i have a hyposesis regarding the whole free will vs. determinism debacle: if we define free will as the conscious determination of our actions it doesn't seem like much of a problem. from an emergentist perspective, which is a point of view commonly adopted among some cognitive scientists, consciousness can be understood as steming from the functionality of the brain. so we have a compatibalist approach.
@fede2 Well, what explains it as something other than a series of ongoing physical reactions that bring about all our conscious experience? I currently don't know that it's certainly one option over the other, but isn't a kind of redefining that would make it compatible? From what I understand, most free-will and consciousness proponents tend to suggest the supernatural (silly). I'm not sure; perhaps quantum mechanics are at the bottom of this =] ?
@icygood101 well, i'm not a scientist or an expert but i understand emergence as the interaction between certain molecules chemicals, etc. resulting in something new and differrent -i.e. the whole is greater than it's parts. it doesn't require an appeal to the supernatural, as far as i can tell.
the way i see it, if we are conscious, we are free. it doesn't matter if consciousness is ultimately determined.
that's the way i see it, anyway. as for QM, i know nothing about it.
Wow, I didn't expect ever to say this but Noam's position on free will is just flat out wrong. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that our actions are at the very least largely determined by forces beyond our control, including genetic makeup, environmental factors and experiences both physical and intellectual. On the other hand there isn't a shred of evidence that we have, in any sense whatsoever, free will.
There isn't a shred of evidence of free will, you know, except the fact that it is the common sense notion of me, you, and basically anybody I've come into contact with. If you're going to claim that none of us, ultimately, have control over our actions, there's got to be inconclusive evidence. Chomsky is right. Hell, our understanding of simple organisms is limited, let alone our understanding about complex abstract ideas about our intelligibility of the world.
There are thousands of studies that repeatedly demonstrate the relationship between our experiences/environment/genes/circumstances and our behaviour. Conversely there is are no studies as far as I am aware that demonstrates freedom from these things in making a decision.
The human brain is a neural computer, and although it is structurally and functionally different to artificial computers, it has precisely the same white-box properties i.e. input, memory, processing, output.
Of course there is a relationship. But I don't claim to know that relationship, and there isn't a study that I'm aware of that claims to know that relationship. You don't need a study to realize you have free will, it's everyday experience. And if one claims that immediate experience is illusory, the onus on is on that person to provide inconclusive evidence.
@MaxwellGreene1 "there isn't a study that I'm aware of that claims to know that relationship"
You don't have understand the internal physics of the combustion engine to conclude quite safely that people travel in cars. A scientific theory is a body of work that looks at what conclusions all of the data point to. Causality in environment, genes etc is a testable hypothesis that has been repeatedly demonstrated. Non causality is an untestable hypothesis. It is not even worth discussing.
This video is talking about the neurophysiological basis for causality. But if you're interested in genes and their causality of human behavior, like Richard Dawkins is so fond of lecturing, I invite you to read a contemporary of Richard Dawkins and the most cited author in history--behind Darwin--on evolutionary biology, Stephen Jay Gould.
Chomsky isn't denying that our genes and environment have a role in determining our futures. I mean, he made his name by positing a universal grammar, which is purely shaped by our biology. All he's saying is that this doesn't rule out free will. It could be like 'movement', assuming free will exists for this analogy. We are free to move where we want - but this doesn't entail flying or walking through walls. We are still somewhat constrained by our biology and environment
Of course there is an interaction at a distance. Of course, when you jump up and down you are moving the earth. A little of course. Chomsky is too stupid to grasp that if there is only physical world, governed by physical laws then we have absolutely no free will. Chomsky's free will illusion must be very powerful. Fucking idiot
A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our freedom in creative harmonious cooperation for a world that is so POTENTIALLY AND ACTUALLY nourishing. Capitalism in any form, Statist or Corporatist is the denial of our common humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical armed MARKET SYSYTEM of artificial scarcity that is designed to perpetuate the enslavement of immense humanity for material interest of the criminal ruling elite
Capitalism is the historic evolution of private property relationship of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity in a modality of commodity production for abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration . A system of wage slavery in an employment system of suppression and dehumanistion. We need to transcend this false limits to our creative cooperative energies for a moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity . Capitalism is evil
Capitalism, the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated MARKET SYSTEM of artificial scarcity to perpetuate wage-slavery/exploitation in the interest of the owning/ruling class. We need to get this tyrannical,destructive system of domination of CAPITAL over LIFE abolished for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being in harmony and enlightenment.
