gallipolli? They're two entirely separate events which happen to involve the same person.
chomsky gift is that he can talk and talk an issue to death/obscurity-- a lot of times dominating the conversation from the sheer quantity of words. history has proven him wrong on nearly any issue i've heard him talk on, but he's a heck of a talker.
Dave R DamoThinks I think you're not interpreting what he says correctly, Dave R. I seriously don't think he would claim something so one-sided. Could you please specify the source which left you with that impression? After all, It's his credo that a healthy society has to question all authority at any time, and if it doesn't work for the common good to replace it.
Yes, it took nerve to tell Chomsky that he did not want to admit what he really thought. But the interviewer perhaps thought that by confronting Chomsky so directly it might help to give the conversation more spice. Like waving a red rag at a bull.
It is very sad that with all the technology the sound with Chomsky's talks is barely audible. He has much to say but what good is it if it cannot be heard.
'You think there is such a thing as language?' What kind of question is that? Of course there is. The question is, what is it? That is what has concerned Professor Chomsky.
Huh? Did you listen to the lead-in discussion? He was asking for Chomsky's opinion on another scholar's assertion that there is no such thing as language.
A scholar had that opinion?! Who the fuck asserts the idea there is no such thing as language? It is like a tabloid leading with the headline, 'The sky isn't blue.'
Is the difference Hume made between objects in the outside world and our individuation of them cognate with Heidegger's difference between the ontic (objects) and the ontological?
~ 11:00... But the box or so called events are not _in the head or the mind,_ but in the environment. And the picture our brains produce is ourselves in the environment with the box
The properties of the outside world are the product of the human mind working. It IS external but the senses and the mind create the interpretation and give meaning. Therefore every mind will have a different experience, as intended. The physical sensing organs are but filter and tuner for the brain
Chomsky and other students of classical Western philosophy are still struggling with questions that were answered by Eastern philosophy thousands of years ago. I was amazed once to talk to a person with a masters in philosophy from Ivy-League USA universities after he stated that in all his schooling Eastern Thought was never brought up. This severely limits those schooled in traditional Western philosophy. Chomsky has many useful things to say about the small world he has spent his life in, but he nor his peers have anything new or useful to say outside the narrow sphere of their training.
Yes, you just cant compete with the solid foundations of eastern wisdom, born about by thousands of years of culture and tradition. Western philosophy has little idea about the paths upon which it blindly travels. Chomsky may be a sober mind but it doesn't appear as tho he has danced like a drunk with the ecstasy of exultation.
Absolutely agree. Despite my admiration for Chomsky I find that some of his statements are very shallow when compared to the depths that they have been explored and uncovered by minds in the East. For example I recently heard Chomsky say that it was only through an act of extreme will that thoughts could be stopped - this is the exact opposite to the process used by serious meditators who allow the thoughts to simply die down. In my (Zen) training we were taught that trying to force thoughts to stop is not only a waste of time but self defeating. My experience shows that thoughts cease when they are not focused upon.
This discussion went a little bit over my head, maybe due to my inadequate knowledge about philosophy. But I am trying to understand things better, and would really appreciate it if someone can maybe simplify this discussion for people like me that are not that well-versed in philosophy...
The One and only "True reality" that is consciously accessible is music as our common instinct. The joy of creating music transcends the individuality of most other happenings. As One the "mob mentality" will exert miraculous potentials.
suejak is exactly right in his replies to other comments.. The interviewer was great, knew which aspects of Chomsky's position to press, uncovered space for skepticism, and left me unconvinced of Chomsky's position. His idea that science is the sovereign source of knowledge w/r/t "how the world works" came off excessively brash. It would've been good to have a Williams/Chomsky debate on common sense notions of reality. Williams's demeanor alone probably would've convinced a lot of commenters on this video that Chomsky was wrong, seeing as that the subject matter itself seems beyond their sound evaluation.
Jumping off from Donald Davidson's "A nice derangement of epitaphs". For Chomsky, Ludlow's question is not well-formulated, because (C wouldn't put it quite this way, but ...) it's not clear what exactly "language" in Davidson's sentence is meant to refer to. C would have to distinguish between e.g., the human faculty for language (does that not exist?), individual languages, for which descriptive linguists write grammars (e.g., English, Chinese, Navajo, etc.) or the internal "computational" system that allows individual speakers to learn and use particular versions of human language, etc. Davidson seems to be thinking about what would be called "speech-community norms", while Ludlow seems to be thinking about C's distinction between the grammars of individual languages and "Universal Grammar", where C would emphasize the common properties, and descriptive linguists the differences. So for C, L's Q is a non-starter. You could say that the enemy of science is folk-science in the sense of the pre-existing conventional resources a community has for understanding the world. And btw, conventional thinking is also the enemy of any serious art. If L had started from Wittgenstein instead of Davidson, he could have explored with C how W's apparently naive questions bring to light the possibility of scientifically important distinctions, which can then be formulated in a scientifically useful way, when it comes to understanding how human language works. (Up to 4:55)
We have to engage in the reality our culture puts forward through various mediums like political entities, businesses, or the actions of our neighbors. We can also shift what reality our culture creates through our actions in these areas. Our reality is perceived by our senses, which can changer - for instance when we are dreaming or under the influence of a drug.
