Possible refutation of Chomsky's doubt regarding expanding our cognitive capacities: he gives the example that we study the heart not to "replace the heart by another kind of pump, which, say, might be more efficient." I think that with advances in bioengineering that this idea is not just fiction! If the analogy is potentially refutable, maybe we can expand our minds... call me idealistic. :-)
@fiddlercrab3 I think we can expand our long term & short term memory, working memory, attention, etc. Even expanding the number of attention (i.e. two bodies doing two things but one person). But there is nothing that can be rationally understood that our brains cannot understand (given time and possibly numbers). That indirectly was shown by the Church-Turing thesis. The human mind is at least as powerful as a Turing machine. Therefore it can know anything that can be computed.
Maybe this is a reflection of how far we have moved on but I just don't find Chomsky's central ideas in linguistics controversial. In fact they strike me as trivially true - of course we are biologically pre-programmed to learn language. How could it be otherwise??? In fact, I find it more obvious/trivially true than his propaganda model (PM) of the media in democracies. PM requires more subtle distinctions and knowledge of a lot of relevant facts not to end up with a vulgar version.
I find Chomsky 's humility about science impressive. when he says that we have no idea how language evolved he shows how unscientific the moderator is in his assumptions. this is true as well when he says that creativity and free choice remain as mysterious as they were in antiquity.
I am often unhappy with the word, "Given," when it is used in place of the phrase, "established fact," or the word, "obvious." I find it doubly irritating when it is used by educated men.
I think that the changing of the mental organs, or integration of technology within them, is a real possibility given the advances - and continued advance - of technology and biology.
To me it is stunning to witness Chomsky as a communicator. I don't know that any other philosopher makes such far reaching conclusions intelligible to the uninformed. It also speaks to his ideas themselves, which always seem to get at the essence of the subject and to strive for the most meaningful implication. I have no contact with linguistics and little philosophical background yet I'm engrossed by the discussion.
Chomsky's theory makes a lot of sense, but there is one comment he says here that I don't agree with: that there is no evolutionary advantage to great mathematical brain capability.
On the contrary - Human beings are able to intuitively calculate the trajectory of a stone to hit a running animal in real time. That's a very high level computational problem to do - and a clear advantage for an individual to be able to bring food home for his children.
Chomsky's theory makes a lot of sense, but there is one comment he says here that I don't agree with: that there is no evolutionary advantage to great mathematical brain capability.
On the contrary - Human beings are able to intuitively calculate the trajectory of a stone to hit a running animal in real time. That's a very high level computational problem to do - and a clear advantage for an individual to be able to bring food home for his children.
@auval1 I think you have the right idea, but what Chomsky is talking about "our capacity to deal with abstract properties of the number system." In other words, there is no evolutionary advantage to being able to solve actual numerical computations. For example, the capacity to understand the intracacies of Calculus explains the physical principles of the stone's trajectory in your example, but it is useless in a real life scenario: hitting the target to bring home the food.
@auval1 I would argue that your example is better described as coordination/estimation rather than a computation or calculation as you say. Do you crunch any numbers before you throw a baseball to someone? Btw I'm not trying to be condescending in any way...somehow everything seems to come across that way over the internet.
@sgrosso89 No worries, I'm taking it as a nice intellectual pondering.
Indeed, there is no number crunching in stone trajectory calculation. But nevertheless, number crunching in my opinion is a mere "technology" Humans invented to model and extend on the abstract and intuitive ability we have to understand complex physical phenomena.
@sgrosso89 (cont) coordination/estimation is a manifest of the intuitive mathematical/physical ability I'm talking a bout.
I believe that there can't be any complex ability Humans have, without a firm evolutionary advantage to force it to evolve. If Chomsky doesn't know what it is doesn't prove there isn't one. It can be a "side effect" of another evolutionary force, as Chomsky says, but it seem to me to be too great to be accounted to a side effect only.
@auval1 Alright I think I see the where we disagree :) You claim that math is a natural extension of the evolutionary pressures of surviving in this world. I think Chomsky is arguing that math is competely removed from this process and I would have to agree with him. You have to remember that evolution only selects for traits that increase the species' chances of survival. Math is not in any way "essential" for survival and therefore, the uniquely human capacity to invent mathematical models
@auval1 (cont) to explain physics could not have been a product of evolution. For example, a shark is a remarkably better predator than humans ever will be. Its hard to imagine how this animal is able to process the amount of information it recieves from its sensory organs. By your definition, sharks should be better at math than humans which I dont think is the case (at least not to our knowledge :)
@sgrosso89 Just to clarify my point - I didn't say that Math is a natural extension of the evolutionary pressure. I said that the *Ability* to develop abstract concepts such as Math - IS.
