Put on the English subtitles! It would help many people. Make a precis. List the important points. It would help everyone. This is the smart and effective way to spread enlightenment, intelligence and knowledge!
I could listen to Noam all day. In fact, I’ve been reading and listening to him for 25 years. The precision with which he explains his thoughts is marvelous.
I love putting on his lectures while I'm doing chores around the house. It's easy listening, interesting, thought provoking while also somehow being good background listening. It's a kind of paradox and ambiguous. Like Tom and Peter's book. Maybe? Probably not.
I've listened to hundreds of hours of Chomsky over the last 24 years and i think this is his most animated lecture. And it's one of the most thought provoking too.
It reminds me of the 1977 one On Language and Knowledge. I think the topic is something that he really enjoys, especially back then before it was as well understood. I imagine he spent incredible amounts of time thinking about these things and is happy to share. It's also not political which probably makes it more fun, and given the field he's probably even more confident/relaxed.
@@leufious Loved the '77 lecture you mention, have listened to it many times this week while driving LOL :P Kinda fishing for a reply to my original query (top-level comment here) but in the '77 lecture/speech he clearly states how our 'mental faculties/organs/whatever' are "fixed" (obviously), yet here in this thread's video at 16:50 he literally says he/we *agree* with the Descartes-idea that will/choice is NOT mechanistic! Which would mean will/choice/consciousness has (at least some)dualistic properties...but I know Chomsky doesn't think that way, yet at 16:50 he's literally saying that choice/will is *not* mechanistic (which means dualistic *by default*, no? If&when thought or will ceases to be mechanistic it HAS to be dualistic, it's either physically based or not!) Sorry to kinda "hijack" your post but given your reference to the relevant/related '77 lecture, I know you could help me understand if you wanted/cared to :P Figured it wouldn't be seen as too-rude to just ask :P
"This invention of proper English" lmao. I love how Chomsky, with no hesitation, dismisses all pretentiousness, whether it be in linguistics or political/historical analysis.
The concept of "no language is right or wrong" came from his linguistic theory some people compare to the work of Copernicus. Also, the software we're communicating through was made possible by his work applied to computer science to enable the creation of compilers - the tool used to make all software written today executable on a processor that only understands machine language.
5 years later....i watched this on December 12, 2015 originally, & only just got halfway through without falling asleep. Look out 2021, next time I WIL FINISH IT!
This man is now 92 years old. We will likely lose him soon; I hope he gets as much of his knowledge, thoughts and awkward but cute little jokes he hasn't put to paper before he meets his end.
@Arid Sohan He will forever be remembered as a useful idiot for Russia, unfortunately, too. He got away with sailing near the wind for many years, but opinions now can't be hidden in eg small-press publications sympathetic to the former Yugoslavia.
He does. And he feels strongly that humans can choose a different future from what is pre-determined by the natural laws that govern the physical world. He declares that free will and conscious choice are fundamentally mysterious. But, for once, he gives no evidence, except for the fact that we don’t yet understand where the laws of physics come from (and perhaps never will). But just because we don’t know that doesn’t mean that there aren’t laws that all matter and energy must follow. There is every reason to believe that determinism is true but, maybe for ethical reasons, he cannot handle that, admittedly frustrating, truth.
@@kennethmarshall306 there are plenty of reasons to reject determinism. Arguably, anti determinism as well. Some of these arguments actually come from linguistics. Are you familiar with any of them?
@@shrill_2165 Probably not. But my reason for believing that determinism must be the correct understanding of the world is that science tells us that there are laws of physics that we, as part of the natural world are completely subject to. The feeling of choice that we all have is just that. A subjective sensation akin to the sensation of colour or sound or pain etc. All built in by our genes because these sensations helped our ancestors reproduce the genes that built our bodies. No purpose. No choice. Just the laws of physics playing themselves out.
@@kennethmarshall306 ok, so on what epistemic grounds can you deduce that science is a trustworthy source of information, and that your interpretation of it is a trustworthy one?
@@shrill_2165 The scientific method - that is, the use of observation measurement and experimentation to try to understand the world - is the only thing that has been proven to work. Including the very technology by which you and me are communicating.
I think when Chomsky spoke about an ideal native speaker, he meant himself. He speaks a great lge with no stoppage in a smooth way. Luv his way of speaking. U can't get bored at all.
I guess this is true. I think it is impossible to find concrete evidence on how language has developed, so you can't draw any conclusions. You can make elaborate theories like Chomsky does, but you can't test them.
@Language and Programming Channel yes, I also think so, especially for social sciences (including history) and economics. It is different in natural sciences, especially in physics, where theory which can't be tested are usually not accepted althought there are exceptions like String Theory (but the acceptance of String Theory is declining now, at the beginning it was accepted that it didn't make predictions because it was not yet a fully developed theory but it stayed like this for 40 years except for some version which where falsified by the LHC). Also in Mathematics most statements can be proven or disproven (but not all of them, see Gödel) but Math is different because it was actually constructed by humans.
the whole thing about cases is a very interesting piece of evidence. im studying latin from german which has four cases for latins 6. the funny thing i realize is that from context you can determine all 6 cases being expressed in german without there being an ending for it or anything. that lead me to realize that we all say things in those cases we just dont express the fact that were using them with a seperate ending that says "this word is in 1st case" after the actual meaning. if im not misinterpreting this is evidence for universal grammar.
Maybe an informed debate is needed between you both ? I for one would be fascinated to see Bart Hill's fundamental philosophical position on linguistics.
No one is able to know everything indeed. There are many intelligent beings who can construct thoughts and principles that reasonably explain one aspect or more but never everything that can unify the ideas of our existence and behavior as much as all physical or chemical reactions in this world. Perhaps in the distant future. I’ m glad there are many thinkers. They provide fundamental principles that lead me into thinking about many aspects of my life I haven’t examined as far as I can possibly understand. Thanks for this intelligent talk.
I love how Chomsky's grasp of the history of science and philosophy leading up to modern paradigms doesn't lean on the stupid caricatures that most pop scientists are obliged to rehearse.
@@AyalaChampagne If you're interested in the history of linguistics as a science developed in the 18th-19th century, you can check out Chomsky's book called Cartesian Linguistics, which is probably the most qualitative of Chomsky's books on linguistics. You can also check out some primary sources like Rousseau, Herder, or W. Humboldt.
@@doublenegation7870 Are his comments on Newton, especially what Newton thoughts about his own work were, easy to find in biographies and stuff? Do you know where I could learn more about that?
