That is one of my all time favorite Chomsky lectures. It really many of his philosophical ideas and how he varies from (and IMO is completely right compared to) conventional modern American philosophy
I've been cleaning out my condo and as I was throwing out stacks of old papers I came across and re-read the Turing article he is referring to. Its really worth a look. Most people know about the Turing test (even though the way Turing defined it is not the way its usually described) but the paper is much more interesting than just for that. The paper is called Computing, Machines, and Intelligence.
I will take your recommendation and read it. It may be called "Computing Machinery and Intelligence?" Thank you, Michael DeBellis. I was expecting it to be dense reading, but it was insightful, well-written, and also entertaining. I will recommend it now too.
James mcgilvray has interview chomsky over many years, and published them in 'the science of language' and there is some of this in there. You could also read chomsky's 'cartesian linguistics'.
Thank you for uploading these lectures. Could you please tell me in which lecture Chomsky speaks about discreet infinity - I have a question on that concept which I seem unable to find an answer to. Thanks.
I don't know where Chomsky talks about it but I know a thing or two about discrete infinity, I've been taking some foundational math classes (Turing-Church hypothesis and proofs, Godel's proofs, ZFC set theory, etc.), really fascinating stuff. I'm no mathematician but if you still have questions I might be able to answer.
Michael DeBellis Thank you. I think my question is misconceived now that I think about it, actually. It was basically this: I agree with Chomsky that there must be a scope and limit to our cognitive capacities, as with any biological creature. So there will be always concepts beyond our understanding. This is logical and it makes perfect sense. He gives as example a rat running a maze; it can go right-left to find water etc. But it could never run a prime number maze - turn left, say, at each prime. Similarly with us (since we're not Angels) our cognitive structure, though richly endowed, will never perhaps be able to conceive certain things or how they work. And I agree, as I say. I then thought well if that's the case, how come we have this digital infinity to potentially think unlimited and unbounded thoughts ? But I think I've confused the two concepts here: scope and limits and discreet infinity. What do you think ?
I think you have it correct now -- that there is no conflict between discrete infinity and saying there may be limits to to cognitive capabilities. The point about mysteries is that there MAY be certain problems that are just unsolvable. So for example the concept of causality is something we take for granted and its difficult (maybe impossible) for us to imagine that everything doesn't have a cause. But it may be that the theory of how the universe began requires an uncaused initial event and that while everything that we observe in our every day world has a cause some things that happen in physics do not. (I'm not arguing for that particular example, just saying that is IMO the type of example he has in mind). The question of infinity is itself one where math challenges common sense. Common sense says that there is no sense in saying that something is bigger than infinity. But in the analysis of infinity done by mathematicians like Cantor it turns out there are "bigger" kinds of infinity, for example the infinity of the natural numbers vs. the infinity of the reals. The two infinities can't be put into a one to one correspondence (this can be proven via what's called a diagonalization proof) so in a mathematical sense one kind of infinity is "bigger" than the other. There are special symbols for the various kind of infinite sets (it turns out there are an infinity of them!), they use the Hebrew letter Aleph with a subscript. So Aleph-null is the basic infinity of the natural numbers, Aleph-1 the next level higher, etc.
Michael DeBellis Many thanks for your response. Yes you're right: mysteries in respect to queries which may or may not yield definitive solutions. I just take it as a matter of logic that some mysteries will always lay behind human cognition. (And I suppose it's possible to formulate a criterion to ascertain which questions can lead to fruitful results, etc). Chomsky has been a major influence on my thinking these past couple years. TH-cam, his talks. Fascinating. Concepts like metaphysics, 'supernatural' phenomenon, etc. Though not directly amenable to empirical verification, such speculations seem no more strange than the nature of 'reality' described by our current theories. Mysteries and phenomena entirely rational to suppose, wherever their nature or number, not merely potentially exist, but in abstract must necessarily be statistical significant in terms of probability. Newton's great discovery that the mechanical philosophy conceptualisation of an 'intelligible' universe as a machine - thus in principle could be comprehended - had to be abandoned. Discovery of Gravity and its apparently 'absurd' consequence of action-at-a-distance by non-contact action showed it was wrong. Chomsky says the notion of 'material' as an existing substance had to be rejected also. 'Material' was defined by the mechanical science of the 17th Century. Now we have no definition of the concept 'physical'. Amazing. These astonishing things I'd never have discovered but for Chomsky. Forgotten too in the sciences, it seems, where these days we still see a consensus of the universe being entirely intelligent, despite the logic and biological constraints inherent in out biological endowment.