Chomsky is usually given credit for having a fantastic intellect based solely on his habit of pointing out some historical facts, therefore it might be a bit inappropriate to get all emotional in a comment on a video of a talk containing real philosophical analysis. Still, here goes: It's kind of touching to hear a man regarded as deeply cynical by many to express genuine outrage in a really passionate way!
I don't understand your comment at all. That he is regarded by many as cynical is a fact no more disputable than the fact that the sun rises in the east. If you had read what I wrote you would know I'm not one of them, but rather I'm praising him.
I agree he can speak very well.. and he has this history of knowledge wich is almost about anything...when it comes to war and political history.
I think sometimes passion can bring out the wrong in one...
But to learn and express yourselves as this person.. is a gift.. and doing it with passion as wilesnille says.. its really a gift. I cant do that. I aint even that well articulated hehe.. good thing we have people with clean hearts to do it for us like Mr Noam Chomsky
@willesnille Have you read Chomsky's works? He is not considered an intellect because of the facts he points out, he also happened to revolutionise the field of linguistics, and as an observer of global issues his thoughts have been continually verified.
If you honestly think he's considered an intellectual due to his "pointing out of some historical facts", I have to conclude that you have not read a great deal of his work.
he's talking about the force of gravity. for example, the earth and moon are separated by 250,000 miles of empty space, yet each exerts a force on the other.
it seems completely incompatible with our intuitive notions of how the world works. we may be able to describe what's happening, ala newton or einstein, but we really don't have a clue as to what's actually going on.
aha. interesting. come to think of it, i read this text by stephen hawking in which he hypothezises about imaginary math to explain the origin of the universe. it's true, we asume that our grasp of reality is 100% accurate because that's what our minds have been telling us. we may be biased by our very nature! i'm just really blown away right now, lol.
although it does take a little bit to get going , i must thank the posters for this fantastic, intelligent interview with Mr Chomsky. I listened to the first part and now this second part. It's too bad there aren't more views.
2 minutes and 7 seconds before they stop talking about what they're going to about and actually let Noam speak. Why would that intro need to be longer than 10 seconds? Ugh.
@t0kt0k thanks for the heads up!...seems like all kinds of radio hosts are afflicted with the need to talk about what they're going to be talking about and how the ramifications of that are felt in different ways and keep rambling to no end then cut off the speaker to go to commercials...AAgh
re: Chomsky on Libet's experiment - Is Chomsky saying that there could be such a thing as "unconscious free-will"?
Diderooot 22 hours ago
Does anybody know the name of the piece by Russell, which Chomsky references? I'd like to give it a read.
JustMereArt 3 months ago
i have a hyposesis regarding the whole free will vs. determinism debacle: if we define free will as the conscious determination of our actions it doesn't seem like much of a problem. from an emergentist perspective, which is a point of view commonly adopted among some cognitive scientists, consciousness can be understood as steming from the functionality of the brain. so we have a compatibalist approach.
fede2 5 months ago in playlist Chomsky on Humanism
@fede2 Well, what explains it as something other than a series of ongoing physical reactions that bring about all our conscious experience? I currently don't know that it's certainly one option over the other, but isn't a kind of redefining that would make it compatible? From what I understand, most free-will and consciousness proponents tend to suggest the supernatural (silly). I'm not sure; perhaps quantum mechanics are at the bottom of this =] ?
icygood101 4 months ago
@icygood101 well, i'm not a scientist or an expert but i understand emergence as the interaction between certain molecules chemicals, etc. resulting in something new and differrent -i.e. the whole is greater than it's parts. it doesn't require an appeal to the supernatural, as far as i can tell.
the way i see it, if we are conscious, we are free. it doesn't matter if consciousness is ultimately determined.
that's the way i see it, anyway. as for QM, i know nothing about it.
fede2 4 months ago
Chomsky is my Jesus. +
maguiSally26 6 months ago
Wow, I didn't expect ever to say this but Noam's position on free will is just flat out wrong. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that our actions are at the very least largely determined by forces beyond our control, including genetic makeup, environmental factors and experiences both physical and intellectual. On the other hand there isn't a shred of evidence that we have, in any sense whatsoever, free will.
