Language use & design: conflicts & their significance | Prof Noam Chomsky
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 พ.ค. 2024
- 04 April 2013 - Noam Chomsky - 'Language Use and Design: conflicts and their significance'
Full story: www.ucd.ie/news/2013/04APR13/0...
In this talk hosted by UCD School of Philosophy, University College Dublin, and the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, Noam Chomsky discusses his latest views on the nature and function of language. The lecture is followed by a wide ranging question and answer session covering topics both in linguistics and the philosophy of language.
In the field of linguistics, Noam Chomsky, who has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) since 1955, is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, often considered the most significant contribution to the field of theoretical linguistics of the 20th century.
He first set out his abstract analysis of language in his doctoral dissertation (1955) and Syntactic Structures (1957). He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, which challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of mind and language dominant in the 1950s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has also affected the philosophy of language and mind. He is also credited with the establishment of the 'Chomsky hierarchy,' a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power.
Daniel Yergin, a New York Times Magazine contributor maintains that "where others heard only a Babel of fragments, he found a linguistic order. His work has been compared to the unraveling of the genetic code of the DNA molecule."
He further declares that Chomsky's discoveries in linguistics have had an impact "on everything from the way children are taught foreign languages to what it means when we say that we are human."
Noam Chomsky.....In my almost seven decades (I am 68 yoa) I have been privileged to see and hear many eminent thinkers and observers of all the humanities who's thoughts /writing and influences have now become digitised and therefore available to those lifelong investigators like myself. Bless him ...love always
Of course thru-out your investigations you have found the professor was wrong about everything quite a feat.
@@JimDocker Amazing! 'Jim', you can see and read those sentiments (and words) in a short sentence that doesn't say or read anything remotely similar.
And now being 70, lifelong learning, understanding, observation, experience, re-examination 24/7 365, I can say without a doubt, that you are right.
To add to this even Einstein, good ol'Albie was wrong, the 'big bang' is false, the 'climate crisis' scaremongering 'hockey stick' Mann/Gore bandwagon and their snakeoil sellers cabal are wrong.
Thank you.
Love always
Like you I am a lifelong student and curious by nature and Chomsky has been around for 60 years that's a lot of reexamination. Considered brilliant by some academics of course I have to see for myself. Academia aint what it used to be.
@@JimDocker Yes, I am both an educated man, and an auto didactic scholar. To question is to discover, to research is to observe, to reexamine is to adjudicate and reach conflicting conclusions is to return to the initial premis. To believe is to ignore one's own intuition in the face of overwhelming consensus which is often, I would say most often, wrong. Dangerous territory needs investigation and the 7 decades of my lifetime has revealed more than most younger generations are prepared to review, sadly.
Though uneducated Ido read. Nixon bought me Disraeli Kissinger bought me Metternich. I am critical, for example I consider Russian collusion one the biggest scandals. There were no consequences the power is still in charge in fact people won Pulitzers and congratulated each other and were/are supported by big tech big corp who pay them.Thats spurious and dangerous. I wonder what Chomsky thinks.
I love the puckish joy he clearly takes in setting up his talk with his analysis of the classical formulation that goes back to Aristotle that language is 'sound with meaning.'
"That raises three questions at once; what is sound, what is meaning and what is with?"
Brilliant! And no-one laughs. Tough crowd you get at these Chomsky gigs.
I believe it's a relaxation time for him ... people usually treat him like a rock star ... having some people who hear "what is with" and think "yes, three basic questions" is a relief for him. (I think).
It’s funny from a perspective, but for me it’s far outweighed by it’s seriousness, its value in stimulating or deepening what for me is a better understanding of “what we are”, “what the world is”.
And then he says it could well rather be "meaning with sound"
Made me chuckle too
I road the train w him everyday for yrs nice guy fkn epically smart and informed even at advanced age
Who would dislike this video. Chomsky is brilliant and has empathy. Few scientists are willing to go against the dogma that makes it way into science; Chomsky is one of those in our time. He thinks outside the box , poses fresh and important questions. Best to him and us. Let's keep learning and make our world a better place.
Everybody with half a brain (left side) dislikes Chomsky. He is a hack, in linguistics and politics.
I m a big fan of noam chomsky , you know I m preparing my doctorate in the field of robotics but I tend to constantly listen to chomsky's great and pleasant voice and brillaint ideas . what a creature ! I really love him . one of my goals in life is to just shake hands with him .
I would try and hurry up with that goal Selman
I let him once outside of MIT when I was a bike messenger. I told him the world needed more people like him. He asked if I was a student, and I said ‘No, I’m just a messenger.’ His reply? ‘Well, the world needs more people like you to deliver the message.’