Throwing rocks is by far more complex than Shark's best strategy. Humanoid Monkeys are the only species (apart from Humans) with a limited capability of it.
I highly recommend the excellent book "the blind watchmaker" by the biologist Richard Dawkins, that proves that evolutionary "jumps" are impossible.
Maybe it enforces what he said; an organism that has evolved to intuitively do math could eventually learn how to do it consciously. But conscious ability to do math probably wasn't what was being naturally selected
@MrSalamander7 I love how you say "I haven't quantified it at all". The other side almost never qualifies anything, but we feel bad if we speak in platitudes. Think about how you'd feel if you had to give a Sarah Palin stump speech from 2008. That's why our side often loses. We trip over our own feet making concessions and qualifying everything. It's a case of "A is true, it's just true" vs "Well, I understand what you're saying, but just consider the fact that..." sorry we're out of time.
@TheLockon00 If I'm a fag, I implore you to suck on my knob. Sorry, though, I guess you're pretty fed up. I saw you had a tonne of comments about that right after I commented. I was trying to be funny with the rigid thing, ya know, cause, supposedly, as Chomsky says, we are rigidly programmed to learn a language. Whatever. Peace, and no ill will.
@Cuda11 Gird your loins and carry on with the confidence that any insights of real value are there for the taking. Chomsky is not necessary for you to live a coherent life. According to him - we are hard wired for the acquisition of our cognitive needs.
I disagree that Chomsky is some kind of "clown" with respect to politics, or anything else. Chomksy and other great thinkers have one thing in common, which has been miserably lacking in people throughout history: they perform the basic human function of thinking, and crucially of inquiring into the nature of things for themselves. I think it is important to rid yourselves of the idolatry or hatred for people like Chomsky, and begin to use your capacity in the best way you are able.
Yea this is what always amazes me. I really get pleased with myself when I read Chomsky his philosophical work and seem to be able to understand what he's talking about. Then you yourself get into a discussion with some friends and you can simply not make the point. Chomsky is a master at making his point, very analytical and clear way of talking.
At 7:11 - I totally disagree. We study the heart why? To change and improve ourselves and ultimately our environment. Biology evolves according to environment, not according to scientific advancement, however, by improving knowledge, it should lead to changes to environmental, which over time should lead to adaptation of our faculties. I suppose it is not a very direct correlation, however
Chomsky is essentially correct, we dont study biology in an attempt to 'improve' biological systems (beyond pathology, as he states). Though this has changed somewhat, with the advent of genetic manipulation. However, you will notice that most genetic research focuses on pathology, not 'improvements' per se.
I am not saying we seek to change our biology directly, but to counter as Noam suggests - that we do not study the heart to improve ourselves. Because long term, changes we make to ecology, those small accomplishments we once saw as 'improvements' or 'advancements', leads our biological system to adapt to the resulting ecology. So we are studying our heart in order to change our quality of life, duration of life, thus we are studying our heart to improve the human condition, just not directly.
Hmm... Chomsky assumes that since human spoken language has been around for let's say 100,000 years, that it is "functional. Or as he say's that it's not "dysfunctional" in terms of our evolution. However, what if the future of human language in another 100,000 years proves to be that the human language was only a mirage for a time and the eventuality of our undoing, let's say that war is the logical extension of language, and, say the ultimate war causes humanity to cease.
Or we could say that human classes, through language, are means by which we forcibly segregate and oppress, and this biologically regress us into lesser human species.
Well, I comprehend it rather differently...I think that what Chomsky is saying, is that the capacity, the ability to communicate is inalterable, latent if you want, which I tend to agree with. How the internalized is externalized, put into words, spoken, written, drawn or expressed by gestures, is a different thing.
I get the intent of what you're trying to say. However, let's consider what you did say, and not what you meant to say - is "non-better" anything but the opposite of "better", aren't both subjective? There are only conditions, and while they may be things we personally do or do not favor, evolution is about adapting biological systems. Beings meet conditions, and conditions meet beings at some (purely conceptual) ecological state.