Dale Smith John Backus of IBM the Inventor of FORTRAN programming Language used Chomsky work on Formalism of CONTEXT FREE Languages to produce a generalized Grammar for Computer language Still used today called Backus Normal form. BNF
Seems like one of the most important talks in the history of the human species to be available so widely just sitting here like a plump fruit to be picked by the sleeping giant of history
it is an illusion. An illusion not in way in which it is generally held, that is in common sense, but rather in looking back at the way in which we began this sentence, a certain illusory quality becomes manifest...in the late 19th century, there were certain dogmatic philosophers who held the view that I would eventually come to a point, they were altogether discredited...to our modern way of understanding psychology, we now apprehend readily some hitherto conception of a snake appearing to rise from a basket... yes you are now charmed and not a little drowsy. It may be said that magicians operating under the same said view of an illusory quality had occupied your pockets with prestidigitation and using outmoded concepts and ways of thinking had shifted common sense. I can't do it as well as he can. It is like juggling. You have to circle back occasionally to how Newton was a drama queen or biology is a myth.
Great to note that cognitive science has progressed since this talk. Around 1:14:00 he talks about ambiguous stimuli and the lack of research into the area; nowadays we know that top-down activity from higher brain areas causes the switch in interpretation. It has something to do with selective attention.
At 1:12:00 Chomsky talks about research being done trying to see if the language facaulty could be an optimally designed organ. Does anybody know what research he is referring to?
There have been some recent experimental results, and perhaps some common sense for some time, to suggest that humans too are automata, both basically and extensively. I think there are some reasons to doubt Descartes idea (discussed at 15:10-17:20), and to think that human will is fundamentally an illusion. My inherent wiring forces me to be contrarian about this.
He remembers authors, but not book titles. He remembers the work, but not the artificial label placed on it. His mental equipment recalls the end, or the essence, and might be considered teleological. However, I think its merely cultural. The university tradition is to cite authors, not titles or summaries. Wide culture requires a title: Not have you read Grisham, but have you read The Pelican Brief. ("yeah, I read it, and it stinks")
Noam is in the 36th Chamber. I don't think I've gotten to the point where he walks off stage.., then steps back on and says "Yea , we all feel and speak emphatically, hence initiations of "language" are culturally aligned to descriptive perspective shadings of life"
A brilliant new book, "SPEECH! How Language Made Us Human" by Simon Prentis, draws together the issues discussed here and provides an overlooked yet surprisingly obvious solution to the origin of language. It's an amazing insight. Check it out!
Human inquiry involves the will and nature. It is inevitable that nature shall dictate the survival of will. Like nature time and distance makes insignificant what once was significant.
1:44:00 In 2022 or so Google or FB closed two Chatbots bc they have invented their own language and using it to communicate with each other and corporation was not content with that fact.
I thought it was pretty amazing I always wondered how "mind" was introduced and what became if it. Ive run through the histiry of science a half dozen times in courses and lectures. This is the firset coherent explanation. What is with the investment in obscuring the Descartes/Newton relationship in "exorcising the machine from the ghost"? Why is it crucial that it be taught wrong?
The Key to Universal Linguistics lies in our Life- and Organism-structure. The Eternal Life have No origin. What We call 'Origins of Language', is in beginning of a Development-Circuit of a whole new Language and Consciousness, as part of the Life-Renewing-Nature, droven by the Life-Desire, and Hunger- and Satisfation-Principles.. Campel-Monkeys is a early example of spoken Language, and word-bending, only 15 words, all warning, exept 'Come Here'. The Masculine Princip, and the Feminine Princip, is the most basic in the Life- and Organism-structure, it also stands for Sending and Recieving, as is the basic in all and any kind of Communication.
YOU ALL MAKE THIS HARD WORK. OMG, FORGIVENESS COMPASSION AND LOVE IS THE TRUE TRINITY TO HUMANOID DEVICES. WHAT ELSE WILL SERVE YOU HUMANOID CREATURES OTHER THAN FORGIVENESS COMPASSION AND LOVE???
17:00 but there is a lot of work (e.g. Nietzsche) on the fact that everything, including human action and thought can potentially be predictable, mathematically calculable, in other words, that there is no free will. But I suppose, that if we build an A.I. system in the future that is capable of predicting a good part of, or even whole of human behaviour as it has been so far in history (let's say up to 2021), then this debate would be settled for good.
that is word salad. I guess he means intellectual achievement is great. One more vote for the primary of consciousness model. People who vote primary of consciousness tend to be inarticulate.
I think he was talking about how Newton viewed the force of gravity as a mystical force unexplained by mechanics and one body can attract another without any mechanical causation so that if you lift your arm the gravitational attraction between the arm and the moon increases and slightly alters the moons trajectory.
And going even deeper he is pointing out that the interactions, even in the form of graviton particles, are ghostly. IE two fields cannot interact mechanically, as he talks about later. Physics is based on spooky action at a distance, not comprehensible mechanics.
Descartes did not invent the idea of "mind." he discarded earlier ontological ideas in favor of the simple res extensa. This idea should be understood in relation to his analytical geometry: ie it is the start of a way of conceptualizing in principle anything that now has an unprecedented level of coherence (because of the radically simplified ontological idea -- just "extended") and an unprecedented level of precision (because of the math) both at the same time.
Another wonderful speech every single one is so profound! I'm currently at 45 minutes and 50 seconds and it's a very interesting concept that bees communicate and humans communicate but there does not seem to be a direct correlation between the forms of communication. I do wonder about the Rupert sheldrake theory of harmonic resonance. Could it be that when you look at a cat and you think something mean the cat runs away and if you look at a cat and you think something kind they do that eye blink thing that says friendly cat to friendly cat and what if this implies that communication happens non-verbally and perhaps the words we say are more of something to keep our conscious attention on while we telepathically communicate? I am not saying that this is the case of course I do not know but isn't it interesting that dogs react differently to some people than they do to others could it be that they're picking up on some form of communication perhaps vibrational from the very Act of Consciousness itself if Consciousness is an act at all? Maybe it is that Communication between humans is simply a matter of paying attention to something while the meaning is send vibrationally by some means not yet understood? so those little wiggle dances, although it definitely means something just as the sounds we make with our vocal cords and our mouths mean something, is independent of what we are thinking about and if someone is thinking one thing but says another thing we ask for clarification. we say is that really what you meant because what you said did not seem right. And the person says oh yes that's right thank you for clarifying. Perhaps there's something to that? something to the idea that communication happens non-verbally even when we are speaking to each other. You know the sinking sensation in your gut that happens when you know someone is not listening to a word you're saying even when looking at you and nodding somehow you know that they're not listening how do we know that they're not listening at those times? And why do we feel it so viscerally? Very interesting talk as always and I'm enjoying it very much always so many wonderful ideas!
