Walter Lippmann is the name Jean was trying to remember - about "manufacturing consent" as the elite for the masses The title refers to consent of the governed, and derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent" used by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion (1922). The book was honored with the Orwell Award.
I'm reading Olivier Costa de Beauregard's book "Time: A physical magnitude" - and he quotes Descartes to explain the true meaning of "cogito" - Jean Bricmont probably has read that book. I agree with Beauregard's claim overall - except I defer to Bricmont on the EPR Bell inequality critique of Quantum Field Theory.
Words can be used (and are used) as tools to refer to objective external things, but they don’t have an inherent reference in themselves. You can use the noun “house” to refer to a specific house, but the word itself does not have an inherent reference. It has an inherent meaning, but that’s a different matter. That is Chomsky’s point. Reference is an action that people do, not an inherent property of words.
“London” could refer to an imaginary fictional version of London for example. Or take Phillip Pullman’s fantasy trilogy “His Dark Materials” in which the main character Lyra lives in a fictional fantasy version of Oxford. It’s the same word “Oxford” but here it refers to something that doesn’t even exist in physical reality. So the word Oxford has a meaning complex enough for it to be able to refer even to imaginary objects. And the same goes for all words in the language.
Could you do a video about Thomas Sowell vs Noam Chomsky? Thomas Sowell is an economist and is the opposite of Chomsky I would say. It would be interesting to let their views clash.
Okay, on the whole mind-body problem and the question of materialism, Chomsky’s point is that the world modern science describes is fundamentally incomprehensible to our common-sense understanding. Okay, so Einstein got rid of the infinite speed aspect of gravity, but he replaced it with curved space-time. Try to imagine a three dimensional space that is curved, or curved time for that matter. These concepts are not common-sense at all. There’s no version of modern physics that is comprehensible in the traditional Galilean sense ever since Newton. Action at a distance is just one thing among others of what makes modern physics occult. Since Newton science has searched for understandable THEORIES of the world, but the world they describe is no longer understandable.
OUTLINE:
0:00 - Introduction
0:40 - Background
7:37 - Chomsky & France
16:25 - Biology & Right-Wing Politics
20:26 - Human Nature
26:37 - Chomsky-Foucault debate
40:44 - Science of morality
44:21 - Mind-Body problem
1:00:15 - Theories & Science
Walter Lippmann is the name Jean was trying to remember - about "manufacturing consent" as the elite for the masses The title refers to consent of the governed, and derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent" used by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion (1922). The book was honored with the Orwell Award.
I was a sled dog handler in Alaska and I was told to fold over and bite the dog's ear - because that's what the dogs do to each other.
That was fascinating - maybe Professor Bricmont is aware of Chomsky having some collaboration with Stuart Hameroff (and Roger Penrose)....
From Iraq- Kurdistan, thank you so much for all your videos.
I'm reading Olivier Costa de Beauregard's book "Time: A physical magnitude" - and he quotes Descartes to explain the true meaning of "cogito" - Jean Bricmont probably has read that book. I agree with Beauregard's claim overall - except I defer to Bricmont on the EPR Bell inequality critique of Quantum Field Theory.
Words can be used (and are used) as tools to refer to objective external things, but they don’t have an inherent reference in themselves. You can use the noun “house” to refer to a specific house, but the word itself does not have an inherent reference. It has an inherent meaning, but that’s a different matter. That is Chomsky’s point. Reference is an action that people do, not an inherent property of words.
“London” could refer to an imaginary fictional version of London for example. Or take Phillip Pullman’s fantasy trilogy “His Dark Materials” in which the main character Lyra lives in a fictional fantasy version of Oxford. It’s the same word “Oxford” but here it refers to something that doesn’t even exist in physical reality. So the word Oxford has a meaning complex enough for it to be able to refer even to imaginary objects. And the same goes for all words in the language.
20:12 "Walter Lippmann"
Could you do a video about Thomas Sowell vs Noam Chomsky? Thomas Sowell is an economist and is the opposite of Chomsky I would say. It would be interesting to let their views clash.
Sowell is really not a serious intellectual
Okay, on the whole mind-body problem and the question of materialism, Chomsky’s point is that the world modern science describes is fundamentally incomprehensible to our common-sense understanding. Okay, so Einstein got rid of the infinite speed aspect of gravity, but he replaced it with curved space-time. Try to imagine a three dimensional space that is curved, or curved time for that matter. These concepts are not common-sense at all. There’s no version of modern physics that is comprehensible in the traditional Galilean sense ever since Newton. Action at a distance is just one thing among others of what makes modern physics occult. Since Newton science has searched for understandable THEORIES of the world, but the world they describe is no longer understandable.
biology is not reduced to chemistry, that is absurd