Agreed. So reality is the consequence of perception; perception the consequence of perspective; and perspective the unique position of observation that the perceiver occupies in a specific space-time instance? No? Can reality ever be a monolithic singularity?
There are some things that do not change whether an individual observes them or not. Gravity remains at 9.8 m/s2, the law of conservation of energy, etc. As a result some parts of reality remain as a monolithic singularity, as you said. The last two years have broken the records we had on temperature. Whether your perspective is that climate change is a hoax or not, reality will not change to suit your perception. Small things that humans worry about like potential for nuclear war, corruption, or the difference between a justified protest or violent riot are likely to change with a change in perspective.
Love Chomsky but Kripke (and Quine, who made a similar argument in "Word and Object") are saying that ascriptions of meaning aren't facts. Kripke, for example, says that no amount of X + Y examples establish the meaning of "+". Chomsky's response seems to be that "humans have the same mind and jump to the same inference" in the same way humans all infer 3-d objects in the same way. Sure. Kripke wouldn't disagree with this. Chomsky seems to think he's disputing Kripke Any criticism welcome! .....
Science is the study of the material universe and the use of that knowledge. It’s not everything, only what exist in the material perspective. That’s what the interview was trying to communicate to him. The guest of course would have that bias. We exist in multiple planes of reality, the physical universe is one of the most dense. Cannot use material equipment to observe the immaterial.
the interviewer is simply using words very vaguely. Chompsky is pointing out that you can't have a sensible conversation unless you agree very specificaly on what the words you are using mean.
an insect is not programmed by external manipulated sources- has its own internal ascribed senses- a computer does not have any internally ascribed senses.
If by language he means the "primordial sound", then there is no notion of language... but in the world, there are languages, just as we are also in the world. And, to feel the UNCHANGING inside of you IS to feel THE REAL...to FEEL the INFINITE...the IMMORTAL...while you are alive.
I had to watch this video a couple of times to get what was happening (why Professor Chomsky was so irritated with the interviewer's line of questioning). It wasn't just some arbitrary, knee-jerk reaction, and ultimately Chosmky had good reason to smell a rat. The interviewer, whose work I'm not familiar with, is not just trying to give Chomsky a chance to clarify his position on various issues. It's clear from the questions themselves, and the way they are presented, that he's trying to manoeuvre Chomsky into a corner where he (Chomsky) has to admit that his position on the question of whether objects do or do not exist is extreme (basically he's presupposing that Chomsky believes that objects do not exist). It’s the kind of approach that betrays the dangers of ‘armchair philosophy’ (Chomsky’s words, not mine). Chomsky's position is much more empirically anchored (as usual, let’s talk about what we know): sure, things exist in the informal way through which most people make sense of the world, though there are layers of knowing and understanding (folk science, modern science etc) that require further explication. When they get to the question of whether objects or events exist objectively in space in time, Chomsky tends towards subjectivity (‘Ask the Iroquois’), but from reading his views on explanatory gaps, I imagine he’d say that we’ll probably never have a satisfactory answer to the question. Instead, we can acknowledge that it’s only through our internal sense perceptions that representations can exist, and let that fact inform our understanding of real-world problems (for example, the way we teach the American revolution in schools). Ie, human life and organization, social relationships, science all require that we take it for granted that things exist, which is a fairly compelling reason to proceed as if they do, even if, intellectually, we can’t demonstrate that. Ultimately, it all culminates in Chomsky’s almost off-handed quip, ‘I don’t have any side’. I don't think he was trying to be hostile. He was, always the good professor, trying to teach: don’t waste your life tilting at windmills. He’s leaving it up to the ‘armchair philosophy’ interviewer to figure that out (I wonder if he learned the lesson). Now on to more urgent questions …
Professor Chomsky can deny that he and Hume are Idealists all he wants, the coffee cup is as good as not there if it is simply a fictitious construct of the human mind. Essences are either de re or the external world is beyond our ken. Thrilled to have lunch with Professor Chomsky at Henry Ford Community College in 1992. We discussed innate ideas.
Keyword: distinguish. Read the last few verses of B8 e B9 of Parmenides poem on Nature to get some insight of the diferente kinds of difference. I'll give you a tip: the opposition between the adjective heavy and the adjective attributed to light has much to do with the Plato's principle od the diade. Only that the invisibile components of reality are not only invisible but also ungenerated, as the argoment about the unproductivity of nothingness, upon which Parmenides has imposed his inquiries on Nature.