Language is the written and audio reference to reality in a way that everyone can understand. The way language refers to reality is to create words that refer to reality. Words are symbols that in a way symbolize reality and that everyone understands in the same way. A symbol is something that unites the symbolized with the user. In the case of language, words unite reality with all users since language is intersubjective. Intersubjectivity means that all users mean the symbols of the language in the same way, that is, the words. For a symbol to be known to all, what was symbolized must also be known to all. What is known to all is the world in which they exist as human beings. So the symbols and the symbolized of the language must be sought in the reality which is sensually accessible to all. Since the question is the beginning of language, one must look for those first cosmic symbols from which the knowledge of all reality can be symbolized. The first cosmic symbols should symbolize the cosmic phenomenon that is first and collectively recognized and symbolized by the first cosmic symbols. When we say that a phenomenon is symbolized first in the mind, it means that it becomes the first knowledge that before it did not exist in the mind another to recognize it, that is, it is the pure first knowledge (Pure reason according to Kant). That is, we seek to find the phenomenon that first becomes known to all (and constitutes the first pure collective knowledge) and the symbols with which it was collectively symbolized. From the knowledge of the first phenomenon and its symbols, it is possible to collectively recognize and symbolize all sensory information as similar to similar, because in all sensory information there is the same factor from which the first phenomenon was symbolized and became known. We can be sure that the first language was structured with symbols of the first collective knowledge of people. The many languages that we have had and still have after the first language, are a result of forgetting the right way of symbolizing and consequently linguizing reality. The metaphorical way in which the words were and are used contributed to this. Αυτό που ο Τσόμσκι ονομάζει universalia είναι ο παράγοντας της πρώτης καθαρής γνώσης η οποία υπάρχει σε όλη την πραγματικότητα ώστε η πραγματικότητα να αναγνωρίζεται από την πρώτη καθαρή γνώση σαν όμοια προς όμοιο. Έχω κάνει έρευνα και, βρήκα την πρώτη συλλογική γνώση των ανθρώπων. Βρήκα ότι η πρώτη συλλογική γνώση είναι παράγοντας ο οποίος υπάρχει σε όλη την πραγματικότητα δηλαδή είναι αυτό που λέει ο Τσόμσκι universal. Ο παράγοντας ενυπάρχει σε όλες τις διαφοροποιήσεις της πραγματικότητας και και γιαυτό όλη η πραγματικότητα αναγνωρίζεται από την πρώτη καθαρή γνώση δηλαδή τον παράγοντα .
Interesting comment. I agree that the first thing is to experience what ever and then apply that to some mental note about that as symbol, feel, sound. Truely a fascinating subject to consider how languages became. We are spirits in a physical body to experience this physical world. When we "die" we shed our physical body and continue living as spirit with same personality and issues that we had a second before we die. So language is stored by our spirit and we continue to use language and thought forms in spirit. It is totally awesome this creation for sure.
It's laughable for a person to flood the comments section because he or she disagrees with the content of the talk. It's as if Chomsky would care at all about a random person on youtube ranting over his talks.
It is a monument to mankind that a person can get paid, even get awards, for asking: When Tom and Peter take out the book "Tom Sawyer" from the library, would you say they took out the same book, or different books? Or, my favorite: Is the chicken ready to be eaten?
Again, Noam Chomsky did not understand the soundhelix (klankhelix, Lauthelix) which the university of Leiden (NL) now calls "Language as a timemachine". With the soundhelix, we can reconstruct the past (and than correct) and we can spell the future, since it is the Oracle of Delphi, a technik men never did take seriously.
Very interesting talk in many ways. But I have to put it on .75 playback speed, to ingest it (he talks faster than he knows I guess). In doing so, I also played with .50 speed, which makes Noam sound drunk.
Amazing. Try finding stuff this interesting on network or cable t.v. In my opinion Chomsky's name and work should be as familiar to American popular culture as Kimye, or Brangelina. And, again my opinion, to the extent that work like his is not that well known, we end up facing the choice between Hilary (sell out) Clinton, and Donald (WTF) Trump for the next President of the United States.
Chomsky's work in linguistics and the cognitive sciences as well as the philosophy of science has been an eye opening revelation to the thinking process itself. His life long efforts in human affairs shows that science and decency are not anathema to each other. HIs impact is demonstrated by the number of right wing invertebrates who crawl out of their dung piles whenever there's a video of him on RUclips. Critique Benjamin Netanyahu or the lack of guaranteed healthcare in the US or the elite culture in the media and the Beltway or don't promote bombing Iran every other week, or expose the 'science' of a B.F. Skinner as something below the level of dog training that it is and sure enough the trolls make their obligatory appearance. It's an indication that he's been effective. You may have noticed that the younger generation don't rely much on network or cable tv, or the mainstream media in general for their information, relying on the IT world instead. This also frees them from the chief sources of misinformation. They're also rare among first time voters in that they're active in a major election campaign, as with the support for Bernie Sanders. This could change the way future elections are run. Hear, hear.
Mickey Charles D'accord! Especially about the 'youngin's' getting their info form sources other than the mainstream propaganda mill. That and their activism give me some reasons to be hopeful.
I find little that is meaningful in the first sixteen minutes of Prof Chomsky's lecture, apart from its historical content. Possibly, what is missing and might supply the base of meaning is contained in his more technical work. Discussions such as the distinction between automata and human activity lying in human will, I find unhelpful because human will is, itself, a poorly defined concept having to do with transitions in human activity. Are those transitions at some level undetermined as is the motion of a particle in a gas or are they part of a sequence of behaviors that has been established ? Reaching back to ancient or classical philosophers may give the inquiry an aura of significance, but so doing does not supply what is missing, meaning.
frsit,all respect for the father of the linguistic moderne and the grammar generative the language's they are on générale the clès of all the sceince fro example when you smalt perfume you speak with your tongue that you smalt and don't forget that the tongue is the language carrier that way we can't explain with this language's and the human can fly with this language's.the meaning that we have like the speader web between the tongue and outher sense because they are very related to etcheother because all them explain with the language that way if we don't have this language we invented other languages like the language of the body or language of the sing or the single that way it very important this language's.
17:20 ish, the idea the human and animal will are different is extremely arguable in my opinion. A dog I believe will respond in keeping with it's past training, to varying amounts, either against or in agreement with external stimulus. This seems simple to me. I do not understand why someone like Chomsky would see a difference between human and animal will. The method in which Chomsky often builds a case and then moves on as though his case should be accepted within the bounds of acceptable reason; this is distasteful to me.
Well, you just need to research this question a bit because there have been many like yourself attempting to argue this from behviourists to connectionists but they have failed both logically and empirically. He is not suggesting that humans do not share many of the cognitive processes as animals but when it comes to language, you just need to understand the complex structural rules behind a child's language and realize it could not have developed from what the infant has heard and processed by normal cognition. How does the child create grammar from pidgin. How does the deaf child create the rules from their parent's freshly adopted 'almost word only' primitive grammar. Believe me your 'idea' is appealing but doesn't explain how children seem to have these language structures so early on
I figure you spent your youth in a kind of blurred mental haze or daze 'pardon my phrase' not knowing your own limits of your mental capacity up to now, coming up with lame arguments due to lack of knowledge and finally, remarking on Mr Chomsky with 'SOMEONE LIKE CHOMSKY'. Hey, listen well to what's being said now 'cause it's true. I guarantee you, THERE'S NOBODY LIKE HIM and He's one of the oldest scholar, lecturer and could go on bla..bla...bla……..His comprehensive knowledge must be cherished and applied to our lives.