This is one time I disagree with Chomsky greatly. Evolution of understanding numbers was required through the growth of bartering, and later counting money. Without understanding money, or how to count it, you would likely die.
Since this is an old video, he may have later changed his stance on that.
Yeah, relatively speaking. I thought the consensus was that in the last few tens of thousands of years there hasn't been much genetic change in the human body (including the brain). Just in culture.
As far as natural selection ('survival of the fastest/strongest') is concerned, I believe you would be correct. This can be directly attributed to farming and medicine- greatly reducing necessity of adaptation. Instead of adapting, we have succeeded in making our environment conform to us.
Concerning evolution of the brain, and sexual physicalities- I would argue that humans have evolved a considerable amount.
sepero1... what hes saying is that with out the understanding of numbers someone wouldn't even think about money, money would be unconceivable. so ... ur wrong! lol j/k
I think you need to be a bit more thoughtful about what you say. Monkeys don't understand number, neither do fish or ants but they survive well. He said that it was not an influence on natural selection and he is certainly correct.
Religious contemplation? What does that have to do with anything and anyway how is it any different from contemplating the content of your stomach?
Chomsky isn't suggesting some kind of creationism here. He's saying certain uniform unselected mental traits probably came about as a side effect of certain other selected traits.
On a side note, Chomsky is at most an agnostic. His answer to the question "Do you believe in God?" is "I don't understand the question."
Also, the creative faculties (art, music, etc...)the sense of awe? - religious contemplation? It would seem to be difficult to explain these away as a result of any theory of adaptation and natural selection.
I would say that everything, every trait and quality we have, even religion and artistic creativity, is results of natural selection. We've not come here (nor any of our traits) in any other way than natural selection. What NC points out, and I agree with him, is that some of these traits are bi-products of other evolvements (e.i. brain size). I would say it's rather plausible that that's the case with religion.
Are you saying that since religion is a product of evolutionary development, that it points to an objective transcendental reality, and the cognitive faculties evolved to comport with that reality? -
or - that the religious modality of thinking and being is just some type of mechanism that helps the species deal with the harsh metaphysical and existential dimensions of that reality?
If the latter, can you explain how millions of years of natural selection has brought the most highly evolved creature (man) to a state where he simply cannot deal with the horrors of his environment? Isn't that a contradiction in the way that "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" is supposed to operate?
Of course I mean #2. This is what I believe. I believe that due to bigger brains (which was a product of "physical" evolition), we just happened to acquire language. And with language came abstract thinking and fantasy. And at the same time questions started to rise: where did we come from? What happens after death, and so on. And I think all this molded itself together: big questions, fantasy, abstract thinking, consciousness, inabilty to accept "I don't know" as an answer. Hence religion.
About your "part 3". Man can't deal with the horrors of his environment? I can. A lot of people can, they're called atheists or agnostics ;-). I sincerely think we are quite well adapted to deal with the metaphysical, but a lot of us are indoctrinated t believe that we "need" God, can't be without religion. IT WORKS FINE.
And an other thing, I heard the other day that our bodies are still adapted to walk the savannas' - evolution takes time, and we are not perfect.
O.K. - but I think you need to become a better atheist then - and not to set up science as your religion. How then, do you, for one, keep existential dread from consuming you?
might "existential dread" be related to natural phenomena? like depression, alienation, loneliness, etc? There are ways around the dread, but i agree a religion is a great widget against it.
If you consider this seriously, and acquaint yourself intimately with the philosophical tradition from Kirkrgsard thru Heidegger - you will realize that a radical nihilism, with its attendant psychic turmoil is the only authentic option - despite the way that even those thinkers lived.
The entire scientific enterprise falls apart without the attachment to a unifying concept, whether you call it G-d or Science. But a god, you will have...and what about that sticky problem called "Ethics"...
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Maybe when you talk of 'the scientific enterprise' you actually mean naturalism, which is a philosophical thesis distinct from science.