TheGodlessGuitarist 8 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
There isn't a shred of evidence of free will, you know, except the fact that it is the common sense notion of me, you, and basically anybody I've come into contact with. If you're going to claim that none of us, ultimately, have control over our actions, there's got to be inconclusive evidence. Chomsky is right. Hell, our understanding of simple organisms is limited, let alone our understanding about complex abstract ideas about our intelligibility of the world.
MaxwellGreene1 6 months ago
@MaxwellGreene1
There are thousands of studies that repeatedly demonstrate the relationship between our experiences/environment/genes/circumstances and our behaviour. Conversely there is are no studies as far as I am aware that demonstrates freedom from these things in making a decision.
The human brain is a neural computer, and although it is structurally and functionally different to artificial computers, it has precisely the same white-box properties i.e. input, memory, processing, output.
TheGodlessGuitarist 6 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
Of course there is a relationship. But I don't claim to know that relationship, and there isn't a study that I'm aware of that claims to know that relationship. You don't need a study to realize you have free will, it's everyday experience. And if one claims that immediate experience is illusory, the onus on is on that person to provide inconclusive evidence.
MaxwellGreene1 6 months ago
@MaxwellGreene1 "there isn't a study that I'm aware of that claims to know that relationship"
You don't have understand the internal physics of the combustion engine to conclude quite safely that people travel in cars. A scientific theory is a body of work that looks at what conclusions all of the data point to. Causality in environment, genes etc is a testable hypothesis that has been repeatedly demonstrated. Non causality is an untestable hypothesis. It is not even worth discussing.
TheGodlessGuitarist 6 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
This video is talking about the neurophysiological basis for causality. But if you're interested in genes and their causality of human behavior, like Richard Dawkins is so fond of lecturing, I invite you to read a contemporary of Richard Dawkins and the most cited author in history--behind Darwin--on evolutionary biology, Stephen Jay Gould.
MaxwellGreene1 6 months ago
@MaxwellGreene1 I have read many such authors and scientists including Gould, Dawkins, Steve Jones, Charles Darwin, PZ Myers and bits of others.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the assumptions Chomsky is working with. I will watch again.
TheGodlessGuitarist 6 months ago
@MaxwellGreene1
watch?v=5cSgVgrC
TheGodlessGuitarist 6 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
Yo, it was a dead link.
MaxwellGreene1 6 months ago
@MaxwellGreene1
Sorry about that. Try this one: watch?v=jrCZYDm5D8M
Dan Dennett on Free Will and Determinism.
TheGodlessGuitarist 5 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
Chomsky isn't denying that our genes and environment have a role in determining our futures. I mean, he made his name by positing a universal grammar, which is purely shaped by our biology. All he's saying is that this doesn't rule out free will. It could be like 'movement', assuming free will exists for this analogy. We are free to move where we want - but this doesn't entail flying or walking through walls. We are still somewhat constrained by our biology and environment
JustMereArt 3 months ago
Of course there is an interaction at a distance. Of course, when you jump up and down you are moving the earth. A little of course. Chomsky is too stupid to grasp that if there is only physical world, governed by physical laws then we have absolutely no free will. Chomsky's free will illusion must be very powerful. Fucking idiot
johammbass 10 months ago
Capitalism works precisely because we are animals
johammbass 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our freedom in creative harmonious cooperation for a world that is so POTENTIALLY AND ACTUALLY nourishing. Capitalism in any form, Statist or Corporatist is the denial of our common humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical armed MARKET SYSYTEM of artificial scarcity that is designed to perpetuate the enslavement of immense humanity for material interest of the criminal ruling elite
arzoyan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism is the historic evolution of private property relationship of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity in a modality of commodity production for abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration . A system of wage slavery in an employment system of suppression and dehumanistion. We need to transcend this false limits to our creative cooperative energies for a moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity . Capitalism is evil
arzoyan 1 year ago
Capitalism, the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated MARKET SYSTEM of artificial scarcity to perpetuate wage-slavery/exploitation in the interest of the owning/ruling class. We need to get this tyrannical,destructive system of domination of CAPITAL over LIFE abolished for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being in harmony and enlightenment.