Did Chomsky ever live in France or vacation there a lot? Look at those hand gestures, haha, the guys a natural. I speak french by the way, of course i'm joking around
I don't think Prof Chomsky quite answered the interviewer's question, "What on earth is a representation if is not a representation of something?" (10:30). Prof Chomsky replies basically that the term "representation" requires no external object it could be referring to nothing more than what is going on inside of the head, as in the case of a perceptual psychologist. Sure, but even here he uses the term "inside the head," implying a greater context without which notions of representations, mental constructs and the mind itself lose comprehensibility. Yes, we can go a long way in reducing a problem to nothing more than a system of mental constructs, and this system can even be engineered into a computer. And yet the computer remains dependent on the greater context of its physically embodied operators. That is a different case, he says, without explanation, but let's accept that the we must focus instead on the insect, which admittedly function independently of a programmer. And yes, an insect's reactions to stimuli may be considered in as a system of mental constructs irrespective of whether there is a sun or just a light. Nevertheless, this insect is more than a mental construct, it is a specimen of a species that has originated through a process of evolution. Scientists have largely explained evolution, and thus reduced it to a system of mental constructs, and yet this process also continues to defy such understanding. As such, it stands beyond anything our minds have managed to conceive. Granted, the distinction between the internal and the external remains difficult to formulate, but it remains relevant.
He's so lightning fast because he's done the work of struggling with all the ideas and considering all possible perspectives, and most importantly, which is often neglected, at the end he's managed to come up with clear-headed and well-integrated conclusions. If there are goals in philosophy I think he's nailed them - clear thinking together with (what is often lacking) philosophical completeness.
“Done the work” is exactly it, and that is what I’ve found lacking in so many over the past 20 years or so in my attempts at dialogue such as what is presented here in the video.
Done the work and come correct.
Doesn’t hurt his cause that he has a higher IQ than everyone else
Right on the money.
@@Itraininthebogsi don't think it has something to do with iq..... He is a logician like his predecessors bertrend russell and wittgenstein.... And they present there work very clearly
I love to see intelligent, perceptive people disagreeing yet remaining able to exchange ideas in a productive way. So rare on CZcams.
iDemandU90 or irl
What about joe rogan? Oh wait you said intelligent haha!!
Just like in "real life" in the "real world" where the fate of mankind is being decided by "intelligent" and "constructive" people, huh? God help us all!
you are remarkable too, exactly, I feel the same way.
Well stated.
(note to self: if you ever happen to interview noam chomsky, don't put him in front of fake books.)
georg wachberg i
Book wallpaper.
georg wachberg he can probably still quote them, verbatim 😳
Good point, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa1. He wouldn't need the actual books. I have never seen a man with such an infallible seeming memory. He is human so he must make an error once in a while, but I can't imagine this.
Haha, good one!
After reading the comments, it's clear that even people who watch Chomsky mostly sit around and "feel" that he's impressive. The interviewer wasn't "destroyed" or "embarrassed" -- he asked deep, probing questions with sources and he should be commended for running such a thoughtful interview.
Try to check your biases when you watch these discussions. We all feel a bias toward Chomsky because he's famous and we like him. The other guy is unknown and looks unimpressive, so we assume he's wrong on an emotional level. Try to just sit back and listen to the discussion as an intellectual discussion between two anonymous parties rather than a boxing match between a celebrity and an unknown.
you nailed it
Couldn't have put it better.
Chomsky was arrogant and supercilious.
I listen to chompsky because he seems to me to be right, mostly. Somtimes I disagree with him. I don't see myself having the celebrity worshipping attitude you wseem to sugest.
I enjoyed this interview. It is a skilled interviewer who can bring out this kind of slightly heightened response. If the reaction is the measure, he did a good job.
Learning from Noam Chomsky makes life meaningful. My deepest respect.
The real genius here is the set designer
When I watch Noam talk, a large portion of my body goes into a trance, my mind becomes the most active participant. That is a very rewarding unique experience.
Thank you Noam Chomsky.
Coyote Fur Trumpet What a stylish comment.
Body is mind
👌👌👌👌👌 Exactly! 🤗 I’d a huge pleasure to read him 19:27 decades ago….till I happened to ‘meet’ the man on YT. Then I kind of fell in love of his exceptionally lucid mind and most remarkable humanity. Couldn’t probably survive without listening to some Noam speech on a daily base. Best teacher ever.
This interviewer is great - yes Chomsky has a better argument. duh, but its the journalist job to be critical and ask those questions that gives Chomsky more room to elaborate. He did great. He confronted him on his earlier words and got the replies he wanted. Good stuff. The other professor is much more open to dialogue and hearing new ideas, while Chomsky only wants to talk about truth
skankhunt42 could not agree more. Whenever Chomsky speaks unopposed he often says “if we were to go into it”. This guy makes him “go into it”. Although I don’t fully understand everything said in this video (lol), I feel I’m much closer to understanding the content than I normally would have
Definitely, of course people criticize him for not being able to keep up with Chomsky, he is still a critical thinker who came prepared and would smoke 99% if people in the comment section making over generalizations on his ability. Matching Chomsky requires profound context derived from profound knowledge and profound intellectual endowment in my book
the 'journalist' is Peter Ludlow, a well distinguished philosopher and linguist and information-rights + digital-rights activist
Chomsky is so good at explaining complex philosophies from the 17th and 18th centuries.
I am grateful he does not treat non-philosophers as unintelligent he finds interest in lower class writings, as well as upper classes.
Damm Right sir!
He's interested in content only, not the status of the writer
Yes content is all that mattrers.