Possible refutation of Chomsky's doubt regarding expanding our cognitive capacities: he gives the example that we study the heart not to "replace the heart by another kind of pump, which, say, might be more efficient." I think that with advances in bioengineering that this idea is not just fiction! If the analogy is potentially refutable, maybe we can expand our minds... call me idealistic. :-)
fiddlercrab3 5 months ago
@fiddlercrab3 I think we can expand our long term & short term memory, working memory, attention, etc. Even expanding the number of attention (i.e. two bodies doing two things but one person). But there is nothing that can be rationally understood that our brains cannot understand (given time and possibly numbers). That indirectly was shown by the Church-Turing thesis. The human mind is at least as powerful as a Turing machine. Therefore it can know anything that can be computed.
seekortry 2 months ago
Maybe this is a reflection of how far we have moved on but I just don't find Chomsky's central ideas in linguistics controversial. In fact they strike me as trivially true - of course we are biologically pre-programmed to learn language. How could it be otherwise??? In fact, I find it more obvious/trivially true than his propaganda model (PM) of the media in democracies. PM requires more subtle distinctions and knowledge of a lot of relevant facts not to end up with a vulgar version.
stephenblackman2003a 6 months ago
I find Chomsky 's humility about science impressive. when he says that we have no idea how language evolved he shows how unscientific the moderator is in his assumptions. this is true as well when he says that creativity and free choice remain as mysterious as they were in antiquity.
elephantinpajamas 7 months ago
I am often unhappy with the word, "Given," when it is used in place of the phrase, "established fact," or the word, "obvious." I find it doubly irritating when it is used by educated men.
RobertHartlepool 9 months ago
I think that the changing of the mental organs, or integration of technology within them, is a real possibility given the advances - and continued advance - of technology and biology.
adampegler90 1 year ago
To me it is stunning to witness Chomsky as a communicator. I don't know that any other philosopher makes such far reaching conclusions intelligible to the uninformed. It also speaks to his ideas themselves, which always seem to get at the essence of the subject and to strive for the most meaningful implication. I have no contact with linguistics and little philosophical background yet I'm engrossed by the discussion.
EazyGeazee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chomsky's theory makes a lot of sense, but there is one comment he says here that I don't agree with: that there is no evolutionary advantage to great mathematical brain capability.
On the contrary - Human beings are able to intuitively calculate the trajectory of a stone to hit a running animal in real time. That's a very high level computational problem to do - and a clear advantage for an individual to be able to bring food home for his children.
auval1 1 year ago
Chomsky's theory makes a lot of sense, but there is one comment he says here that I don't agree with: that there is no evolutionary advantage to great mathematical brain capability.
On the contrary - Human beings are able to intuitively calculate the trajectory of a stone to hit a running animal in real time. That's a very high level computational problem to do - and a clear advantage for an individual to be able to bring food home for his children.
auval1 1 year ago
@auval1 I think you have the right idea, but what Chomsky is talking about "our capacity to deal with abstract properties of the number system." In other words, there is no evolutionary advantage to being able to solve actual numerical computations. For example, the capacity to understand the intracacies of Calculus explains the physical principles of the stone's trajectory in your example, but it is useless in a real life scenario: hitting the target to bring home the food.
sgrosso89 1 year ago
@auval1 I would argue that your example is better described as coordination/estimation rather than a computation or calculation as you say. Do you crunch any numbers before you throw a baseball to someone? Btw I'm not trying to be condescending in any way...somehow everything seems to come across that way over the internet.
sgrosso89 1 year ago
@sgrosso89 No worries, I'm taking it as a nice intellectual pondering.
Indeed, there is no number crunching in stone trajectory calculation. But nevertheless, number crunching in my opinion is a mere "technology" Humans invented to model and extend on the abstract and intuitive ability we have to understand complex physical phenomena.
auval1 1 year ago
@sgrosso89 (cont) coordination/estimation is a manifest of the intuitive mathematical/physical ability I'm talking a bout.
I believe that there can't be any complex ability Humans have, without a firm evolutionary advantage to force it to evolve. If Chomsky doesn't know what it is doesn't prove there isn't one. It can be a "side effect" of another evolutionary force, as Chomsky says, but it seem to me to be too great to be accounted to a side effect only.
auval1 1 year ago
@auval1 Alright I think I see the where we disagree :) You claim that math is a natural extension of the evolutionary pressures of surviving in this world. I think Chomsky is arguing that math is competely removed from this process and I would have to agree with him. You have to remember that evolution only selects for traits that increase the species' chances of survival. Math is not in any way "essential" for survival and therefore, the uniquely human capacity to invent mathematical models
sgrosso89 1 year ago
@auval1 (cont) to explain physics could not have been a product of evolution. For example, a shark is a remarkably better predator than humans ever will be. Its hard to imagine how this animal is able to process the amount of information it recieves from its sensory organs. By your definition, sharks should be better at math than humans which I dont think is the case (at least not to our knowledge :)
sgrosso89 1 year ago
@sgrosso89 Just to clarify my point - I didn't say that Math is a natural extension of the evolutionary pressure. I said that the *Ability* to develop abstract concepts such as Math - IS.