@@xYoungGodx magnificent
that sounds like him@@xYoungGodx
i could listen to Prof. Chomsky talk forever. the man is brilliant. so brilliant that he's innovated in Linguistics, Computer Science, Politics naturally from asking questions.
he innovated in politics?
I am a Muslim but I have too much respect for Mr. Noam Chomsky. In this age and time his personality is nothing less the a prophets for peace for mankind. I wish humanity could give such people there due credit socially.
why but? are muslims forbiden to show any respect towards mr chomsky? am i allowed to joke like that?
@@nescius2 English may be a second language for OP
@@nescius2 on second thought, perhaps OP uses "but" to express their internal conflict over the fact that:
their religion, islam, tells them that infidels cannot be prophets. but prof. chomsky exhibits the attributes of prophets nonetheless.
@@nescius2 I understood it to mean because Chomsky's Jewish
@@markdavid1208 in one of his talks, he says he is not a believer
I get so excited when I find Chomsky's presentation on Linguistics. It is like 1 out of 50 videos of his. Most are on politics and others. After all, this is his element. A living legend of the discipline.
Thank you for posting!!
Ironic that such a legend in communication is the most dull and tedious speaker of the language lol
@@michelleperuski6667 Noam Chomsky doesn't speak MusiLanguage as Dr. Stephen Porges recommends (Sing-Song talk like Motherese) but there is still a Chi-Om subharmonic of the Future to his "Sound with Meaning."
I first heard of him through a friend who was studying compilers in Computer Science. I heard some people saying that his work in Linguistics is comparable to that of Copernicus. (the person I remember more clearly stressed that was not an exaggeration).
@@michelleperuski6667 My experience was that he was dull (eg in tone, certainly not stereotypically charismatic), until I began to understand his messages better. Now I personally find every sentence or few sentences worth contemplating. His phraseology is hard to rival in terms of clarity. One needs a certain level of “academic” vocabulary experience, but unlike most intellectuals, he does not (consciously or unconsciously) AIM to be obscure. Not saying I’m smarter than you. Just my own experience. He makes sense to me like few others about what are, to me, the most interesting and important things in life.
@@michelleperuski6667 e
I've appreciated Noam more and more since I was introduced to his teachings forty years ago...now TH-cam is almost an embarrassment of riches...Cheers Noam, and thank you kindly.
Amazing person in many respects. Knowledge is only one of those.
So lucky to live in the era of #Chomsky.
Chomsky's contribution to (bio)linguistics and cognitive science, philosophy of mind and beyond are extremely outstanding. I mean, it is like watching Newton or Galileo alive. Though it is absurd to compare it to his contribution in political philosophy, his linguistic contribution is overwhelmingly revolutionary. (pls don't get me wrong, his contribution in politics is enormous and I recognize that)
@An Deo You should send your sore rant to Dr. Chomsky directly, not me. Good day, loser.
33:40 - 34:26 mic drop
Note the subtle sleight, a critical jab about the human sciences being in a “currently barely developed form.” 34:20 - 34:25
Would make Captain Beefheart proud.
His answer to someone’s similarly themed question echoes this, where he speaks of the field of psychology being like utility meter reading being the study of physics. This jab would make the best hip hoppers proud.
Q and A was amazing...thank u uploader
pure gold- this goes to the heart of our ability to conceptualize the world at all with language or more drastically it is all idealism in the end - i think that the idea of reference neatly and economically sums up what must be in the end the core question of philosophy
He is The Man. The Legend. His own people abandoned him. Americans dont listen to him because he speaks the truth with logic and undeniable reasoning.
why not come closer to ask question as Pro Noam Chomsky hearing declines. He is a true treasure thank you so much
A Most Brilliant Deconstruction Of The Modern Scientific Approach.
the face on the lady next to Noam as he is answering the first question is priceless, shes like "oooh you did not just say that" lol
I woke up to “water”…
I believe it’s one the most brilliant, mentally stimulating thoughts that I’ve ever heard. I love, and hope to one day, have the sheer laser focus that Professor Chomsky has demonstrated to the world since he was very young. Amazingly at 94 it seems that the thing that has slowed down is body and his deep thoughts are just as clear as a bell and 👋🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽✌🏽👁️⚡️🐝😎
How inspiring is this hall, I think I can study there forever :"
Agreed. The answer to the final 'follow up' question given at 1:36:45 (the one almost not permitted) provided such a wide rounding purview that if all implications of all it touched upon were fully developed you'd have a far better grounding in how scientific thought developed and what the scientific endeavour now means than most scientists and philosophers. And he brought it all back round to finalise his address to the specific question at the end. What a beautiful freak.
Language = Application of meaning to abstract substitutive symbols.
Or
Language = organization of meaning via abstract symbols.