There are actually some proofs from Mathematics that are relevant here. A big impetus for the invention of the digital computer was Turing's model: Turing machines. The original reason he created it was to address some major issues in mathematics. There were several questions posed by David Hilbert about the decidability of logic and set theory (which is the foundation of all modern standard math: calculus, statistics, geometry, etc.). People were expecting positive answers but what Turing, Church, and Godel proved were that the answers were impossible to achieve. So for example Godel proved that any mathematical system that supports basic math (addition, zero, successor, etc.) will have true statements that aren't provable, in mathematical language no such system can be both consistent and complete (an inconsistent system is trivially complete since any statement can be proven in such a system).
I disagree with Chomsky when he says there is no intuitive explanation for how evolution resulted in cognition. If you look at the evolution of most species they tend to get faster, stronger, and smarter. Now that isn't always the case, there are definitely exceptions but it is a very strong trend (e.g., look at the eye and how it evolved from something to just detect light sources to the complex mechanisms that humans and even more so animals like raptors have). So if we accept that in general evolution tends to favor faster, stronger, and smarter then its reasonable that at some point a threshold was crossed where the adaptation didn't just give us the ability to comprehend hunting and gathering but to understand far more about the universe than just the aspects that impact reproductive success. Indeed, this adaptation could be what made humans the dominant species of the planet and made human cultural change the major driver on how the biosphere itself changes (taking the place of evolutionary change), since cultural changes happen at least an order of magnitude faster than evolutionary change.
In line with Chomsky, I would say that the 'faster, stronger, smarter' trend in turn perpetuates only the cycle of progress towards 'reproductive advantage' according to theory of evolution. Thus it will not be 'reasonable' that the 'threshold' was crossed if evolution was all there was to it. Lions for example, are faster, stronger than us but they didn't cross the 'threshold' in smartness and still they have been prevailing on the planet. Might be evolution actually does lead to cognitive abilities but the problem lies in 'mystery space', who knows!
Not sure I would accept the premise, "stronger,faster, and smarter". More precisely, organisms that survive and thrive are those that possess the traits most suited to their environments. It is not clear those characteristics need to be the things you described. As Chomsky has pointed out before, being more curious in early times may have made it more likely that one gets killed and hence ones genes will not get passed on. So its not clear that curiosity (or any other behavioural trait we associate with intelligence) was specifically selected for. Now, there may be correlated traits that were favored in selection, but the ability to prove theorems wasn't likely the immediate target.
What makes humans the dominant species on the planet? There's seems to be no justification for this past "cause god says so", and only represents a marginal minority's philosophy in human history. Is it because people can kill stuff, and caused a mass extinction? Is it because we've unintentionally terraformed the planet to the point of possible collective suicide? Is it because we're the greatest threat to our own survival and development as a species? If the bees go [extinct] life as we know it will end, if man goes [extinct] life will flourish. Same is true for a large number of species. Humans are not the first species to die off due to its exponential ability to destroy ecosystems.
Aristotle of our time. Your existence Mr. Chomsky is a blessing.
ppp
He is much closer to Plato and, sadly, his teachings haven't been challenged by a student as Aristotle
Lecture starts at 6:25
This talk is a good supplement to another excellent lecture by Noam Chomsky called "The machine, the ghost, and the limits of understanding."
peskysushi It is.
That is one of my all time favorite Chomsky lectures. It really many of his philosophical ideas and how he varies from (and IMO is completely right compared to) conventional modern American philosophy
peskysushi well thanks for that
I've been cleaning out my condo and as I was throwing out stacks of old papers I came across and re-read the Turing article he is referring to. Its really worth a look. Most people know about the Turing test (even though the way Turing defined it is not the way its usually described) but the paper is much more interesting than just for that. The paper is called Computing, Machines, and Intelligence.
I will take your recommendation and read it. It may be called "Computing Machinery and Intelligence?" Thank you, Michael DeBellis. I was expecting it to be dense reading, but it was insightful, well-written, and also entertaining. I will recommend it now too.