Throwing rocks is by far more complex than Shark's best strategy. Humanoid Monkeys are the only species (apart from Humans) with a limited capability of it.
I highly recommend the excellent book "the blind watchmaker" by the biologist Richard Dawkins, that proves that evolutionary "jumps" are impossible.
auval1 1 year ago
@auval1
Maybe it enforces what he said; an organism that has evolved to intuitively do math could eventually learn how to do it consciously. But conscious ability to do math probably wasn't what was being naturally selected
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 1 year ago
Is the interviewer the man who Stephen Fry takes the mick out of in the Fry and Laurie English Language sketch? He's really like him, lol.
RachelJadeSots 1 year ago
I wish there where more video footage of the younger Chomsky. The way he talks is amazing.
BoofheadsUp 1 year ago
@MrSalamander7 I love how you say "I haven't quantified it at all". The other side almost never qualifies anything, but we feel bad if we speak in platitudes. Think about how you'd feel if you had to give a Sarah Palin stump speech from 2008. That's why our side often loses. We trip over our own feet making concessions and qualifying everything. It's a case of "A is true, it's just true" vs "Well, I understand what you're saying, but just consider the fact that..." sorry we're out of time.
weedipikia 1 year ago
my brain exploded within the last 25 seconds
willonz 1 year ago
why does everyone listen to him? He rambles and rambles and never says anything profound.
emetds 1 year ago
Finally they found a guy who can/should interview Chomsky.
saqib09 1 year ago 4
The most intersting interview I've ever seen. A brilliant mind at play.
Dalychomsky 2 years ago 29
It's amazing that Chomsky is older than Magee. I wouldn't have guessed by looking at them.
Bolenderable 2 years ago 8
he speaks about linguistic as he does with politics....
juanpolar 2 years ago
when Chomsky dies I will loose contact with the real world and that scares me.
Cuda11 2 years ago 54
@Cuda11 whem Chomsky dies perhaps you will know how the word "lose" is spelled and that scares me even more
ColdCypher 1 year ago
@Cuda11 then reconstruct your mind in order to reach the real world without him
redryan20000 11 months ago
@Cuda11 your mean lose contact, not loose contact. That would not make sense. Sorry, but I'm "rigid" about language.
jerryhello100 11 months ago
@jerryhello100 Maybe you should capitalize the "y" at the beginning of your sentence then, fag.
TheLockon00 11 months ago
@TheLockon00 If I'm a fag, I implore you to suck on my knob. Sorry, though, I guess you're pretty fed up. I saw you had a tonne of comments about that right after I commented. I was trying to be funny with the rigid thing, ya know, cause, supposedly, as Chomsky says, we are rigidly programmed to learn a language. Whatever. Peace, and no ill will.
jerryhello100 11 months ago
@Cuda11 Gird your loins and carry on with the confidence that any insights of real value are there for the taking. Chomsky is not necessary for you to live a coherent life. According to him - we are hard wired for the acquisition of our cognitive needs.
lourak 8 months ago
@Cuda11
your not alone.
khoroshoorange 3 months ago
I disagree that Chomsky is some kind of "clown" with respect to politics, or anything else. Chomksy and other great thinkers have one thing in common, which has been miserably lacking in people throughout history: they perform the basic human function of thinking, and crucially of inquiring into the nature of things for themselves. I think it is important to rid yourselves of the idolatry or hatred for people like Chomsky, and begin to use your capacity in the best way you are able.
liravz 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky is certainly a genius when it comes to linguistics, but he's a complete fucking clown when it comes to discussing politics and the economy.
Mickmars90 2 years ago
Yea this is what always amazes me. I really get pleased with myself when I read Chomsky his philosophical work and seem to be able to understand what he's talking about. Then you yourself get into a discussion with some friends and you can simply not make the point. Chomsky is a master at making his point, very analytical and clear way of talking.