For those dismissing the interviewer, or assuming he's a journalist, or that he's "getting destroyed" by Chomsky, please know that he is Peter Ludlow, a prominent philosopher of language, and an expert on Chomsky's work. He's doing what any good interviewer does on behalf of the audience: asking probing questions to tease out additional details and information. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ludlow
@C L I don't think he comes across as combative at all. The socratic method is a good thing; I'm a huge Chomsky fan, and I'd probably (try to) interview him in the same way.
Really good interviewer for once with Chomsky, actually made him really explain specifically what his position was.
Guys, he's pushing Chomsky like any good interviewer should. He's damn good at it.
He is a philospher himself, not a journalist.
He seems top be in a scenario where he's interviewing Chomsky.
I like that they share this kind of back and forth you get to see what Chomsky is made of and in my opinion it’s refreshing
@@abhineetmaurya4334 Towards the end, the interviewer was about to cry .
5:45
"Real is basically used as an honorific"
"what about morality, is that the same?"
"No, morality is something real"
lol
also made me laugh
Reminds me of the 'guy from Athen asserts that Athenians are liars'. Pure folk science of course!
As i understand it (and im not 100% sure i do), Chomsky claims the word "real" is used as an honorific term. Chomsky then refers to morality as "real", rather than honorific, using the term "real" honorifically, consistent with his earlier assertion. Chomsky is using the term "real" honorifically to describe morality as having value, and so "real", whereas "real" is not real, but honorific. Maybe the best way to think of it is that Chomsky is suggesting that the term "morality" holds more value than "real".
First of all, Chomsky does not want to deny that there is a distinction between our concepts (our minds) and the external world. What he rejects is the unscientific use of the term 'real' when describing not only properties of our own concepts, but the actual stuff in the external world picked out by those concepts; he finds every such attempt to be impossible, since it necessarily leads back to the reflexive investigation of our own language and its properties (the mistake is metaphorically similar to that of a dog not realizing that the tail which it chases is its own).
This discussion is so far above me it would take 100 years to understand it. This is amazing!
Thank God for Bertrand Russell... without his History of Western Philosophy this conversation would have made no sense to me!
(and thank God for Chomsky, who led me to Russell in the first place)
(and Thank Buddha for Sam Harris... for providing comic relief)
lol
yabadabadu
About as funny as a wax enema I suppose
Anyone know what's Chomsky's contributions to computer science ?
Jas Sohal
I don't think he's worked directly in anything computer science related. His main focus is on thought itself, an effort to try and understand how the brain "produces" thoughts. He focuses on linguistics specifically because in that aspect we have a very specific and easily observed mental "object", language itself, with all sorts of complex rules and interactions.
In order for computer scientists to develop Artificial Intelligence it would make sense for them to make an effort to understand actual biological intelligence itself... but computers and brains are such totally different systems that talking about computers "thinking" is kind of like talking about submarines "swimming" (Chomsky's words, not mine).
Mionysus
I think Centrist Liberals all round are having a hard time. They've abandoned most of what makes them liberal in a vain effort to suck up to Neo Cons and right wingers, and the right wingers don't want them. Instead they mock them relentlessly and call them cucks.
Pretty pathetic
8:56 In 1753 the Seneca leader Tanacharison called George Washington Conotocaurious or "Town Destroyer. " Living up to his Indian reputation, during the American Revolutionary War, in 1779, Washington ordered the Major General John Sullivan to destroy at least 40 Iroquois villages in New York. ... High School history texts have forgotten this atrocity.
Will history remember President Donald Trump in order to "make America great again" re-instituted the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline ignoring the appeals of the Native Americans at Standing Rock to protect not only their water but also the water supply of millions of Americans living downstream on the Mississippi River?
Absolutely the deepest discussion I have ever heard on CZcams.
having watched this video a few times i realise it's difficult to understand without appreciating Chomsky's Pragmatic influence. The argument goes something like this: "things that have predictive qualities are more important than things that don't. don't worry too much about what is and isn't QUOTE real UNQUOTE. worry about what explains the world in a manner that leads to useful predictions. everything else is stories. they're fine, just don't get hung up on it"
I’m not well-versed enough in philosophy or in Chomsky’s linguistic writings to say whether or not your interpretation is accurate, but it makes a lot of sense to me and is very well expressed. Thanks for your synthesis of a complex issue.
He is a goddam genius
How is it possible to acquire so much mastery over so much information?
Its not. Its an illusion. The intellect is just scratching the surface of reality.
I often ask the same question in regard to Christopher Hitchens and his power of recall. It is/was astounding.
essentially 8 decades of continuous work and being in the most prolific scientific institution (MIT) for 6 of those sure helps.
It is dedicated work to build a relationship with a body of knowledge. We are fortunate to have Chomsky's foundation and like minded soul such as Chris Hedges et al.
TJ M They both vote for Hillary.
Would love to see Chomsky and Socrates having a discussion.
Socrates is plato's wet dream, I'd rather see him discus with someone else haha
Maybe with Gore Vidal and Alan Watts.
Never happen.
@@Curitive There is a 30min? discussion with Chomsky and Vidal on CZcams.