This is really fantastic. Thanks for posting.
Link with noise cancellation: th-cam.com/video/Mo2kAgvdz94/w-d-xo.html
He is a great lecture
Worth taking the time to listen.
22:22 conundrum of the chinese room argument
This whole lecture series is super interesting, but does anyone know where he (chomsky) wrote about these things?
James mcgilvray has interview chomsky over many years, and published them in 'the science of language' and there is some of this in there. You could also read chomsky's 'cartesian linguistics'.
1:11:00 contemporary discussion ridiculing the "ghost in the machine" philosophical idea
it is one of the great work...
Is a transcript of these lectures available?
Menuda joya!
Thank you for uploading these lectures. Could you please tell me in which lecture Chomsky speaks about discreet infinity - I have a question on that concept which I seem unable to find an answer to. Thanks.
I don't know where Chomsky talks about it but I know a thing or two about discrete infinity, I've been taking some foundational math classes (Turing-Church hypothesis and proofs, Godel's proofs, ZFC set theory, etc.), really fascinating stuff. I'm no mathematician but if you still have questions I might be able to answer.
Michael DeBellis
Thank you. I think my question is misconceived now that I think about it, actually. It was basically this: I agree with Chomsky that there must be a scope and limit to our cognitive capacities, as with any biological creature. So there will be always concepts beyond our understanding. This is logical and it makes perfect sense. He gives as example a rat running a maze; it can go right-left to find water etc. But it could never run a prime number maze - turn left, say, at each prime. Similarly with us (since we're not Angels) our cognitive structure, though richly endowed, will never perhaps be able to conceive certain things or how they work. And I agree, as I say.
I then thought well if that's the case, how come we have this digital infinity to potentially think unlimited and unbounded thoughts ? But I think I've confused the two concepts here: scope and limits and discreet infinity. What do you think ?
I think you have it correct now -- that there is no conflict between discrete infinity and saying there may be limits to to cognitive capabilities. The point about mysteries is that there MAY be certain problems that are just unsolvable. So for example the concept of causality is something we take for granted and its difficult (maybe impossible) for us to imagine that everything doesn't have a cause. But it may be that the theory of how the universe began requires an uncaused initial event and that while everything that we observe in our every day world has a cause some things that happen in physics do not. (I'm not arguing for that particular example, just saying that is IMO the type of example he has in mind).
The question of infinity is itself one where math challenges common sense. Common sense says that there is no sense in saying that something is bigger than infinity. But in the analysis of infinity done by mathematicians like Cantor it turns out there are "bigger" kinds of infinity, for example the infinity of the natural numbers vs. the infinity of the reals. The two infinities can't be put into a one to one correspondence (this can be proven via what's called a diagonalization proof) so in a mathematical sense one kind of infinity is "bigger" than the other. There are special symbols for the various kind of infinite sets (it turns out there are an infinity of them!), they use the Hebrew letter Aleph with a subscript. So Aleph-null is the basic infinity of the natural numbers, Aleph-1 the next level higher, etc.
Michael DeBellis Many thanks for your response. Yes you're right: mysteries in respect to queries which may or may not yield definitive solutions. I just take it as a matter of logic that some mysteries will always lay behind human cognition. (And I suppose it's possible to formulate a criterion to ascertain which questions can lead to fruitful results, etc).
Chomsky has been a major influence on my thinking these past couple years. TH-cam, his talks. Fascinating. Concepts like metaphysics, 'supernatural' phenomenon, etc. Though not directly amenable to empirical verification, such speculations seem no more strange than the nature of 'reality' described by our current theories. Mysteries and phenomena entirely rational to suppose, wherever their nature or number, not merely potentially exist, but in abstract must necessarily be statistical significant in terms of probability.
Newton's great discovery that the mechanical philosophy conceptualisation of an 'intelligible' universe as a machine - thus in principle could be comprehended - had to be abandoned. Discovery of Gravity and its apparently 'absurd' consequence of action-at-a-distance by non-contact action showed it was wrong. Chomsky says the notion of 'material' as an existing substance had to be rejected also. 'Material' was defined by the mechanical science of the 17th Century. Now we have no definition of the concept 'physical'. Amazing.