I think the first is better as it builds on something we do elsewhere, we substitute one thing for another. For example, we want food, but we substitute money for food in our goals, then use the money to get the food.
Great talk, thanks.
what an invaluable way to use some hours of my life, listening to a much more intellectually gifted human being than yours truly. Grazie a million😊
I really like his jumper.
Like finding out there was a lost vowel discovered and then trying to imagine what it would sound like. 😄
Joyful event to listen such kind of video.
"Actually when I mentioned cows and the word cow I had Jared in mind" - just choked on my coffee! :-)
🤣🤣 He was talking about Jerry Fodor
Nice format
I really like the room.
Fr fr
@@johnpineda1417 What does that mean?
SnowManD it means for real for real or that I agree very much
Looks comfy af
If I could be a fly on the wall in that room!
All the comments about Chomsky's superior intelligence are decidedly anti-Chomskian! Remember, he says that human beings are fundamentally identical to each other with respect to their capacities. Don't miss the egalitarian message.
mkeys Where did you get the idea that Chomsky thinks "human beings are fundamentally identical to each other"? I can't recall reading or hearing him say anything like that. He believes that human beings all have fundamentally the same rights but that isn't at all the same as saying we are identical in terms of intelligence or other capabilities. In fact the notion of I-Language is all about looking at language as something that is in some sense *unique* for each individual.
Nicholas Dedless check out this interview
transcriptvids.com/v/vbKO-9n5qmc.html
"So we all have the same capacity. And it's more or less understood why. The capacity developed very recently in evolutionary time and probably in some window
between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago. Something like that. And that's just the flick of an eye. So whatever happened never changed except
extremely marginally. So we're all fundamentally identical
for all practical purposes. Human genetic variation is very slight anyway
and superficial differences but not very profound"
Nicholas Dedless does I-Language refer to innate language? (i'm not familiar with the abbreviation). If so I don't think it's about uniqueness per individual at all...for the species, maybe! There IS the fact that each person can produce an infinite number of unique and never-befpre-spoken utterances all on his/her own...but that's not the same as saying that language itself or the capacity of language is unique for each individual.
drummerschild I see what you mean now but IMO you are misinterpreting that quote. I think what he means is that we all have the same core capability for language. Identical in the sense that we haven't evolved (using evolve here in the strict Darwinian sense) in the last 100K years and that is when the language faculty first appeared.
So in that sense yes we are all "identical", a point he often makes is you could take a child from some tribe in the Amazon and place her in Boston and she would grow up speaking English no differently from any other child and vice versa if you took a baby from Boston and raised it in an Amazon tribe.
In the same sense that we all have "identical" genetic capabilities for running but within the population there will still be vast differences in how fast each person can run and in the same sense there will be vast differences in their intelligence and ability to use language. That conclusion is IMO clearly implied by his position that the Language Faculty is to a significant degree something genetic. If it is genetic then there will be differences within the population as to how capable they will be just as there are differences in other traits that are significantly determined by genetics such as height, strength, etc.
drummerschild We are doing "dueling Chomsky's" ;-) I'm going to leave a quote below that I think is relevant here (sorry this is from a book that was hard to find and not online to my knowledge) he is talking about IQ and genetics here but I think you could substitute "language ability" for IQ:
“A correlation between race and IQ (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of a category… It is, incidentally, surprising to me that so many commentators should find it disturbing that IQ might be heritable, perhaps largely so. Would it also be disturbing to discover that relative height or musical talent or rank in running… is in part genetically determined? Why should one have preconceptions one way or another about these questions and how do the answers to them… relate either to serious scientific issues… or to social practice in a decent society?”
Noam Chomsky Psychology and Ideology pp 362-363.
The point from above is that even if IQ or things were shown to be on average different for different races (not that there is strong evidence it is but the point is even IF it were true) there would still be no reason to base policy decisions on those different averages in a just and democratic society. But clearly things like IQ are partly determined by genetics and there will be differences between individuals and I think he would say the same for the Language Faculty.
For some reason, after listening to Chomsky for years, I get the impression that he fantasizes subconsciously about conducting invasive experiments to study the language faculty
youcreatea great comment
I might agree, except that Chomsky also believes that Language acquisition belongs more to the field of Psychology and less to Linguistics owing to that language is both a learned behaviour AND aquired before birth. The latter a hypothesis developed [1957] before the technology was able to determine that fact. It has been proven that in utero, we are exposed to human languages and it has also been proven that a fetus in the 2nd trimester can id the mothers voice.
Most of Chomsky's detractors have failed to prove him wrong partly because either the science/technology has not caught up. This lecture is largely a diachronic view on the evolution of language.
youcreatea
Maybe you just watched too many mad scientist movies.
youcreatea Totally seen that too.