@@Johnconno cool thanks for mentioning
On the issue of what is “real,” Chomsky elsewhere has said that we use “water” and “H2O” interchangeably, but they in fact belong to separate languages and are incommensurable concepts. This doesn’t mean that “H2O” is real and “water” isn’t, however-it just means “H2O” refers to, as he puts it, “the way the world works,” and “water” is a more fungible term with all sorts of associations that are useful in everyday language.
H2O is the way the world works under the strictest scrutiny that our science and mathematics can muster, but both remain edifices of the mind that are largely though not quite complete. "Water" is the empirical reference to the same thing that is rougher and thus far less useful, though it leaves open the possibility for additional discoveries through observation that may necessitate revision of the present formulas, even if such revisions are likely to lead to nothing but modifications of an extraordinarily subtle kind.
"There is no such thing as a stupid question" - Your Kindergarten teacher.
Don't think the interviewer is a dummy
Chomsky's powerful intellect ranges with deep understanding across many fields of knowledge, so he is able to be extremely precise in discussing many complex topics with total clarity.
For us mere mortals, we can quickly get lost in these discussions because we have not delved deeply enough or broadly enough in all of these disciplines to understand the precise meanings of terminologies, processes, descriptors, properties, etc. Still, by hanging on every word we can expand our understanding just by trying to follow where Chomsky's academically trained teaching style leads us.
Absolutely breathtaking to any cultivated mind that can respond to utter brilliance...
Respectful yet probing, pressing in a coherent fashion. Loved this interview.
MY god, this guy is unbeatable. It leaves you breathless.
Really fascinating, challenging stuff. Thanks for sharing!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🧠 Donald Davidson argued that there's no single concept of language, but Chomsky disagrees, distinguishing between technical and community notions of language.
01:20 🌎 Chomsky emphasizes that understanding language requires a different approach than trying to grasp abstract concepts like the meaning of life, relating it to folk science and ethnoscience.
04:51 💡 Chomsky clarifies that the term "real" is used honorifically, emphasizing the importance of science in understanding how the world works while discarding common-sense notions.
08:49 🌐 Chomsky discusses the ambiguity of defining events in the external world and the influence of perspective and interests on their characterization.
13:50 🖥️ Chomsky distinguishes between externalistic and internalistic viewpoints, highlighting that discussions on computational states apply differently to insects and humans.
17:19 🐘 Chomsky argues that even in studies involving external objects, like elephants, the focus is on the internal processes of cognition, emphasizing the importance of the "occasion of sense."
Made with HARPA AI
Such a beautiful conversation. So true in the meaning of life. Love all his work
how lucky every student of this man is. thanks CZcams!
When I listen to professor Chomsky dissect language and his interpretation. I realize how stupid I really am.
GENIUS
It's so fun hearing Chomsky argue. The videos of him being pressed are rare. Love it.
i speak 3 languages, english, french, and my native language tagalog, currently i'm self studying japanese, and as far as i can tell, japanese is more tied to reality ( what we see, people. humbleness, kindness, respect, politeness ), as far as english goes, in my opinion, it's a language that became arrogant itself, french is a little between the two, but french is more close to japanese, my native language is a mixed of everything.. but in the end, we all try to express what's in our heart,,,vs those who express and manipulate with their head... this is why asians are more sensitive and more connected with their feelings,,, they die happy,,, look at westerners, they put their old parents at some factory and die alone which makes sense if you want to progress in life ( enslaved by money, life priorities etc ) but if you look outside these complications, we have unemployment and its because of competition,, rising cost of life while salary stays the same,,, the only one who profits from this system are those who are above everyone else and it's only a minority,... if we break this word called "privilege" give work to everyone, remove the currency system,,, everyone will only be working at most 2h per day for basic needs..the rest of the time can be attributed to a chosen field of speciality for human progress,,,, clean house,, learn how to cook, learn arts, learn anything you want.... These big corporations have been living in a delusional mathematical logic world that they've have forgotten that the real world doesn't translate to numbers, it does scientifically, but humans aren't made from numbers, that's why the human mind is unpredictable because there exist consciousness, and consciousness isn't mathematics, and they've trapped themselves along with everyone in it..I'm not good at expressing words and i'm very sorry for my english but People need to wake up from this madness.
Long live Noam Chomsky!
I'm amazed at noams recall, he has an incredible short and also long term memory..
7:42 - Chomsky is quite the elegant stipulator. He has such a lovely (late) Wittgenstein-esque wit to him.
As long as mobile devices and social media exist, this type of genius will never appear again.
I like the American Revolution example. The way I see it, is that events are not representations. Representations, in the scientific field, is an internal construction, not a relation between an outside event and internal event. To note further, scientifically an event does not relate to anything external, but what is what is an event is highly determined by various preferences and values of the people internally involved. From what I gather these preferences and values determine our perceptions. Thus, the key idea here is that there are no external events of knowing, but rather there are perceptions of knowing. This reminds me of Humberto Maturana's Theory of cognition, but more so Santiago's Theory of cognition, since I don't know his stance on consciences yet. The former sees conscience as being social phenomena within language, while the latter regards conscience as something that can be determined neurophysiologically. If someone reads this and wants to either correct me or build upon what I said, I will be glad to engage.