Cosbibi 2 years ago 10
Very good interviewer!
Cosbibi 3 years ago 5
probally the best ive seen
Camerano616 2 years ago 4
Great post-I remember this from my communications class in university
tapper36 3 years ago 2
"Biology evolves according to environment, not according to scientific advancement"...
I would like to reply, but I would like you to expand on it a bit further. That would be appreciated... :)
Pistolero24 3 years ago
At 7:11 - I totally disagree. We study the heart why? To change and improve ourselves and ultimately our environment. Biology evolves according to environment, not according to scientific advancement, however, by improving knowledge, it should lead to changes to environmental, which over time should lead to adaptation of our faculties. I suppose it is not a very direct correlation, however
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
Chomsky is essentially correct, we dont study biology in an attempt to 'improve' biological systems (beyond pathology, as he states). Though this has changed somewhat, with the advent of genetic manipulation. However, you will notice that most genetic research focuses on pathology, not 'improvements' per se.
knightpremier 3 years ago
I am not saying we seek to change our biology directly, but to counter as Noam suggests - that we do not study the heart to improve ourselves. Because long term, changes we make to ecology, those small accomplishments we once saw as 'improvements' or 'advancements', leads our biological system to adapt to the resulting ecology. So we are studying our heart in order to change our quality of life, duration of life, thus we are studying our heart to improve the human condition, just not directly.
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
Hmm... Chomsky assumes that since human spoken language has been around for let's say 100,000 years, that it is "functional. Or as he say's that it's not "dysfunctional" in terms of our evolution. However, what if the future of human language in another 100,000 years proves to be that the human language was only a mirage for a time and the eventuality of our undoing, let's say that war is the logical extension of language, and, say the ultimate war causes humanity to cease.
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
Or we could say that human classes, through language, are means by which we forcibly segregate and oppress, and this biologically regress us into lesser human species.
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
Well, I comprehend it rather differently...I think that what Chomsky is saying, is that the capacity, the ability to communicate is inalterable, latent if you want, which I tend to agree with. How the internalized is externalized, put into words, spoken, written, drawn or expressed by gestures, is a different thing.
Pistolero24 3 years ago
Goooooooooooooood Stuff.
72seeker72 3 years ago
Evolution does NOT stop.
Proof as of now ( February and March 2008)
A short time ago it still looked as Chomsky saw it back then.
I will look up his website to see if he reacts.
9valkyrie 4 years ago
Evolution doesn't stop but it also doesn't mean we keep getting better either.
ElwynMaximus 4 years ago
Since when has evolution meant we get "better". That is obviously some human ego-centric bias.
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
Where did I say we get better. Read,damn you. Read.
ElwynMaximus 3 years ago
I get the intent of what you're trying to say. However, let's consider what you did say, and not what you meant to say - is "non-better" anything but the opposite of "better", aren't both subjective? There are only conditions, and while they may be things we personally do or do not favor, evolution is about adapting biological systems. Beings meet conditions, and conditions meet beings at some (purely conceptual) ecological state.
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
Let's consider what I said, rather than what you think I said: Evolution doesn't mean we get better.
ElwynMaximus 3 years ago
Ah, I see what you said. My bad
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
After listening to Chomsky you actually feel intelligent! An extraordinary man. I hope he lives at least as long as Bertrand Russell
myroseaccount 4 years ago 6
You feel more intelligent? If you can follow Chomsky, you are already quite intelligent.
atlien991 4 years ago 2
This is one time I disagree with Chomsky greatly. Evolution of understanding numbers was required through the growth of bartering, and later counting money. Without understanding money, or how to count it, you would likely die.
Since this is an old video, he may have later changed his stance on that.
Sepero1 4 years ago
Well, keep in mind that there hasn't been much evolution since the advent of money.
studentambrose 4 years ago
There hasn't been much evolution in the last 5-10 thousand years?
sics. se/~psm/payments/sld013. htm
Sepero1 4 years ago
Yeah, relatively speaking. I thought the consensus was that in the last few tens of thousands of years there hasn't been much genetic change in the human body (including the brain). Just in culture.
studentambrose 4 years ago
As far as natural selection ('survival of the fastest/strongest') is concerned, I believe you would be correct. This can be directly attributed to farming and medicine- greatly reducing necessity of adaptation. Instead of adapting, we have succeeded in making our environment conform to us.