I think he is just saying we don't have evidence against free will /something special about humans, which was probably true when this was filmed Even though we now know there is no free will, the debate continues because we don't know what would set us apart from AI it's a complicated topic
The world is not divided into areas, some bees live near you vis-a-bees shopping pattern behavior, for example they don't bicycle to your shop whenever they feel compelled to buy a Romanian to Free Will Thesaurus. They have their own language or occult dance, some professors nostalgically refer to as common sense. But collinearly some bees live near trees and it would be false of us, in our modern and outmoded presumptuousness to construct a hitherto unimagined conception of Newton as drag queen being chased around by bees. Merely because they don't speak Chinese innately when wherein sofar as bees are concerned Chinese is a "language". I'm going to practice, but I don't think I can make my blather as inane and tedious.
I'm glad I already know what I would have heard had I listened to the whole thing because that was made impossible by the distraction of the incessant coughing of the audience.
At one point Naom Comsky said that language appeared 100 thousand y. ago without any prove or even explanation why this date? There are suspicions it’s much much older. Later he said it looks like kind of single time mutation, it’s hardly believable. Given the topic Origin of Language, he could at least discuss this important question in some details. At 56:56 he said Russians attempted to reverse course of the Volga river, Russians never attempted to reverse course of Volga river, but of another river in Siberia,1000 km east of Volga. Simple fact check could correct this mistake. But he didn’t. Not good for a scientist. This diminishes trust. What else did he messed? Generally he didn’t say much about Origin of language, when, was it single one time event, or many times, what is known, what is not, nothing of this, but general wordings only. Dissatisfying.
If you’re interested Chomsky and Robert Berwick co-authored a book on the subject called ‘Why only Us’. They go into vigorous detail to explain the things you mentioned in your comment
No Cesar! Cesar Cueto: "This man is now 92 years old. We will likely lose him soon; I hope he gets as much of his knowledge, thoughts and awkward but cute little jokes he hasn't put to paper before he meets his end". It was NOT Chomsky ! He didn't REALY understand, because the re-discovery of the universal soundhelix was published on Research Gate on the 28 of October 2013. Here all articles are disappeared, but name und titles are still visable. Maybe some of you did hear of the whistleblower Marcus Kühbacher who was accusing Zu Gutenberg (min. of defense - Angela Merkel / Germany) of plagiarisme. Kühbacher did also accuse the Philipps-University-Marburg (i.c. Deutsche Sprachatlas and IGS) of hiding my research-results since I did attack the rules of Jacob Grimm (words are getting less at the end). The right rule is that words are getting longer at the end and solve at the front. This means that the german language is helixing out of Dutch! That was a big attack on Germany's vision on history! They accused me (64) after 26 years of working at this university of sexual intimidation (!) - only to get rid of me. What kind of behavior is this? When women do (re)discover something sensational, some men probably can not accept this. The university did try to get me into a psychiatric-ally clinic with medicaments, visit of parents: forbidden! What kind of university is this? So, the university of Leipzig has all my books. Benjamin List and Klaus Hasselmann are the Nobelprisewinnars. You can ask WHY. I know, since they used my books with an explanation of physics, chemics, astronomics, medicin and MA-the-MA-tics, which is of the 'mama's' who knew what MAT means: fivehouse, but you have to double this fivestar! My English is miserably, but my thoughts not! I can advise you all to learn Dutch because of handle the universal soundhelix.
Put on the English subtitles!
It would help many people.
Make a precis. List the important points.
It would help everyone.
This is the smart and effective way to spread enlightenment, intelligence and knowledge!
🙏🙏
Chomsky starts speaking at about 3:00
great observation
Thanks
TY!
life-saver
😁😁😁😁😁😁
I could listen to Noam all day. In fact, I’ve been reading and listening to him for 25 years. The precision with which he explains his thoughts is marvelous.
I also use his soothing voice & three-dimensional prose to fall into the deepest trance
He's music, only even better. This fact is a great wonder to me.
I love putting on his lectures while I'm doing chores around the house. It's easy listening, interesting, thought provoking while also somehow being good background listening. It's a kind of paradox and ambiguous. Like Tom and Peter's book. Maybe? Probably not.
Absolutely!
@@Jon.A.Scholt I do that, too. All the time.
now, if you listen to this with EarPods, you got sir Chomsky sitting on your left, and a lot of couching people on your right; what an experience
The coughing is excessive. It must have been a very dusty auditorium.
@@butcherax or flu season
😂
I've listened to hundreds of hours of Chomsky over the last 24 years and i think this is his most animated lecture. And it's one of the most thought provoking too.
It reminds me of the 1977 one On Language and Knowledge. I think the topic is something that he really enjoys, especially back then before it was as well understood. I imagine he spent incredible amounts of time thinking about these things and is happy to share. It's also not political which probably makes it more fun, and given the field he's probably even more confident/relaxed.
@@leufious Loved the '77 lecture you mention, have listened to it many times this week while driving LOL :P
Kinda fishing for a reply to my original query (top-level comment here) but in the '77 lecture/speech he clearly states how our 'mental faculties/organs/whatever' are "fixed" (obviously), yet here in this thread's video at 16:50 he literally says he/we *agree* with the Descartes-idea that will/choice is NOT mechanistic! Which would mean will/choice/consciousness has (at least some)dualistic properties...but I know Chomsky doesn't think that way, yet at 16:50 he's literally saying that choice/will is *not* mechanistic (which means dualistic *by default*, no? If&when thought or will ceases to be mechanistic it HAS to be dualistic, it's either physically based or not!)
Sorry to kinda "hijack" your post but given your reference to the relevant/related '77 lecture, I know you could help me understand if you wanted/cared to :P Figured it wouldn't be seen as too-rude to just ask :P
Chomsky--sooo many topics and even more hours of *brilliant*, concise insight into all meaningful topics. Truly a 'beautiful mind'!!
Why are you telling us that you can't tell that he is bullshitting after listening to him all this time? ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 , if you think Chomsky is bullshitting, I don't know how to help you.
All of this off the top of his head. No notes in front of him, nothing. I am truly astounded by Mr. Chomsky’s breadth and depth of knowledge.
@@Dogfacedponysoldierr I'm considering rescinding my comment
You need notes to talk for so long without saying anything.
"This invention of proper English"
lmao. I love how Chomsky, with no hesitation, dismisses all pretentiousness, whether it be in linguistics or political/historical analysis.
The concept of "no language is right or wrong" came from his linguistic theory some people compare to the work of Copernicus. Also, the software we're communicating through was made possible by his work applied to computer science to enable the creation of compilers - the tool used to make all software written today executable on a processor that only understands machine language.
lol
He takes a subtle shit on the shitheads.
5 years later....i watched this on December 12, 2015 originally, & only just got halfway through without falling asleep.
Look out 2021, next time I WIL FINISH IT!
This man is now 92 years old. We will likely lose him soon; I hope he gets as much of his knowledge, thoughts and awkward but cute little jokes he hasn't put to paper before he meets his end.