Yes, an event is an internal construction but to carry this further, our conscience is a bundle of internal constructions that determine our perception of entities and they do not rely on external objects, although they play a role in altering them. That would mean we are predisposed towards individuating to construct our picture of the world. The fact that creatures like humans can do this is both enhancing and restricting. Enhancing because we we don't have to be fed external experience but restricting because there must be some cognitive limitations, preventing us from fully understanding the way the world and humans work
The American Revolution example is a bad one - Washington was dubbed the "Town Destroyer" a long, long, long time before the revolution began. 1753 in fact. You can't say why do we blindly praise Churchill for WW2 when he was responsible for the debacle at Gallipolli? They're two entirely separate events which happen to involve the same person.
a wonderful channel for fans of Chomsky's SANE BUT RADICAL ideas about human thinking
Chomsky has no chill
Idriss M'Bodou 😂😂😂
basically, no matter what you say to chomsky, he'll disagree.
Chomsky is literally giving this guy a class session.
Which is sad since the guy is a "renowned" Philosophy professor.
Max Schlepzig Lol ikr
chomsky gift is that he can talk and talk an issue to death/obscurity-- a lot of times dominating the conversation from the sheer quantity of words. history has proven him wrong on nearly any issue i've heard him talk on, but he's a heck of a talker.
fukugoogle "history has proven him wrong on nearly any issue i've heard him talk on"
................ oh no, one of you again (sigh)
sigh all you want, but skinner was correct.
Which Chomsky book are they referencing here? I need this for my dissertation. Thanks!
Rationality is something which we can understand, morality is inbuilt in us. 😊😍
What's the title of the book on the table?
Is anyone reminded of Plato's book Cratylus, where they discuss the origin of language?
At 11:18 Chomsky says "there's a long discussion of that in here". He is, presumably, referring to a book. Does anyone know which one?
Wow I would shit my pants matching wits with Mr Chomsky...this interviewer was drowning almost from the first second!
Quiet down, cueball.
I'd be relaxed because he's a human, too. And quite a humane one as well.
Anton Kuznetsov Agreed. The calm of the wise.
Dave R DamoThinks I think you're not interpreting what he says correctly, Dave R. I seriously don't think he would claim something so one-sided. Could you please specify the source which left you with that impression? After all, It's his credo that a healthy society has to question all authority at any time, and if it doesn't work for the common good to replace it.
Yes, it took nerve to tell Chomsky that he did not want to admit what he really thought. But the interviewer perhaps thought that by confronting Chomsky so directly it might help to give the conversation more spice. Like waving a red rag at a bull.
8:33 Who would have thought: the quest for truth faces obstacles like interests and stuff... unheard of!
Truth is arrived ONLY through civil discussion. Love hearing Chomsky's ideas.
It is very sad that with all the technology the sound with Chomsky's talks is barely audible. He has much to say but what good is it if it cannot be heard.
It sounds fine to me, check your ears!
Try turning up the bass on your system's audio settings.
you r hearing, just not comprehending...try again!
Mr. Chomsky is a minigod of the mind!!
!6:00
'You think there is such a thing as language?' What kind of question is that? Of course there is. The question is, what is it? That is what has concerned Professor Chomsky.
Huh? Did you listen to the lead-in discussion? He was asking for Chomsky's opinion on another scholar's assertion that there is no such thing as language.
A scholar had that opinion?! Who the fuck asserts the idea there is no such thing as language? It is like a tabloid leading with the headline, 'The sky isn't blue.'
Not much of a thinker huh
suejak1 Don't be facetious. I think alright. The suggestion that language does not exist is absurd. No scholar would believe that.
Who say's the sea is blue? lol. Are you thinking of the sky?
Chomsky is that dude's teacher and bus driver.
topkek
As in chonsky being the bus driver and him telling teach, bitch sit your ass down you on my bus😂
Dementia and age don't appear to be synonymous with Chomsky. Amazing Human Being.
@@remotefaith Maybe.
The Master teaching the grasshopper. Noam is so intelligent the he shines in the company of intelligent people.
Rare....
The world doesn't deserve this man
Is the difference Hume made between objects in the outside world and our individuation of them cognate with Heidegger's difference between the ontic (objects) and the ontological?
yes it showed up but havent had time to answer and was just about to. Stand by;-)
~ 11:00... But the box or so called events are not _in the head or the mind,_ but in the environment. And the picture our brains produce is ourselves in the environment with the box
The properties of the outside world are the product of the human mind working. It IS external but the senses and the mind create the interpretation and give meaning. Therefore every mind will have a different experience, as intended. The physical sensing organs are but filter and tuner for the brain
Chomsky and other students of classical Western philosophy are still struggling with questions that were answered by Eastern philosophy thousands of years ago. I was amazed once to talk to a person with a masters in philosophy from Ivy-League USA universities after he stated that in all his schooling Eastern Thought was never brought up. This severely limits those schooled in traditional Western philosophy. Chomsky has many useful things to say about the small world he has spent his life in, but he nor his peers have anything new or useful to say outside the narrow sphere of their training.