Concerning evolution of the brain, and sexual physicalities- I would argue that humans have evolved a considerable amount.
Sepero1 4 years ago
sepero1... what hes saying is that with out the understanding of numbers someone wouldn't even think about money, money would be unconceivable. so ... ur wrong! lol j/k
samuelmaradiaga 3 years ago
I think you need to be a bit more thoughtful about what you say. Monkeys don't understand number, neither do fish or ants but they survive well. He said that it was not an influence on natural selection and he is certainly correct.
gringott 3 years ago
Religious contemplation? What does that have to do with anything and anyway how is it any different from contemplating the content of your stomach?
Chomsky isn't suggesting some kind of creationism here. He's saying certain uniform unselected mental traits probably came about as a side effect of certain other selected traits.
On a side note, Chomsky is at most an agnostic. His answer to the question "Do you believe in God?" is "I don't understand the question."
zuzu84i 4 years ago
Also, the creative faculties (art, music, etc...)the sense of awe? - religious contemplation? It would seem to be difficult to explain these away as a result of any theory of adaptation and natural selection.
lourak 4 years ago
I would say that everything, every trait and quality we have, even religion and artistic creativity, is results of natural selection. We've not come here (nor any of our traits) in any other way than natural selection. What NC points out, and I agree with him, is that some of these traits are bi-products of other evolvements (e.i. brain size). I would say it's rather plausible that that's the case with religion.
frodolf8212 4 years ago
Part 1
Are you saying that since religion is a product of evolutionary development, that it points to an objective transcendental reality, and the cognitive faculties evolved to comport with that reality? -
lourak 4 years ago
part 2
or - that the religious modality of thinking and being is just some type of mechanism that helps the species deal with the harsh metaphysical and existential dimensions of that reality?
lourak 4 years ago
Part 3
If the latter, can you explain how millions of years of natural selection has brought the most highly evolved creature (man) to a state where he simply cannot deal with the horrors of his environment? Isn't that a contradiction in the way that "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" is supposed to operate?
lourak 4 years ago
Of course I mean #2. This is what I believe. I believe that due to bigger brains (which was a product of "physical" evolition), we just happened to acquire language. And with language came abstract thinking and fantasy. And at the same time questions started to rise: where did we come from? What happens after death, and so on. And I think all this molded itself together: big questions, fantasy, abstract thinking, consciousness, inabilty to accept "I don't know" as an answer. Hence religion.
frodolf8212 4 years ago
About your "part 3". Man can't deal with the horrors of his environment? I can. A lot of people can, they're called atheists or agnostics ;-). I sincerely think we are quite well adapted to deal with the metaphysical, but a lot of us are indoctrinated t believe that we "need" God, can't be without religion. IT WORKS FINE.
And an other thing, I heard the other day that our bodies are still adapted to walk the savannas' - evolution takes time, and we are not perfect.
frodolf8212 4 years ago
Part 1
O.K. - but I think you need to become a better atheist then - and not to set up science as your religion. How then, do you, for one, keep existential dread from consuming you?
lourak 4 years ago
might "existential dread" be related to natural phenomena? like depression, alienation, loneliness, etc? There are ways around the dread, but i agree a religion is a great widget against it.
4ourthofjuly 4 years ago
part 2
If you consider this seriously, and acquaint yourself intimately with the philosophical tradition from Kirkrgsard thru Heidegger - you will realize that a radical nihilism, with its attendant psychic turmoil is the only authentic option - despite the way that even those thinkers lived.
lourak 4 years ago
ive never been convinced readind heidegger would improve me or my life.
4ourthofjuly 4 years ago
Part 3
The entire scientific enterprise falls apart without the attachment to a unifying concept, whether you call it G-d or Science. But a god, you will have...and what about that sticky problem called "Ethics"...
lourak 4 years ago
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Maybe when you talk of 'the scientific enterprise' you actually mean naturalism, which is a philosophical thesis distinct from science.
Guaguanco11 3 years ago
Part 4
Please excuse the spelling error in part 2. Of course, it's Kirkegaard that I meant. Thanks
lourak 4 years ago
isnt it kierkegaard?
4ourthofjuly 4 years ago
we do deal with this "horror". and the term is subjective, choose something directly observable and a bit more objective.
4ourthofjuly 4 years ago