Haha I’m sure he does for the sake of learning, but know it contradicts with his views on ethics so I think we’re safe. For now.
Yknow what's great about chomsky is that if you listen carefully - and you might need to listen over and over - but if you listen carefully, he makes all these ideas intelligible and accessible. You don't need specialized training to grasp Chomskyan linguistics. You won't be a technical expert but you can understand all the concepts. He makes me want to study philosophy. I wish I knew a really good philosophy professor who could tell me what texts to start with. I think he is also being clear like this to speak to the technical community. He is making sure they don't misunderstand what is attributed to him and also imploring them to stop talking in jargon. I picked up on this when he critiqued French post-modern literary analysis. He basically said they were being deliberately obscure out of fear that nobody would take them seriously if they were simply direct and concise.
Beautiful post. Personally I think Thomas Paine is as good a place as any to start your philosophical journey but I'm not a professor.
Thank you for speaking Noam.
this man is effortlessly brilliant
Effortlessly brilliant describes him the best
@@arabidaif1734 He's putting a lot of effort into everything he does though.
We love you Noam
I love Noam
The concept of universal grammar not only leads to an innovative understanding of linguistics , ideas , philosophy , history and science , but also to an understanding of human nature, value of existence, and the distinction between humans and other living things.
It's just too bad that it doesn't work. :-)
Words like numbers, have a true logical connection with reality. Just as Important words were imported from older languages because they carried valuable meanings. Ships carry valuable good from port to port, a port is an opening to see beyond a wall in front if us. So our relation-ship with words and language acts as a gauge of our capacity to understand the greater truth underpinning reality.
Lange from Latin means tongue a gauge measures the level of how in touch one is.
A ship is a vessel, so is a human being, it's no accident that we can be respect-ful, grate-ful, care-ful, reality is reflecting truth through words which like flowers spring up to express truth. When we do express truth it goes directly to the right place, not getting side tracked or stopping off or going around in circles,. Just as the word ird express is used to describe a direct path, it also reflects a spiritual reality to life, those who are willing to con-template this are able to find the right model to live by.
There are many incredible word connections like this.
A sponsor by sponsimg reality asks for a response from Their Creation by using the abilities given them. All throughout life we are being called to answer what life demands from us. Just being alive requires we question why? The answer is our re-sponse-ability, how willing we are to see truth at uts source.
A myth is an unknown way of reasoning why something is.
Methods follows logical steps that get us to the correct result, without the right ingredients in place, trying to work out why life is as it is, will remain nothing more than a mythical belief what most religions are.
The truth is re-ligion, from its Latin roots means to reconnect, not leave a void between ourselves and Our Creator, where the term avoid truth derives.
Emotion or inspiration reflect the same concept, just twi ways of saying the same thing, just as matter and what matters are driven by thought. Every human made object started as a thought that mattered. Nothing made was made unless it first mattered to its maker. The Universe didn't just happen by accident, everything that exists, exists because everything within reality matters to its Creator. The word Re-ality reflects this.
semantics and neural programming by emulation (training ; shared experience of pairing of word with sets of percepts ; gestation)
There is a fundamental flaw with all the talks, ideas, theories, "explanation", conversations about language, what is it, how did it come about, etc etc etc!!!
Is the most used paragraph type, of a combination of words, in any language, just before getting, doing, constructing, writing about, talks, ideas, theories, "explanation" and conversations about language.
I will let it be so also, just as it has been so far, pointing in the process to the flaw through it.
This flaw got developed first and foremost out of fear. The fear off, that what could end up as very understandable knowledge, and why most of it "was not coming out of the western world"!!!
And second, by a continuous failure to understand first, and then have the courage to embrace second, all the knowledge already in existence "in the western world"!!!
Which is in being exactly the same as all knowledge coming from any part of the world.
The precise period I am referring to, is before and after the built up, the uttering, the speaking, the explaining, the writing, the telling and the publishing of the sentence!!!
(I think, therefore I am.)
This specific sentence is the tell tell sign for what is language. It is also a copy right infringement. A copy right infringement of knowledge, language and being. An attempt to do so, as it cannot be done, anyone cannot copyright being.
The sentence is an intentional reverse of the actual sentence.
From!!! (I am, therefore I think.) To (I think, therefore I am.)
The intentionally reverse is undertaken for the very specific reason that I pointed out as being, a copyright infringement.
Because, backed up with enough illusions, it would be easier to claim thinking rather than being!!!
But as it can be seen on the very sentence itself, neither being or thinking can be claimed and as a consequence copyrighted by anyone.
The sentence is also something else, something that makes possible the existence of the many many languages that have been and currently are.
Known as a module, a closed system, a game with set rules, an artificial intelligence, basically a specified geometric shape.