arzoyan 1 year ago 2
More scientists should be like Dawkins and Chomsky and start using their brains to kick ass in the political and social arena.
WastedTourist 1 year ago 3
i have a powerful feeling the people of the world will overcome and chomsky will be hailed as a hero of all mankind.
thedelta88 2 years ago
Chomsky is usually given credit for having a fantastic intellect based solely on his habit of pointing out some historical facts, therefore it might be a bit inappropriate to get all emotional in a comment on a video of a talk containing real philosophical analysis. Still, here goes: It's kind of touching to hear a man regarded as deeply cynical by many to express genuine outrage in a really passionate way!
willesnille 2 years ago 3
he is not regarded as deeply cynical, by you maybe. few people have brought more hope to the world than chomsky.
Ullbritt 2 years ago 3
I don't understand your comment at all. That he is regarded by many as cynical is a fact no more disputable than the fact that the sun rises in the east. If you had read what I wrote you would know I'm not one of them, but rather I'm praising him.
willesnille 2 years ago
@willesnille
I agree he can speak very well.. and he has this history of knowledge wich is almost about anything...when it comes to war and political history.
I think sometimes passion can bring out the wrong in one...
But to learn and express yourselves as this person.. is a gift.. and doing it with passion as wilesnille says.. its really a gift. I cant do that. I aint even that well articulated hehe.. good thing we have people with clean hearts to do it for us like Mr Noam Chomsky
Democracyplz 2 years ago
@willesnille Have you read Chomsky's works? He is not considered an intellect because of the facts he points out, he also happened to revolutionise the field of linguistics, and as an observer of global issues his thoughts have been continually verified.
If you honestly think he's considered an intellectual due to his "pointing out of some historical facts", I have to conclude that you have not read a great deal of his work.
BlindPacemaker 1 year ago 2
"when i move my hand i'm moving the moon" what?????
fede2 2 years ago
he's talking about the force of gravity. for example, the earth and moon are separated by 250,000 miles of empty space, yet each exerts a force on the other.
it seems completely incompatible with our intuitive notions of how the world works. we may be able to describe what's happening, ala newton or einstein, but we really don't have a clue as to what's actually going on.
EmptySuit23 2 years ago
aha. interesting. come to think of it, i read this text by stephen hawking in which he hypothezises about imaginary math to explain the origin of the universe. it's true, we asume that our grasp of reality is 100% accurate because that's what our minds have been telling us. we may be biased by our very nature! i'm just really blown away right now, lol.
fede2 2 years ago 8
although it does take a little bit to get going , i must thank the posters for this fantastic, intelligent interview with Mr Chomsky. I listened to the first part and now this second part. It's too bad there aren't more views.
Solarcoreg 3 years ago 2
2 minutes and 7 seconds before they stop talking about what they're going to about and actually let Noam speak. Why would that intro need to be longer than 10 seconds? Ugh.
t0kt0k 3 years ago 18
Agreed. Given the low number of views, the only people watching this are probably already familiar with Chomsky, so all of that was very unnecessary.
PuppiesandSunshine 3 years ago 4
@t0kt0k Thanks. I skipped the intro and went directly to the 2 min and 7 seconds.
annuitcoeptis2008 1 year ago 2
@t0kt0k thanks for the heads up!...seems like all kinds of radio hosts are afflicted with the need to talk about what they're going to be talking about and how the ramifications of that are felt in different ways and keep rambling to no end then cut off the speaker to go to commercials...AAgh
600percentjesus 1 year ago