Amen sister (or brother)
Yes, you just cant compete with the solid foundations of eastern wisdom, born about by thousands of years of culture and tradition. Western philosophy has little idea about the paths upon which it blindly travels. Chomsky may be a sober mind but it doesn't appear as tho he has danced like a drunk with the ecstasy of exultation.
Absolutely agree. Despite my admiration for Chomsky I find that some of his statements are very shallow when compared to the depths that they have been explored and uncovered by minds in the East. For example I recently heard Chomsky say that it was only through an act of extreme will that thoughts could be stopped - this is the exact opposite to the process used by serious meditators who allow the thoughts to simply die down. In my (Zen) training we were taught that trying to force thoughts to stop is not only a waste of time but self defeating. My experience shows that thoughts cease when they are not focused upon.
Well said
This discussion went a little bit over my head, maybe due to my inadequate knowledge about philosophy. But I am trying to understand things better, and would really appreciate it if someone can maybe simplify this discussion for people like me that are not that well-versed in philosophy...
We are all on a train looking out of different windows; this is reality. Same world, different perspectives; all good.
The One and only "True reality" that is consciously accessible is music as our common instinct. The joy of creating music transcends the individuality of most other happenings. As One the "mob mentality" will exert miraculous potentials.
Close! Vibration will do it..
spaceandmotion
Does anyone know the name of the book on the table noam refers to a couple of times?
Well, listening more, this video is not too bad.
Chomsky does well here describing how psychologists speak of representations.
18:40
"The cognoscitive powers of the mind construct complicated internal structures [that represent the outside world]"
Your edited wording is a terrible misrepresentation.
suejak is exactly right in his replies to other comments.. The interviewer was great, knew which aspects of Chomsky's position to press, uncovered space for skepticism, and left me unconvinced of Chomsky's position. His idea that science is the sovereign source of knowledge w/r/t "how the world works" came off excessively brash. It would've been good to have a Williams/Chomsky debate on common sense notions of reality. Williams's demeanor alone probably would've convinced a lot of commenters on this video that Chomsky was wrong, seeing as that the subject matter itself seems beyond their sound evaluation.
My boy Noam is wicked smaht.
Jumping off from Donald Davidson's "A nice derangement of epitaphs". For Chomsky, Ludlow's question is not well-formulated, because (C wouldn't put it quite this way, but ...) it's not clear what exactly "language" in Davidson's sentence is meant to refer to. C would have to distinguish between e.g., the human faculty for language (does that not exist?), individual languages, for which descriptive linguists write grammars (e.g., English, Chinese, Navajo, etc.) or the internal "computational" system that allows individual speakers to learn and use particular versions of human language, etc. Davidson seems to be thinking about what would be called "speech-community norms", while Ludlow seems to be thinking about C's distinction between the grammars of individual languages and "Universal Grammar", where C would emphasize the common properties, and descriptive linguists the differences. So for C, L's Q is a non-starter. You could say that the enemy of science is folk-science in the sense of the pre-existing conventional resources a community has for understanding the world. And btw, conventional thinking is also the enemy of any serious art. If L had started from Wittgenstein instead of Davidson, he could have explored with C how W's apparently naive questions bring to light the possibility of scientifically important distinctions, which can then be formulated in a scientifically useful way, when it comes to understanding how human language works. (Up to 4:55)
We have to engage in the reality our culture puts forward through various mediums like political entities, businesses, or the actions of our neighbors. We can also shift what reality our culture creates through our actions in these areas. Our reality is perceived by our senses, which can changer - for instance when we are dreaming or under the influence of a drug.
Agreed. So reality is the consequence of perception; perception the consequence of perspective; and perspective the unique position of observation that the perceiver occupies in a specific space-time instance? No?
Can reality ever be a monolithic singularity?
There are some things that do not change whether an individual observes them or not. Gravity remains at 9.8 m/s2, the law of conservation of energy, etc. As a result some parts of reality remain as a monolithic singularity, as you said. The last two years have broken the records we had on temperature. Whether your perspective is that climate change is a hoax or not, reality will not change to suit your perception. Small things that humans worry about like potential for nuclear war, corruption, or the difference between a justified protest or violent riot are likely to change with a change in perspective.
.. as might gravity ;-)
Yeah, could be fun to experience the change of perspective a change in gravity could bring.
really makes me wish that Peirce's categories and theory of signs were better known when Chomsky was younger.
Love Chomsky but Kripke (and Quine, who made a similar argument in "Word and Object") are saying that ascriptions of meaning aren't facts. Kripke, for example, says that no amount of X + Y examples establish the meaning of "+".
Chomsky's response seems to be that "humans have the same mind and jump to the same inference" in the same way humans all infer 3-d objects in the same way.
Sure. Kripke wouldn't disagree with this. Chomsky seems to think he's disputing Kripke
Any criticism welcome!
.....
Chomsky is a fucking legend.
Science is the study of the material universe and the use of that knowledge. It’s not everything, only what exist in the material perspective. That’s what the interview was trying to communicate to him. The guest of course would have that bias. We exist in multiple planes of reality, the physical universe is one of the most dense. Cannot use material equipment to observe the immaterial.
the interviewer is simply using words very vaguely. Chompsky is pointing out that you can't have a sensible conversation unless you agree very specificaly on what the words you are using mean.
an insect is not programmed by external manipulated sources- has its own internal ascribed senses- a computer does not have any internally ascribed senses.