@Arid Sohan He will forever be remembered as a useful idiot for Russia, unfortunately, too. He got away with sailing near the wind for many years, but opinions now can't be hidden in eg small-press publications sympathetic to the former Yugoslavia.
31.08.2024 still with us!
I love the way @at 15:07 he straightens up when describing free will. A man who inspires.
He does. And he feels strongly that humans can choose a different future from what is pre-determined by the natural laws that govern the physical world. He declares that free will and conscious choice are fundamentally mysterious. But, for once, he gives no evidence, except for the fact that we don’t yet understand where the laws of physics come from (and perhaps never will). But just because we don’t know that doesn’t mean that there aren’t laws that all matter and energy must follow. There is every reason to believe that determinism is true but, maybe for ethical reasons, he cannot handle that, admittedly frustrating, truth.
@@kennethmarshall306 there are plenty of reasons to reject determinism. Arguably, anti determinism as well. Some of these arguments actually come from linguistics. Are you familiar with any of them?
@@shrill_2165 Probably not. But my reason for believing that determinism must be the correct understanding of the world is that science tells us that there are laws of physics that we, as part of the natural world are completely subject to. The feeling of choice that we all have is just that. A subjective sensation akin to the sensation of colour or sound or pain etc. All built in by our genes because these sensations helped our ancestors reproduce the genes that built our bodies. No purpose. No choice. Just the laws of physics playing themselves out.
@@kennethmarshall306 ok, so on what epistemic grounds can you deduce that science is a trustworthy source of information, and that your interpretation of it is a trustworthy one?
@@shrill_2165 The scientific method - that is, the use of observation measurement and experimentation to try to understand the world - is the only thing that has been proven to work. Including the very technology by which you and me are communicating.
I felt like I just listened to one 5,000 word sentence, the most incredible densely constructed presentation I have heard in a long time.
Very good lecture. Everytime I listen to this man, I learn something new. Thank You for posting.
Yes, he always comes up with new bullshit. ;-)
I think when Chomsky spoke about an ideal native speaker, he meant himself. He speaks a great lge with no stoppage in a smooth way. Luv his way of speaking. U can't get bored at all.
brilliant. Nourished by the conveyance of brilliance. Onward.
My great great uncle tutored him at MIT in linguistics
I thought you wrote: " tortured him".
@@lauriekace5298 lol same
Lol tutored him when he was a professor at mit?
@@funnyvishant Not sure if youre aware of this but he wasn't always a professor. Infact he wasnt even always a linguist.
Is it Itzhak Sankowsky ?
Everyone stop coughing
ALLHAILRASH Smokers....Its natural for one person to have mannerisms and others follow un-consciencely
😁😁😁😁😁
should be wearing face masks / biosuits absolute imbeciles
If you're going to cough, could you leave the room???
All I can hear now....thanks...lol
1:07:20 Chomsky finally says that nobody knows how language evolved....
Hahahhahahaa thanks. He has no clue
No clue as to what?
I guess this is true. I think it is impossible to find concrete evidence on how language has developed, so you can't draw any conclusions. You can make elaborate theories like Chomsky does, but you can't test them.
@Language and Programming Channel yes, I also think so, especially for social sciences (including history) and economics.
It is different in natural sciences, especially in physics, where theory which can't be tested are usually not accepted althought there are exceptions like String Theory (but the acceptance of String Theory is declining now, at the beginning it was accepted that it didn't make predictions because it was not yet a fully developed theory but it stayed like this for 40 years except for some version which where falsified by the LHC).
Also in Mathematics most statements can be proven or disproven (but not all of them, see Gödel) but Math is different because it was actually constructed by humans.
some say: "everybody knows" Elvis Presley had some good ideas.
respected sir ,i like your lecture ,i want more on this.thank you
Bless u for posting this
elegant introduction!!
Wow!! Just wow! Imagine if politicians talk in lectures that way.
the whole thing about cases is a very interesting piece of evidence. im studying latin from german which has four cases for latins 6. the funny thing i realize is that from context you can determine all 6 cases being expressed in german without there being an ending for it or anything. that lead me to realize that we all say things in those cases we just dont express the fact that were using them with a seperate ending that says "this word is in 1st case" after the actual meaning. if im not misinterpreting this is evidence for universal grammar.
What are cases?
@@TheCorrectionist1984 grammatical cases theyre pointless and make languages a pain in the ass
Maybe an informed debate is needed between you both ? I for one would be fascinated to see Bart Hill's fundamental philosophical position on linguistics.
My Father it’s me, how’s my learners, you can giving me the thoughts but how to do the better things for me and everyone else 🙏🏼.
The subject of language is indeed fascinating.
Can't stop talking continuously for tens of minutes in all his lectures. What a man!!!!
Noam Chomsky is a pleasure to listen to. A treasure house of knowledge and so generous in teaching it to others. God bless him always💖
The wild children topic was fascinating.
No one is able to know everything indeed. There are many intelligent beings who can construct thoughts and principles that reasonably explain one aspect or more but never everything that can unify the ideas of our existence and behavior as much as all physical or chemical reactions in this world. Perhaps in the distant future. I’ m glad there are many thinkers. They provide fundamental principles that lead me into thinking about many aspects of my life I haven’t examined as far as I can possibly understand.
Thanks for this intelligent talk.
I love how Chomsky's grasp of the history of science and philosophy leading up to modern paradigms doesn't lean on the stupid caricatures that most pop scientists are obliged to rehearse.
Can you please help with sources on the history of connection between the sciences that he speaks of?
@@AyalaChampagne If you're interested in the history of linguistics as a science developed in the 18th-19th century, you can check out Chomsky's book called Cartesian Linguistics, which is probably the most qualitative of Chomsky's books on linguistics. You can also check out some primary sources like Rousseau, Herder, or W. Humboldt.
@@doublenegation7870 Are his comments on Newton, especially what Newton thoughts about his own work were, easy to find in biographies and stuff? Do you know where I could learn more about that?
Noam Chomsky research into transformational grammar influenced the Advancement of Computer science and programming language considerably
how?
Dale Smith John Backus of IBM the Inventor of FORTRAN programming Language used Chomsky work on Formalism of CONTEXT FREE Languages to produce a generalized Grammar for Computer language Still used today called Backus Normal form. BNF
Chomsky normal form
Great Lecture.
Seems like one of the most important talks in the history of the human species to be available so widely just sitting here like a plump fruit to be picked by the sleeping giant of history
What a great mind!
it is an illusion. An illusion not in way in which it is generally held, that is in common sense, but rather in looking back at the way in which we began this sentence, a certain illusory quality becomes manifest...in the late 19th century, there were certain dogmatic philosophers who held the view that I would eventually come to a point, they were altogether discredited...to our modern way of understanding psychology, we now apprehend readily some hitherto conception of a snake appearing to rise from a basket... yes you are now charmed and not a little drowsy. It may be said that magicians operating under the same said view of an illusory quality had occupied your pockets with prestidigitation and using outmoded concepts and ways of thinking had shifted common sense. I can't do it as well as he can. It is like juggling. You have to circle back occasionally to how Newton was a drama queen or biology is a myth.