These astonishing things I'd never have discovered but for Chomsky. Forgotten too in the sciences, it seems, where these days we still see a consensus of the universe being entirely intelligent, despite the logic and biological constraints inherent in out biological endowment.
There are actually some proofs from Mathematics that are relevant here. A big impetus for the invention of the digital computer was Turing's model: Turing machines. The original reason he created it was to address some major issues in mathematics. There were several questions posed by David Hilbert about the decidability of logic and set theory (which is the foundation of all modern standard math: calculus, statistics, geometry, etc.). People were expecting positive answers but what Turing, Church, and Godel proved were that the answers were impossible to achieve. So for example Godel proved that any mathematical system that supports basic math (addition, zero, successor, etc.) will have true statements that aren't provable, in mathematical language no such system can be both consistent and complete (an inconsistent system is trivially complete since any statement can be proven in such a system).
40:18 reference for myself
Okay, I guess we'll just give up on hearing the questions...
So what works by descartes should be read?
Begin with the meditations, a newer edition with footnotes and further readings, and go from there. Be prepared - Descartes is a trek
6:25
Garcia James Williams Cynthia Moore Kimberly
What about the thought that this world is not real pretend and copy of another time to make one believe it is real? Awakening of the dead
I like Robert Trivers' hypothesis that there is a selective advantage for lying. Possibly the fundamental selector for intelligence.
is there anyone
can you help me
I want transcription of chomskey's lectures
mary goli You probably know this but here is his site: chomsky.info/. There are many transcripts of lectures there but not all of them.
I disagree with Chomsky when he says there is no intuitive explanation for how evolution resulted in cognition. If you look at the evolution of most species they tend to get faster, stronger, and smarter. Now that isn't always the case, there are definitely exceptions but it is a very strong trend (e.g., look at the eye and how it evolved from something to just detect light sources to the complex mechanisms that humans and even more so animals like raptors have). So if we accept that in general evolution tends to favor faster, stronger, and smarter then its reasonable that at some point a threshold was crossed where the adaptation didn't just give us the ability to comprehend hunting and gathering but to understand far more about the universe than just the aspects that impact reproductive success. Indeed, this adaptation could be what made humans the dominant species of the planet and made human cultural change the major driver on how the biosphere itself changes (taking the place of evolutionary change), since cultural changes happen at least an order of magnitude faster than evolutionary change.
How is unintuitive, not whether it happened or not. He might agree with you.
I think he would say that there are no known mechanisms which would lead to evolution of cognition including natural selection etc.
In line with Chomsky, I would say that the 'faster, stronger, smarter' trend in turn perpetuates only the cycle of progress towards 'reproductive advantage' according to theory of evolution. Thus it will not be 'reasonable' that the 'threshold' was crossed if evolution was all there was to it. Lions for example, are faster, stronger than us but they didn't cross the 'threshold' in smartness and still they have been prevailing on the planet. Might be evolution actually does lead to cognitive abilities but the problem lies in 'mystery space', who knows!
Not sure I would accept the premise, "stronger,faster, and smarter". More precisely, organisms that survive and thrive are those that possess the traits most suited to their environments. It is not clear those characteristics need to be the things you described. As Chomsky has pointed out before, being more curious in early times may have made it more likely that one gets killed and hence ones genes will not get passed on. So its not clear that curiosity (or any other behavioural trait we associate with intelligence) was specifically selected for. Now, there may be correlated traits that were favored in selection, but the ability to prove theorems wasn't likely the immediate target.
What makes humans the dominant species on the planet? There's seems to be no justification for this past "cause god says so", and only represents a marginal minority's philosophy in human history.
Is it because people can kill stuff, and caused a mass extinction? Is it because we've unintentionally terraformed the planet to the point of possible collective suicide? Is it because we're the greatest threat to our own survival and development as a species?
If the bees go [extinct] life as we know it will end, if man goes [extinct] life will flourish.
Same is true for a large number of species. Humans are not the first species to die off due to its exponential ability to destroy ecosystems.
Lee Jessica Williams Daniel Lee Nancy
Perez George Smith Margaret Young Jessica
quine harasses chomsky @ 50 min
Chomsky is not for cognitive science. But the computational model of brain processes is a fact.