Reason Special interview with Noam Chomsky

[NorvelMGMT]

Alan Watt makes this man look like an apprentice.

[TheBigEase]

@NorvelMGMT I just looked him up. I want those minutes of my life back.

[mojorhythm]

I love Noam's political discourse, but DAMN he needs to give more science lectures!

[nearenough3]

What most scientists miss in explaining consciousness and evolution (and plans to make a robot) is hunger, thirst, sex, fear of injury or death and other vital necessary needs. A biological entity must eat and drink so any thoughts, desires, direction must be based on that. Avoidance of death is essential. After that the niceties.

[avidalocan]

I can tell you that human, insects, other animals are not in a hierarchical relationship to each other. We're on an equal level, and we can communicate together. There is a meeting ground. I have heard the language of insects, and one day you yourself may be born one. You can learn from their words, which are like the greatest choir.

[stumac1984]

J.B.S Haldane 

[WastedTourist]

There aren't enough videos of Chomsky discussing Science

[deathcabforjack]

I think we learnt alot about ourselves when we study animals.

[johnnondrowsyd]

who is the guy he mentions in the middle,who he said showed it's almost impossible to show how mutations spread? it sounded like "hall lane" or something, anyone catch that name?

[joshhough00]

JBS Haldane.

[CNTloyalist]

thanks

[beekayaye]

Nazis did it where did all that information go?

[paganiniGOGO]

you are grossly simplifying the subject matter.

He says the capacity for language is innate. Just the same, everybody agrees the capacity for aggression is innate.

He didn't claim the latter statement to be false anywhere in this interview.

What he said was claims are made without justifaction and scientists should enlighten the public in regard to the veracity of those claims.

[fileboy2002]

I think the point here is that someone who would assert that language is part of a distinctly human nature would have firm ground to stand on; although other animals communication, only humans do so through language. By contrast, aggression is present in nearly all animals. It is not distinctly human.

[nailycai]

What is your definition of aggression?

[mr1001nights]

Of course Chomsky believes that aggression is part of our nature, but what he was referring to is the notion that said aggression is not enhanced by the environment

[Brainman94]

I have a hypothesis to the mystery Chomsky poses - about the neural basis of insect behaviour.

Its not actually my idea but Ive gleaned it from others in other areas - but Ive just extended it.

Behaviour is emergent - in other words - EVERY behaviour can exist - but we just see the one that prevails and therefore think it is special for existing - but many other possibilties could exist too.

[vktrsx]

Just ask yourself what is the evolutionary benefit of aggression. Presumably it serves a purpose. But we are not constantly aggressive; in fact under desirable conditions our aggression melts away. So it doesn't appear to be innate in the sense of being always on, because it isn't always necessary. It is a survival tool that's available to us and rears its ugly head when needed. So the path to eliminating aggression seems clear. Whether we can succeed is another matter.

[LimpLoser]

chomsky is my father

[CaptainKhrenov]

nah, you're too ugly ...

[paganiniGOGO]

I wouldn't expect the son of the world's greatest living intellectual to call himself Jesus and claim to surf the web for child pornography.

[StoneWallD]

interesting noam, thanks.

[timcoles]

All right. I forgive you. Lots of talks by Ilan Pappe, Salim Tamari, Ghada Karmi, Hedy Epstein, and others, if you click on my profile name and follow the link.

[timcoles]

Very nice. Now qualify your argument with an example.

[grraadd]

Disgusting... Next time ask Fidel Castro about his views on the problem. Future of nations depends on their youth education... Obviously you are shooting in your foot now.

[timcoles]

Chomsky's at the top for human welfare, but when it comes to nonhuman welfare, his opinions are extremely limited.

[7tCinema]

Don't need to tear the brain apart to understand it because it needs to be functioning to be understood, I'd say.

[calorus]

Science's most common basis for experimentation is to try to change something and quantify the change's effects.

If not for the experimentation and analysis of the dead animals, from ants to humans, we would have been completely naïve to the residence of the brain or the functioning of an animal's inner working.

And of course, until the advent of practical Computed Tomography in the 1970s, there was no way to look inside a brain without tearing it apart.

[7tCinema]

Very eloquently stated ! The good dr. would be proud. Your final phrase expresses exactly the point I meant to convey ;)

[joebloggsgogglebox]

It appears his morality is blurring his objectivity.

There are numerous demonstrations of the effects of natural selection, and of 'beneficial' mutations spreading in a population. However we only really know what mutations are 'beneficial' in hindsight.

I do agree with his statement about our limited knowledge of human thought however. In fact I would go further, how much can we know? A computer program cannot know its own stopping time (the halting problem).

[EnlightenedHumanist]

I doubt that Chomsky believes that there is a limit to human knowledge, his remarks are relative to today's level of understanding science has apprehended about the brain. In fact it's virtually impossible to try and prove there is a limit to human understanding; what exists now isn't "reality" so to speak, because phenomena develop continually and thus there is always more to be discovered and learned. It basically boils down to Hegel's corrections on Kant's philosophy.

[joebloggsgogglebox]

If you think of the human brain as a very sophisticated computing machine, think of what a tiny percentage of the processing power of that machine would be spent on conscious thought and reasoning in order for that machine to be effective. It must take a huge amount of processing power and incredibly complicated algorithmic processes to create the phenomenon of reasoned thought and language.

[joebloggsgogglebox]

How can that reasoned thought understand that which creates it?

Think about the computer that you are using to watch this video, does it have any kind of crude self awareness? a little perhaps, you can press ctrl-alt-delete to get a list of all the processes running, and memory usage etc. but it does not know how to program itself. It cannot know, it requires a machine with many times more computing power than it has available in order to program it (a human being).

[joebloggsgogglebox]

Since our thoughts are shaped by the entirety of our conscious experience, a level of self-awareness of this thought creation process would be akin to a spiritual encounter with 'god'.

[LetsGetGroovy]

I <3 Noam

[KentAllard]

unit 731 too

[bitRAKE]

Darwin called it "descent with modification" - more appropriate name, imho.

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

Excellent interview :D

ps

first comment