What a brilliant lecture! I would have ran up to ask if I could get a picture with him 😭
5:15 - ancient Indian Grammar
What he did not mention is the name Panini. Who developed Vedic Sanskrit..to pass Vedic Knowledge which for centuries have been taught orally only
granand Panini developed Classical Sanskrit
Any chance that there is a transcript for this?
Great to note that cognitive science has progressed since this talk. Around 1:14:00 he talks about ambiguous stimuli and the lack of research into the area; nowadays we know that top-down activity from higher brain areas causes the switch in interpretation. It has something to do with selective attention.
I noted the same thing. What a joy being at the forefront of collective human experience/intelligence..
At 1:12:00 Chomsky talks about research being done trying to see if the language facaulty could be an optimally designed organ. Does anybody know what research he is referring to?
That's the Minimalist Program! haha
@@jesselopes5196 Alright cool, thanks for the reply :)
Wish I wasn't 34 before realizing I want to be a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, and social justice activist.
Tolkien says Hobbits aren't adults until 33 since they live to be 100. So there's that! ;-)
@@doilyhead Well then color me inspired!! :D
So you want to be an idiot like Chomsky at 34? :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 No I want to be a complete genius like you.
@@johnseabron That's easy. 8-12 years of university level physics will do. But then... you don't have it in you, do you, kid? :-)
Terimakasih from Indonesia...
There have been some recent experimental results, and perhaps some common sense for some time, to suggest that humans too are automata, both basically and extensively. I think there are some reasons to doubt Descartes idea (discussed at 15:10-17:20), and to think that human will is fundamentally an illusion. My inherent wiring forces me to be contrarian about this.
I was surprised he proclaimed that common sense had long been declared irrelevant and that everyone knew mystic forces ruled the universe.
So your brain chemistry made you come up with this thought and express it....and therefore you did not express it of your own free will?
1:41:07 Chomsky forgot something! Though for just a couple of moments.
He remembers authors, but not book titles. He remembers the work, but not the artificial label placed on it. His mental equipment recalls the end, or the essence, and might be considered teleological. However, I think its merely cultural. The university tradition is to cite authors, not titles or summaries. Wide culture requires a title: Not have you read Grisham, but have you read The Pelican Brief. ("yeah, I read it, and it stinks")
Conference starts at 3:00
Noam is in the 36th Chamber. I don't think I've gotten to the point where he walks off stage.., then steps back on and says "Yea , we all feel and speak emphatically, hence initiations of "language" are culturally aligned to descriptive perspective shadings of life"
* sharings'
How can someone like him, undestand every aspect of language, without using it?
Why are people always dying at such events? It's as if the room was filled by tuberculosis patients... That is so inexplicably annoying.
Fajeth88 haha i cant stop hearing those coughs now. it truly is annoying!
fk u :D
haha, great observation
Fajeth88 haha For sure eh. why can't we get good producers where it truly counts Eh??? lol
FRAIL NERDS!
A brilliant new book, "SPEECH! How Language Made Us Human" by Simon Prentis, draws together the issues discussed here and provides an overlooked yet surprisingly obvious solution to the origin of language. It's an amazing insight. Check it out!
Human inquiry involves the will and nature. It is inevitable that nature shall dictate the survival of will. Like nature time and distance makes insignificant what once was significant.
fascinating
1:44:00 In 2022 or so Google or FB closed two Chatbots bc they have invented their own language and using it to communicate with each other and corporation was not content with that fact.
44:33, why would finding language in primates be a challenge to the theory of evolution?
because the last common ancestor between ape and man is supposed to have happened way before the structures for language developed in mans brain
You are right, it doesnt, if anything it would confirm it, but i believe thats just his point
And also that thingy about displaced reference being rare in the animal kingdom is just false, just ask your dog or cat
Chomsky is an Einstein in humanities
I thought it was pretty amazing
I always wondered how "mind" was introduced and what became if it. Ive run through the histiry of science a half dozen times in courses and lectures. This is the firset coherent explanation. What is with the investment in obscuring the Descartes/Newton relationship in "exorcising the machine from the ghost"? Why is it crucial that it be taught wrong?
AMERICA'S NUMBER 1 LINGUIST
Maybe, he did not decline the title. Should say most famous linguist. Or one of the most influential in recent times.
Good video 😅😮🎉
The Key to Universal Linguistics lies in our Life- and Organism-structure.
The Eternal Life have No origin.
What We call 'Origins of Language', is in beginning of a Development-Circuit of a whole new Language and Consciousness, as part of the Life-Renewing-Nature, droven by the Life-Desire, and Hunger- and Satisfation-Principles..
Campel-Monkeys is a early example of spoken Language, and word-bending,
only 15 words, all warning, exept 'Come Here'.
The Masculine Princip, and the Feminine Princip,
is the most basic in the Life- and Organism-structure,
it also stands for Sending and Recieving, as is the basic in all and any kind of Communication.
YOU ALL MAKE THIS HARD WORK. OMG, FORGIVENESS COMPASSION AND LOVE IS THE TRUE TRINITY TO HUMANOID DEVICES. WHAT ELSE WILL SERVE YOU HUMANOID CREATURES OTHER THAN FORGIVENESS COMPASSION AND LOVE???
17:00 but there is a lot of work (e.g. Nietzsche) on the fact that everything, including human action and thought can potentially be predictable, mathematically calculable, in other words, that there is no free will.
But I suppose, that if we build an A.I. system in the future that is capable of predicting a good part of, or even whole of human behaviour as it has been so far in history (let's say up to 2021), then this debate would be settled for good.
Nietzsche is a bizarre person to cite here.
Academy is the highest achievement of civilization.
that is word salad. I guess he means intellectual achievement is great. One more vote for the primary of consciousness model. People who vote primary of consciousness tend to be inarticulate.
does anyone know what he means at 21:27? by "I can, unbelievable as it is, move the moon by lifting my arm"
I think he was talking about how Newton viewed the force of gravity as a mystical force unexplained by mechanics and one body can attract another without any mechanical causation so that if you lift your arm the gravitational attraction between the arm and the moon increases and slightly alters the moons trajectory.
You do move the moon when you move your arm. Just a very tiny amount. That's what is meant.
And going even deeper he is pointing out that the interactions, even in the form of graviton particles, are ghostly. IE two fields cannot interact mechanically, as he talks about later. Physics is based on spooky action at a distance, not comprehensible mechanics.
He's the gravitational analogue of Magneto. What he doesn't mention is that he has bees hidden up his sleeves. It is unbelie-beeable.
Gravity :)
Noam
Does anyone know if Noam Chomsky has done any research on Cuneiform? Anything on the development of Hieroglyphic symbols? Just curious.