Which makes the point alluded to, very true. That off, what everyone recognises as any possible language, is not the actual original, or the whole system, where any possible language can originate from.
Any possible language, module, human being system, originates in being as a human being.
More specifically focus!!!
The focusing in and the focusing out, known also as zoom.
What is known as language makes use of all the abilities, conscious or unconscios, (known or unknown) to focus in and focus out, in a infinite ways of combinations, and each focus in and focus out (in turn, or simultaneously), becomes or can become at will a module, a system, a game with set rules, an artificial intelligence, a specified geometric shape, (an additional new or old focus in and focus out, (( within or separate)) as a module, as system, as game with set rules, as an artificial intelligence, or as geometric shape ), that in turn as it currently stands for most people is manifested by a chosen module, system, game with set rules, artificial intelligence, and a specified geometric shape.
Which in this instant case, together with me, my writing, the lecture, the lecturer, the actual audience there and then, all in being through different periods and locations, is known and made use as the English language.
This is but a mundane construct type, that can come about from being, and focusing in or focusing out.
Another one ( a mundane construct) is taking what I have just described, as a module, system, game with set rules, artificial intelligence and a geometric shape, (in the example of English language), and develop a module, system, game with set rules, artificial intelligence, and geometric shape!!!
In order to explain ancient Egyptian (for example), as a language and writing, which has its own module, system, game with set rules, artificial intelligence, and specified geometric shape.
This, what I am referring to as (mundane construct) is a buy product of the sentence (I think therefore I am.)
Which sooner or later is made irrelevant by the very sentence in reverse, that of the original order of words.
(I am, therefore I think.)
But as the purpose is, a copyright infringement, then it makes no difference, as long as anyone can get to use and make maximum profit from whatever module, system, game with set rules, artificial intelligence, and specified geometric shape, anyone can come up with.
All systems, (abilities) that makes human beings, human in being fallow on such a method!!!
That of being while being able to focus in and focus out in all sorts of known and unknown infinite possible combinations.
Numbers from zero to nine demonstrate this in the most magnificent way. Each, all together, and an infinite possible combinations off, is a module or a possible combination of a module, a system, a game with set rules, an artificial intelligence, and a specified geometric shape in being, through focus in and focus out.
Giving anyone a (mundane construct) known as mathematics, that back's up another (mundane construct), a module, a system, a game with set rules, an artificial intelligence, a specified geometric shape, known as science.
Through being a separate and part of that (mundane construct) itself as a module, a system, a game with set rules, an artificial intelligence and a specified geometric shape.
Thank you
Wonderful
Thanks, I will definitely check that one out. Still, I think attacking Chomsky for his style in both his politics and academic presentations leaves us at risk of avoiding to address some of his claims which, I think, have some substance.
The one example with the jump from finite to infinite generative potential illustrates this.
Also, the theories within the generative syntax that you list towards the end of your article are incomparably superior to any attempts at explaining complex syntactic
I learned much.
Wow. Wow. Wow. I want Noam Chomsy's brain. Even at the age of 84, so powerful.
(contd) about some of the results.
Again, I am sure you agree that once you reject a theory you are obliged to come up with one that has more explanatory power than the theory you rejected.
If Postal's theory does so in its rejection of Minimalism I will be the first to embrace it.
Thank you, I appreciate your time very much
(contd) debate is that the transition from a system that can generate a limited number of expressions to the one that can generate an infinite array of expressions has to be saltationist.
Finally, to the best of my knowledge there is no theory in linguistics that has even remotely similar explanatory power when it comes to the data in syntax of natural languages as the theories developed within the Minimalist program.
I think Chomsky deserves some credit after all.
Thanks for all the references to Postal I will research his views further. What I am saying is that the Minimalist Program has actually come up with a serious approach to syntax and numerous researchers are working within that framework. It is a shame, I have to admit, that I have not been informed about a rival framework being developed under Postal's assumptions, and I will definitely research into it. However, I doubt that it was even nearly as prolific otherwise I would probably have heard
Language is:
Sound with meaning (Aristotle)
Meaning with sound (Galileo)
Audible Thinking (Whitney)
A communication tool (20th C dogma)
Language per se doesn't evolve, it changes.
The language capacity is likely to have evolved, but has been frozen for 50-80,000 years
Language may not have existed until "the great leap forward" 100,000 years ago
Language is a computational system, therefore it's the expression of thought
Communication is a use of language but not it's critical nature
Two hours of Chomsky OWNING language itself using language itself.
What's dance for? Boundary dissolution, trance-induction. Humans have a need for these experiences; we naturally seek them out throughout life. Without them, we become stiff and unadaptive; overly narrow-minded and fearful. They serve a nutritious function.