If by language he means the "primordial sound", then there is no notion of language...
but in the world, there are languages, just as we are also in the world.
And, to feel the UNCHANGING inside of you IS to feel THE REAL...to FEEL the INFINITE...the IMMORTAL...while you are alive.
There is nothing outside of us that is not at the same time in us, as the external words has colors, the eye too, has colors. - Goethe
I had to watch this video a couple of times to get what was happening (why Professor Chomsky was so irritated with the interviewer's line of questioning). It wasn't just some arbitrary, knee-jerk reaction, and ultimately Chosmky had good reason to smell a rat. The interviewer, whose work I'm not familiar with, is not just trying to give Chomsky a chance to clarify his position on various issues. It's clear from the questions themselves, and the way they are presented, that he's trying to manoeuvre Chomsky into a corner where he (Chomsky) has to admit that his position on the question of whether objects do or do not exist is extreme (basically he's presupposing that Chomsky believes that objects do not exist). It’s the kind of approach that betrays the dangers of ‘armchair philosophy’ (Chomsky’s words, not mine). Chomsky's position is much more empirically anchored (as usual, let’s talk about what we know): sure, things exist in the informal way through which most people make sense of the world, though there are layers of knowing and understanding (folk science, modern science etc) that require further explication. When they get to the question of whether objects or events exist objectively in space in time, Chomsky tends towards subjectivity (‘Ask the Iroquois’), but from reading his views on explanatory gaps, I imagine he’d say that we’ll probably never have a satisfactory answer to the question. Instead, we can acknowledge that it’s only through our internal sense perceptions that representations can exist, and let that fact inform our understanding of real-world problems (for example, the way we teach the American revolution in schools). Ie, human life and organization, social relationships, science all require that we take it for granted that things exist, which is a fairly compelling reason to proceed as if they do, even if, intellectually, we can’t demonstrate that.
Ultimately, it all culminates in Chomsky’s almost off-handed quip, ‘I don’t have any side’. I don't think he was trying to be hostile. He was, always the good professor, trying to teach: don’t waste your life tilting at windmills. He’s leaving it up to the ‘armchair philosophy’ interviewer to figure that out (I wonder if he learned the lesson).
Now on to more urgent questions …
That which cannot be observed--directly or indirectly--cannot be explained. Science is about explaining observations.
How many goes does it take to fully understand all this?
What are tachistoscopic images and what does he mean by that?
SENSE=mc2 DE'LIGHT🌅WITHIN!
It's statistically amazing that the interviewer got everything wrong.
"... and it's called metaphysics" "... no" hahaha so good
I am soothed by seeing an interview with Chomsky that doesn't *crucify* me with an (empathetic) cringe response at the interviewer's failures
Professor Chomsky can deny that he and Hume are Idealists all he wants, the coffee cup is as good as not there if it is simply a fictitious construct of the human mind. Essences are either de re or the external world is beyond our ken. Thrilled to have lunch with Professor Chomsky at Henry Ford Community College in 1992. We discussed innate ideas.
Does anybody know which of Chomsky's books they are discussing?
Keyword: distinguish. Read the last few verses of B8 e B9 of Parmenides poem on Nature to get some insight of the diferente kinds of difference. I'll give you a tip: the opposition between the adjective heavy and the adjective attributed to light has much to do with the Plato's principle od the diade. Only that the invisibile components of reality are not only invisible but also ungenerated, as the argoment about the unproductivity of nothingness, upon which Parmenides has imposed his inquiries on Nature.
what is the book on the table they are talking about?
have no idea what they're talking about gonna have to come back on this one lmao
What's the name of the book they're referring to /pointing to on the table? Thanks.
I think it's the Holy Bible
Did Chomsky ever live in France or vacation there a lot? Look at those hand gestures, haha, the guys a natural. I speak french by the way, of course i'm joking around
I don't think Prof Chomsky quite answered the interviewer's question, "What on earth is a representation if is not a representation of something?" (10:30). Prof Chomsky replies basically that the term "representation" requires no external object it could be referring to nothing more than what is going on inside of the head, as in the case of a perceptual psychologist. Sure, but even here he uses the term "inside the head," implying a greater context without which notions of representations, mental constructs and the mind itself lose comprehensibility. Yes, we can go a long way in reducing a problem to nothing more than a system of mental constructs, and this system can even be engineered into a computer. And yet the computer remains dependent on the greater context of its physically embodied operators. That is a different case, he says, without explanation, but let's accept that the we must focus instead on the insect, which admittedly function independently of a programmer. And yes, an insect's reactions to stimuli may be considered in as a system of mental constructs irrespective of whether there is a sun or just a light. Nevertheless, this insect is more than a mental construct, it is a specimen of a species that has originated through a process of evolution. Scientists have largely explained evolution, and thus reduced it to a system of mental constructs, and yet this process also continues to defy such understanding. As such, it stands beyond anything our minds have managed to conceive. Granted, the distinction between the internal and the external remains difficult to formulate, but it remains relevant.