Descartes did not invent the idea of "mind." he discarded earlier ontological ideas in favor of the simple res extensa. This idea should be understood in relation to his analytical geometry: ie it is the start of a way of conceptualizing in principle anything that now has an unprecedented level of coherence (because of the radically simplified ontological idea -- just "extended") and an unprecedented level of precision (because of the math) both at the same time.
No hay subtitles , its a pity.i am almost deaf.
noam chomsky is a speech performer , isn't he ?
Well said, language is like human
Another wonderful speech every single one is so profound! I'm currently at 45 minutes and 50 seconds and it's a very interesting concept that bees communicate and humans communicate but there does not seem to be a direct correlation between the forms of communication. I do wonder about the Rupert sheldrake theory of harmonic resonance. Could it be that when you look at a cat and you think something mean the cat runs away and if you look at a cat and you think something kind they do that eye blink thing that says friendly cat to friendly cat and what if this implies that communication happens non-verbally and perhaps the words we say are more of something to keep our conscious attention on while we telepathically communicate? I am not saying that this is the case of course I do not know but isn't it interesting that dogs react differently to some people than they do to others could it be that they're picking up on some form of communication perhaps vibrational from the very Act of Consciousness itself if Consciousness is an act at all? Maybe it is that Communication between humans is simply a matter of paying attention to something while the meaning is send vibrationally by some means not yet understood? so those little wiggle dances, although it definitely means something just as the sounds we make with our vocal cords and our mouths mean something, is independent of what we are thinking about and if someone is thinking one thing but says another thing we ask for clarification. we say is that really what you meant because what you said did not seem right. And the person says oh yes that's right thank you for clarifying. Perhaps there's something to that? something to the idea that communication happens non-verbally even when we are speaking to each other. You know the sinking sensation in your gut that happens when you know someone is not listening to a word you're saying even when looking at you and nodding somehow you know that they're not listening how do we know that they're not listening at those times? And why do we feel it so viscerally? Very interesting talk as always and I'm enjoying it very much always so many wonderful ideas!
imagine Chomsky interviewing Jay Mascis or vice versa...just imagine that for a minute.
I can feel the pain of everyone
I've never loved a RUclips comment more.
Even better....imagine sudonym2010" (scroll up) response to chomsky" rejoinder??
you mean "J Mascis".
Language is the written and audio reference to reality in a way that everyone can understand. The way language refers to reality is to create words that refer to reality. Words are symbols that in a way symbolize reality and that everyone understands in the same way. A symbol is something that unites the symbolized with the user. In the case of language, words unite reality with all users since language is intersubjective. Intersubjectivity means that all users mean the symbols of the language in the same way, that is, the words. For a symbol to be known to all, what was symbolized must also be known to all. What is known to all is the world in which they exist as human beings. So the symbols and the symbolized of the language must be sought in the reality which is sensually accessible to all. Since the question is the beginning of language, one must look for those first cosmic symbols from which the knowledge of all reality can be symbolized. The first cosmic symbols should symbolize the cosmic phenomenon that is first and collectively recognized and symbolized by the first cosmic symbols. When we say that a phenomenon is symbolized first in the mind, it means that it becomes the first knowledge that before it did not exist in the mind another to recognize it, that is, it is the pure first knowledge (Pure reason according to Kant). That is, we seek to find the phenomenon that first becomes known to all (and constitutes the first pure collective knowledge) and the symbols with which it was collectively symbolized. From the knowledge of the first phenomenon and its symbols, it is possible to collectively recognize and symbolize all sensory information as similar to similar, because in all sensory information there is the same factor from which the first phenomenon was symbolized and became known. We can be sure that the first language was structured with symbols of the first collective knowledge of people. The many languages that we have had and still have after the first language, are a result of forgetting the right way of symbolizing and consequently linguizing reality. The metaphorical way in which the words were and are used contributed to this. Αυτό που ο Τσόμσκι ονομάζει universalia είναι ο παράγοντας της πρώτης καθαρής γνώσης η οποία υπάρχει σε όλη την πραγματικότητα ώστε η πραγματικότητα να αναγνωρίζεται από την πρώτη καθαρή γνώση σαν όμοια προς όμοιο. Έχω κάνει έρευνα και, βρήκα την πρώτη συλλογική γνώση των ανθρώπων. Βρήκα ότι η πρώτη συλλογική γνώση είναι παράγοντας ο οποίος υπάρχει σε όλη την πραγματικότητα δηλαδή είναι αυτό που λέει ο Τσόμσκι universal. Ο παράγοντας ενυπάρχει σε όλες τις διαφοροποιήσεις της πραγματικότητας και και γιαυτό όλη η πραγματικότητα αναγνωρίζεται από την πρώτη καθαρή γνώση δηλαδή τον παράγοντα .
No language is thinking
Interesting comment. I agree that the first thing is to experience what ever and then apply that to some mental note about that as symbol, feel, sound. Truely a fascinating subject to consider how languages became. We are spirits in a physical body to experience this physical world. When we "die" we shed our physical body and continue living as spirit with same personality and issues that we had a second before we die. So language is stored by our spirit and we continue to use language and thought forms in spirit. It is totally awesome this creation for sure.
What year was this?
1:34:23
Philosophical anthropology: Man developed language in evolution when he perceives the object of desire in woman. (Essay Fragment)
1:08:26
Wiseman
It's laughable for a person to flood the comments section because he or she disagrees with the content of the talk. It's as if Chomsky would care at all about a random person on youtube ranting over his talks.
imagine if he finds Chomskys' email address
Was it really on 2015?
"Chomsky spoke on "Universal Linguistics" at Winona State University in Minnesota on March 20, 1998."
11:37
14:40
This video is as long as a movie
Except this isn't a waste of time that leaves you dumber than when it started .
It is a monument to mankind that a person can get paid, even get awards, for asking: When Tom and Peter take out the book "Tom Sawyer" from the library, would you say they took out the same book, or different books? Or, my favorite: Is the chicken ready to be eaten?
Again, Noam Chomsky did not understand the soundhelix (klankhelix, Lauthelix) which the university of Leiden (NL) now calls "Language as a timemachine". With the soundhelix, we can reconstruct the past (and than correct) and we can spell the future, since it is the Oracle of Delphi, a technik men never did take seriously.
Panini developed vedic sanskrit
No, Classical Sanskrit
Very interesting talk in many ways. But I have to put it on .75 playback speed, to ingest it (he talks faster than he knows I guess). In doing so, I also played with .50 speed, which makes Noam sound drunk.
Audio could be much better
Amazing. Try finding stuff this interesting on network or cable t.v. In my opinion Chomsky's name and work should be as familiar to American popular culture as Kimye, or Brangelina. And, again my opinion, to the extent that work like his is not that well known, we end up facing the choice between Hilary (sell out) Clinton, and Donald (WTF) Trump for the next President of the United States.
Chomsky's work in linguistics and the cognitive sciences as well as the philosophy of science has been an eye opening revelation to the thinking process itself. His life long efforts in human affairs shows that science and decency are not anathema to each other. HIs impact is demonstrated by the number of right wing invertebrates who crawl out of their dung piles whenever there's a video of him on RUclips.