I know he's speaking from a certain context, but sometimes Noam is too heady for his own good
Chomsky's statement that any exploration to find the genesis of dance would require a Central Modularity approach seems quite open minded and rational. Not a 'certain context' but a necessary requisite. Conversely, your 'heady' comments about boundary dissolution, trance induction, becoming stiff and unadaptive while being overly narrow minded and fearful implies you are probably playing too much golf. You need to boogie more often.....and stop relying on your 3 wood so
much.
+mcshair21 cool speculation, that's about it though
Also dance, from solo, 2 (close & slow) to hip hop etc, and group (like folk set dancing)... communicates 'CARE' as human gregarious animals with subtleties of space-time , implied social engineering towards an Enjoyable Activity ... (even in war: Hakka ... skirting or preparing to overcome a problem with the best group attitude to move up ⬆️ a level towards successful outcome in tune with our individual, unique allostasis of the moment!
An opportunity for non-academics like myself to discover how what one takes for granted in language has been catalogued and sorted by so called linguists into properties that describe how language works. Some may have gone through their life with little thought of that kind of work skill having been developed, and books having been written about it. So that can be a useful discovery for further self-study.
One exciting skill to try to learn from such a realisation is to with more precise wording be able to convey understanding of the essentials of a story in less words.
If told using as precise words as possible for conveying a feeling or sentiment it can in shorter than otherwise material invoke in the listener something closer to the intended backdrop that the storyteller is after conveying.
A lack of detail there often requires the listener to having had experiences in the matter, and even then may picture a different scene/mood than the storyteller intended to convey.
But reflecting on what I try to say, using the most precise words may render the material unrecognizable to one listener/reader while another one get the intended picture. While if expressed in a more elaborate way could makes both of them grasp the content in a way that the author intended.
(contd) phenomena in other approaches.
My idea is that when reading papers and listening to presentations we should strive to use as much as possible from the work of the scientist in question rather than dismiss everything we hear based on some problems in their analyses.
On 'what is a program, what is a theory', the question would seem to me to be if one was constricted to thinking only those propositions within their formal parameters could one ever realize, or become conscious of, one's own constraints? Not can the theory think, but could a being who literally thinks only that theory ever discover there exists alternative theories? It seems to ask for a mechanism or function of internal informal analysis of formal conjectures.
"Do you ever have second thoughts?"
Thought studied as independent of "language" is called the Affective System (preverbal affective system), Again, in fact unless the four precedeing Developmeal-emotional capacities, registering, taking in the world, ability to engage in affect reciprocal dyadic engagement (visual-spatial, tactile-gestural, auditory prosodic exchanges) , more complex affect gestural exchanges opening and closing reciprocal emotional problem solving with primary caregivers, then the ability separate symbol from action (e.g., All or Nothing limbic based responses) which in turn allows for executive functioning organizing, planning and sequencing (subcortical to integrated subcortical and prefrontal cortex integration), then language proper (syntax and grammar) will not develop or at least properly. We see this particularly with children with ASD.
Your analysis is so much more comprehensive than hierarchy of conscious language USAGE... that behind the coding and decoding of communication lies a bigger Universal set (nearer to the fuller dynamics of evolution )that Chomsky's great hierarchy is only a subset. I acknowledge his humility which unfortunately his devoted followers overlook or dismiss ! The purposes of communication with or without language , however limited to us, of those suffering the inconvenience of ASD are informative !?!
Still very smart
Genius
The most important realization I have had while listening to Noam is how his linguistic theories link back to his politics. Language is evidence of thought which is evidence of freewill which is evidence of a soul, in history and society, and the idea that language is not inherent in all humans is the equivalent of saying that some humans are soulless, and therefore taking their lives has no moral bearing. The idea that language is universally inherent in humans means that every human's life is equally valuable.
He would not say there is a soul. He would say either “that’s a meaningless question” (just as he says that questions such as “Do animals have language?” is, or “Can airplanes fly?”. Search for other talks, including those containing “limits of understanding” and you may understand why I assert this. He has also stated that he’s an atheist, and that humans are biologically/genetically “designed” with some kind of morality that involves “the golden rule”, a rational application of such leads to a belief that we should not harm others nor place ourselves in positions of superior power over anyone (except in narrow legitimizing circumstances).
@@jreyn2 so we are all hard wired Marxists?
Wow. That whole bit about abandoning notions of an intelligible world and necessarily settling for intelligible theories of the world. Chomsky is the first person I've ever heard bring it up - even though it's apparently been around for a minute. The distinction is so subtle that it seems very easy to blur the lines, which maybe we've done (especially in the cognitive sciences).
It seems like every scientific institution should have that thought hanging prominently on the walls, as an admonition against getting carried away.