Critique Benjamin Netanyahu or the lack of guaranteed healthcare in the US or the elite culture in the media and the Beltway or don't
promote bombing Iran every other week, or expose the 'science' of a B.F. Skinner as something below the level of dog training that it is
and sure enough the trolls make their obligatory appearance. It's an indication that he's been effective. You may have noticed that the younger generation don't rely much on network or cable tv, or the mainstream media in general for their information, relying on the IT world instead. This also frees them from the chief sources of
misinformation. They're also rare among first time voters in that they're active in a major election campaign, as with the support for Bernie Sanders. This could change the way future elections are run. Hear, hear.
Mickey Charles
D'accord! Especially about the 'youngin's' getting their info form sources other than the mainstream propaganda mill. That and their activism give me some reasons to be hopeful.
sound's a bit out of sync
the black box of black boxness was communicated via language
I find little that is meaningful in the first sixteen minutes of Prof Chomsky's lecture, apart from its historical content. Possibly, what is missing and might supply the base of meaning is contained in his more technical work. Discussions such as the distinction between automata and human activity lying in human will, I find unhelpful because human will is, itself, a poorly defined concept having to do with transitions in human activity. Are those transitions at some level undetermined as is the motion of a particle in a gas or are they part of a sequence of behaviors that has been established ?
Reaching back to ancient or classical philosophers may give the inquiry an aura of significance, but so doing does not supply what is missing, meaning.
frsit,all respect for the father of the linguistic moderne and the grammar generative the language's they are on générale the clès of all the sceince fro example when you smalt perfume you speak with your tongue that you smalt and don't forget that the tongue is the language carrier that way we can't explain with this language's and the human can fly with this language's.the meaning that we have like the speader web between the tongue and outher sense because they are very related to etcheother because all them explain with the language that way if we don't have this language we invented other languages like the language of the body or language of the sing or the single that way it very important this language's.
Why wasn’t the person coughing all the time invited to leave the room??
I want a Chinese or Korean sub😭
学英语啊
17:20 ish, the idea the human and animal will are different is extremely arguable in my opinion. A dog I believe will respond in keeping with it's past training, to varying amounts, either against or in agreement with external stimulus. This seems simple to me. I do not understand why someone like Chomsky would see a difference between human and animal will.
The method in which Chomsky often builds a case and then moves on as though his case should be accepted within the bounds of acceptable reason; this is distasteful to me.
Well, you just need to research this question a bit because there have been many like yourself attempting to argue this from behviourists to connectionists but they have failed both logically and empirically. He is not suggesting that humans do not share many of the cognitive processes as animals but when it comes to language, you just need to understand the complex structural rules behind a child's language and realize it could not have developed from what the infant has heard and processed by normal cognition. How does the child create grammar from pidgin. How does the deaf child create the rules from their parent's freshly adopted 'almost word only' primitive grammar. Believe me your 'idea' is appealing but doesn't explain how children seem to have these language structures so early on
I figure you spent your youth in a kind of blurred mental haze or daze 'pardon my phrase' not knowing your own limits of your mental capacity up to now, coming up with lame arguments due to lack of knowledge and finally, remarking on Mr Chomsky with 'SOMEONE LIKE CHOMSKY'. Hey, listen well to what's being said now 'cause it's true. I guarantee you, THERE'S NOBODY LIKE HIM and He's one of the oldest scholar, lecturer and could go on bla..bla...bla……..His comprehensive knowledge must be cherished and applied to our lives.
I think he is just saying we don't have evidence against free will /something special about humans, which was probably true when this was filmed
Even though we now know there is no free will, the debate continues because we don't know what would set us apart from AI
it's a complicated topic
audio
It’s my doubts about axioms not proven🙏🏻. Please .
The world is not divided into areas, some bees live near you vis-a-bees shopping pattern behavior, for example they don't bicycle to your shop whenever they feel compelled to buy a Romanian to Free Will Thesaurus. They have their own language or occult dance, some professors nostalgically refer to as common sense. But collinearly some bees live near trees and it would be false of us, in our modern and outmoded presumptuousness to construct a hitherto unimagined conception of Newton as drag queen being chased around by bees. Merely because they don't speak Chinese innately when wherein sofar as bees are concerned Chinese is a "language". I'm going to practice, but I don't think I can make my blather as inane and tedious.
I'm glad I already know what I would have heard had I listened to the whole thing because that was made impossible by the distraction of the incessant coughing of the audience.
At one point Naom Comsky said that language appeared 100 thousand y. ago without any prove or even explanation why this date? There are suspicions it’s much much older. Later he said it looks like kind of single time mutation, it’s hardly believable. Given the topic Origin of Language, he could at least discuss this important question in some details.
At 56:56 he said Russians attempted to reverse course of the Volga river, Russians never attempted to reverse course of Volga river, but of another river in Siberia,1000 km east of Volga. Simple fact check could correct this mistake. But he didn’t. Not good for a scientist. This diminishes trust. What else did he messed?
Generally he didn’t say much about Origin of language, when, was it single one time event, or many times, what is known, what is not, nothing of this, but general wordings only. Dissatisfying.
If you’re interested Chomsky and Robert Berwick co-authored a book on the subject called ‘Why only Us’. They go into vigorous detail to explain the things you mentioned in your comment
No Cesar! Cesar Cueto: "This man is now 92 years old. We will likely lose him soon; I hope he gets as much of his knowledge, thoughts and awkward but cute little jokes he hasn't put to paper before he meets his end". It was NOT Chomsky ! He didn't REALY understand, because the re-discovery of the universal soundhelix was published on Research Gate on the 28 of October 2013. Here all articles are disappeared, but name und titles are still visable. Maybe some of you did hear of the whistleblower Marcus Kühbacher who was accusing Zu Gutenberg (min. of defense - Angela Merkel / Germany) of plagiarisme. Kühbacher did also accuse the Philipps-University-Marburg (i.c. Deutsche Sprachatlas and IGS) of hiding my research-results since I did attack the rules of Jacob Grimm (words are getting less at the end). The right rule is that words are getting longer at the end and solve at the front. This means that the german language is helixing out of Dutch! That was a big attack on Germany's vision on history! They accused me (64) after 26 years of working at this university of sexual intimidation (!) - only to get rid of me. What kind of behavior is this? When women do (re)discover something sensational, some men probably can not accept this. The university did try to get me into a psychiatric-ally clinic with medicaments, visit of parents: forbidden! What kind of university is this? So, the university of Leipzig has all my books. Benjamin List and Klaus Hasselmann are the Nobelprisewinnars. You can ask WHY. I know, since they used my books with an explanation of physics, chemics, astronomics, medicin and MA-the-MA-tics, which is of the 'mama's' who knew what MAT means: fivehouse, but you have to double this fivestar! My English is miserably, but my thoughts not! I can advise you all to learn Dutch because of handle the universal soundhelix.
Silently drops the mic and walks out the stage.
He understands the Mathematics of Structure
deep