An incredible mind (how is he not insane?). Makes a lot of the current internet 'heroes' - who will remain nameless (IDW) - look like children spreading rumors on the playground.
i love this guy.. love him .. but never understood what he is saying .. he is too smart for me
very good
This is educational
In regards to linguistics and word etymology. Kemetiu bey is the man.
Truth is we write our sentences in accordance with the rules but what's the alternative. We think we are comprehending it linearly because the rules say it's written linearly. This is clearly not the necessity. Our brains can pick out the most interesting objects in a room or notice if something is differently. Likewise we probably do the same thing with a sentence. Words like..the..if..and..can...are just the walls, floors and furniture in the room.
I wonder if there is a way to modify our written language so that we could convey either different inflections or give specific qualifications like if something is being used literally that word would be highlighted in a faint blue or something else so more meaning can be communicated than can be done with just written text or by using italics, caps, punctuation etc...
maybe but it would take the fun out of being human - imagine if we all communicated perfectly what a boring works it might be!
Or tone used, especially to detect lies or amount of truth ? So even animals use it all the time (dawn chorus)?
Chomsky says language use, as in communication, stimulates the biological capacity for speech at critical stages. This seems to suggest communication, even if one way, is essential to language development, which contradicts his idea that language can be exclusively internal.
It does not. Let,s say that communication as a function (not the charactristic use) of language is a way of transmiting knwoledge among biological systems. That is how we are developing our thoughts by listening to Chomskey. Just by communication. But it doesn't mean without listening to this talks or anyother we wouldn't be able to think. We started thinking then decided on listening to his words.
@@vahidsaadattalab8372 Developmentally speaking. Like the covering of a kitten's eyes example he often gives, without the stimulus at a key biological developmental stage, the cat remains blind no matter what. I'm suggesting social communication is the same, perhaps not as clear cut, as light in this comparison.
I suppose trying separate what is biologically inherent and what is socially induced isn't easy.
thanks
Chomsky throws tons of shade. Backs up sweeping claims with, "There's lots of evidence for that" without describing the evidence or the connection between the evidence and the claims. Good stuff.
If he backed up every claim during one lecture, it would be at least 6 hours long, do you not see how thorough he is throughout the video?
Interesting guy.
hmm, its very interesting i often think about whether conscious thinking would be possible without ability to communicate, well.. who knows? it would surely be uncommunicable :)
TH-cam provided, and automated Subtitle is VERY »BAD to translate.
Due to many factors like: Pronunciation, mumbling, fast-talk, Audio/Sound etc. »»» a SOLID, manually added SUBTITLE / TRANSCRIPTION would even give this great Video more depth. That way, MORE international viewers would/could join in - since they would/could translate to their native mother-tongue »the CORRECT way. ---- Subsequence (later) modifications (adjustments) can still be made, right!? --- Any chance of doing so?
🙏🏻, it’s hardly to explain about me.
If’s I can advise on, I love reading 📖 , learning especially what’s I concentrated on. Everything’s I wrote is the information from the reality. If’s it’s the paper for the Un , it’s took time to get from learning.
When I wrote, it’s the innermost thing that connects from the information I get.
It’s the physical process of the situations and it’s the waves of information flow from my concentration on focus.
I wrote that process from self respect and leaving myself out. For mount of mediation wayward, if’s you don’t leave yourself, it’s the manipulation, not judging by the evidence .
When I wrote I cut around my life , wrote with thought 💭 and sense , feel like it’s flowing from the Brian to the pen.
If’s there’s no learning whatsoever you cannot do anything differently since you stayed at home.
How’s the democratic sense mount of suffering and bloody, that’s I wrote with tears at the same time!
I don’t feel good about the war’s and worry about the people from my children year’s. I just wonder why’d trying hardest to do the right thing for your mercy support the Un community, but I could not with fangs from the government hacking! I feel not secure but I would work for my life🙏🏻.
Nothing complicated please🙏🏻.
There are mechanical operations that go on in the body without conscious thought. They keep me alive even though I'm not conscious of them. The only reason I wake up in the morning is that these processes have gone on without me knowing about them. I think it is preposterous to think we are a in control of these processes. When we sleep we are a slave to the body's whims. I wake up only because my body has repaired itself during my slumber. The human body is a machine. Anyway my human body requests sleep so here I will slumber
"language is an instrument of thought informally...communication is a use of language and is secondary..." the main use is to write comments on youtube, right?
@An Deo uhhh. no. what about anything he said is talmudic or deceptive?
I would like to know if Chomsky considers animal alerting other animals when faced with a dangerous animal, so the sound made by one is understood by all the others. These warning sounds can be for different types of dangers, one sound for a tiger, while another sound for a python. In fact in a jungle different types of sound were recorded. Does these communication amount to a language?
The two disciplines have nothing to do with each other. He says himself that he'd be perfectly happy doing science. But Chomsky feels a sort of moral urge to pursue his activities in the political arena by giving talks etc. He is legendary in the latter only relatively, meaning because the rest of us are so behind him. Chomsky calls his contributions in political matters nothing more than common sense. "Just read it." He says.
I'm not denying what you say, but both fields are not of equal value.
politics has nothing to do with language or linguistics ? are you for real?
The transportation problem. Easy answer there would be a copy of the original on the second part.
My sacrifice 🙏🏼 for your understanding of my writing. It’s from considering understanding and flows from my focus on what’s I thought 💭 in logical plain reasons from learnings it’s in relation to causes and why’s, what’s. It’s how’s I feel and sensed sending. I couldn’t find any more to explain, please.
So where does Quine write that mental must be accessible to introspection? It sounds like Brentano's luminosity thesis.
Perhaps the computation of sentences is wrong because it assumes that things which are linear are more simple, linear to me implies a two-dimensional state perhaps the mind and language structure is three-dimensional?
1:41
that’s why in Albanian kau pronounced cow , means bull , because if you read the signs , you’ll see that the white man mixing with brown woman , gave her horns (potency) , at least this is what the sing tries to say , maybe this sign made them mix in the first place , thinking it’s prophetic , anyways , this is why by the construction of languages , the cow was named such
He challenges the notion that language evolved as other organs have and I'm afraid he has the weight of evidence on his side. There is little to show that a language today is any more efficient or refined than it was say 10,000 years ago. It developed about a hundred thousand years ago but how and why are open questions. Evolutionary biologists thought they had easy answers via natural selection of communication refinement but have run into a wall by failing to explain why languages, as opposed to highly developed communication systems of other animals, emerged and even why complex mental introspection would be any better for survival.
Wow , 👍👍👍👍
I say, only nothing is unconscious. All living / thinking entities are conscious memory both physical and meta-phisical.
He is brilliant and beyond reproach when it comes to his political discourse but a brilliantly inexorable retrograde when it comes to Language. It is not just computational efficiency. Communication and Language faculty are not delineated in the demarcated manner he has done for nearly 55 yrs. The former is not just a function of the latter. He demonstrates little to no understading of the four critical preceding developmental affect levels (Jaak Panksepp, Allan Schore, et al) required for expressive syntax to become functionally operational.
Οι τόνοι στα ελληνικά είναι σημαντικοι για την ακουστική μιας πρότασης.In English you have tones You.say System the tone is at Sy .if you change the place.you put the tone how is coming in computer the Greek language. if you put tones in different place. Πιστευω είναι θέμα ηχητικής αρμονίας.. Είμαι εντελώς.ασχετος με τα θέματα αυτά.
1:30:14
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Image_of_the_City
how many people were there? just curious.
❤
please text these for later reference
Companero Chomsky is a lovely wise man. I wish he was my Grandpa! ;-> I am sure his Grandchildren adore him... and probably him nuts sometimes.
I added it to my Cosmic_Consciousness Playlist on @TH-cam
Chomsky is so cute
My paper is not about Chomsky's unpleasant persona but about lack of substance in 'Science of Language" Others have argued his linguistics has been flawed for a long time [Postal 2012, lingbuzz/001686]. Look at Postal's linguistic work. If you can show me one example where Chomsky offers a better account of the complex syntactic phenomenon I gladly accept it. I agree that one should not dismiss everything by an author based on one problem, but fear it is Chomsky who needs to learn that
❤️❤️❤️
Lo que pasa es que entre dos hispanos hablamos muy diferente a uno hispano y el otro no nosotras traemos la chispa la coquetería. Limpia. Pero ofenciba
one of the brightest and more far-seeing guys in the world yet he does not understand that the Central Bank Dynasty CBD is the reason for our world crushing national debt situations
He may have many merits but nobody could be called "father of modern linguistics" without starting to study the Real Science of Linguistics which start with Petro Zheji work:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_Zheji
...those who are interested to learn the truth... which N. Chomsky advice... should start learning Albanian history and language!
Nobody could be named "Father of Linguistics, when he does not know the 'Mother of Languages'" :)
I'm puzzled.
heh. I just realized that organ in organism translates to - a collection of organs = organism
A cool side note: in Finnish, we have an ending "sto" that means collection. Library is a collection of books kirjasto and a park is a collection of trees puisto.
Yes, but are you aware Chomsky isn't actually disputing that? The real issue is that the typical ways in which they approached the notion of thinking in the first place restricted them to the point where it made the question "can machines think" completely infertile. To the point that, indeed, they overlooked the simple truth that there would actually just have to be a complete theory of thinking (whichever real mental phenomenon that would precisely denote) for a thinking machine to be made.