Kind of like a freestyle rap

I totally agree. His sharpness and mental clarity are astonishing.

Cower before his power Edit: power lol

Absolutely.

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

I think the same, Henny Zhi. His work has changed my view of the world.

Devolution Marxist Anarchist sociopath Numb CHUMPsky. Decades of Deconstruction Revisionist Human history. Everything he preaches soundly rejected by 2000 years of objective reality. Called Civilization

who could've guessed the same could be said 9 years later.

I've often thought that Chomsky's scientific ideas are not given nearly the attention they deserve in the common culture because his political ideas are so in conflict with the main stream view. Its impossible to overstate his influence on turning the "soft" sciences into actual science. Both Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Psychology were based on his ideas. Also, his influence on computer science is seldom appreciated. After Turing and Von Neumann I think Chomsky is one of the most influential theorists who enabled the modern computer. If you take a class on how to write a compiler (the software that is used to create most computer programming languages) the Chomsky Language Hierarchy is essential theoretical background. Also, in Natural Language Processing his early theoretical work helped explain why the naive context independent approaches to machine translation could never work.

THE EDUCATION SYSTEM LIKE MOST SYTEM WILL RESIST ANNY MEANINGFUL CHANGE , THESE ARE ALL POWER STRUCTURES ANND CENTERS JUST LIKE THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL POWERS . CHANGE CAN BE FEARFUL, AND MAY LIMIT THE POWER OF THE POWERFUL , I THINK THIS IS THE REASON WHY SOCIAL CHANGE IS SLOW OR NON ESISTENT.

One more point regarding how Chomsky conclusions are hidden. Its obvious this happens in regard to his political writing and also why it happens. In fact why they essentially ignore Chomsky's political ideas is part of what Chomsky himself explains (e.g., in Manufacturing Consent). But his scientific and philosophical ideas are also very much ignored. I was amazed recently when I audited a Linguistics class at UC Berkeley and I started talking about the Chomsky Language Hierarchy and there was nothing but blank faces (including the professor's) in the room. They simply had no idea what I was talking about. Now I realize that Chomsky's formal analysis of language is not all of Linguistics... in fact I was just watching a talk from Chomsky where he's highly critical of certain aspects of the formal approach... which I thought was interesting because he can be so formal. Sorry... I digressed... my point is it just amazed me that people in a graduate level Linguistics class would not even know what the Chomsky language hierarchy was. And I've found this in many other areas, especially philosophy. In several philosophy classes I've audited at Berkeley... come to think of it in EVERY philosophy class I've audited at Berkeley people talk about materialism as if Chomsky's critique didn't exist. Its not that they deny it they just ignore it and most of them probably haven't even heard or at least understood it. I think part of that is his unpopular political views also make him generally unpopular, even in Academia. But also, that he's just as much outside the mainstream of philosophical thought as his is on political thought, and since his argument are so rigorous its easier to just ignore him and continue with their same BS.

Can anyone explain what's Chomsky's contribution to computer science ? I'm not familiar with his science work, just politics

He basically DISCOVERED that ALL Language both Human Language LIKE English, Hebrew, and Computer languages ARE. RELATED AND have a Internal ORDER. THE Programming Language FORTRAN developed BY IBM John Backus Used Chomsky work on Formal Grammar , Which. Described a Symbolic RELATIONSHIP between ALL Programming Language THAT A Computer Can UNDERSTAND

***** agreed.... Mighty good find.

Kyle Berge ...again :) floats to the front pages of r/phil and other subs fairly often since 2012.

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

+M. Gilley You can also check out the interview with him called 'the singularity is science fiction' with a transhumanist advocate or the article called 'where artificial intelligence went wrong' - putting those loopy would-be-transhumans in their place

I know this is like 6 years old but I've only found this video recently. I actually love Chomsky and his teachings and philosophy and I also believe in much of what transhumanism postulates. I don't where the idea that transhumanists dislike Chomsky though, can you elaborate?

@@Reaver717 I'm assuming it's got to do with Chomsky's position on the limitations of human cognition, and the inability to alter or augment it without first understanding what creates and defines it. Furthermore, the apparent reality that such understanding may lie outside our cognitive abilities; which he implied when talking about how neurosciences are making the same conclusions that philosophers did centuries ago: that human cognition is some emergent property of the brain with no mechanistic connection to the brain itself.

He doesn't have the same simple concepts to present like Hans Rosling, even though his presentation is straight forward, the attention requirements are comparatively steep.

Ron Kent Yes, ... "some" being the keyword.

Dubravko Kakarigi I disagree... I think it is mostly because he in a place where most people appear to speak another language as their first language... The mere fact that he uses such complicated words to express his ideas is why people are probably lost.

Kyle Berge I agree with your statement. I fault Chomsky for not adjusting his presentation to take this fact into account.

Dubravko Kakarigi That's how the Chomsk-master rolls! He's a data drone filled with encyclopedic knowledge second only to Yahweh.

+Carlos Paz Despierta Science needs different proofs. But yeah, we need more interaction, in both ways.

+Carlos Paz Despierta The philosophy was even more commonplace before Christianity, I like Chuang Tzu myself but the "hard question" is the "cornerstone" of basically world mystical thought

+Carlos Paz Despierta If only. It seems like, at least with how scientists are home grown today in institutions of higher education if not due to personality, those who think scientifically as a profession are just much more likely *not* to think philosophically -- more broadly and deeper into the assumptions that we take for granted about things. That is, although science is analytical, it's very unanalytical when it comes to science itself, for example, or other big questions. There even seems to be a sort of pride in thinking scientifically rather than philosophically -- which is really funny, you know, because science has all sorts of complicated philosophical presuppositions built into it, meaning the scientist who scoffs philosophy is sawing off the branch he's sitting on. Maybe this is why Einstein said the man of science is a poor philosopher.

hmmm good point, I have noticed this as well, never mind the fact that science grew out of natural philosophy and people like Aristotle. I think it might be a bias related to atheism, as many of them like to think that demonstrating causality somehow disproves all spirituality. Now I can see that there is a bit of justifiable defensiveness due to the atrocities of Christianity and all that bull, but the idea that there is an order to nature and this is the best means of studying the "divine" or whatever you want to call it was the basis on which scientific rationalism was justified. For example, if you think as Greeks did that nature is sacred, then science and the study of nature is Pagan theology and from this we get alchemy and eventually science. Chomsky's idea of a universal grammar isnt even original, it comes out of Christian occultism which sought to find the "Adamic language," that is the language spoken before the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel. While there was no such language and the tower is a myth, the search for this was actually how linguistics was founded

+Carlos Paz Despierta Excellent observation todays scientists are often naïve about philosophical concepts but go on to make philosophical statements. For example, Carl Sagan defined the Universe as "All there ever was or ever will be", but astrophysicists say that the Universe all started with the Big Bang with no proof that there weren't other Big Bangs. Anything that didn't begin with our Big Bang must be another Universe. How can their be another everything? What's most annoying is that theoretical astrophysicists are calling themselves cosmologists, which is a branch of metaphysics, without ever having studied the subject. The role of science is to measure natural phenomena. To speculate on unmeasured or unmeasurable phenomena using reason is the realm of Philosophy. When scientists venture into this area they must work with philosophers.

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

Eugene ics seems like it's being done in the yoga pants but people act and learn word's and I still need myself to understand how to put them together to be understood some people are influenced out of their programming from parent's kids don't find anything in common with them coming from different cultures but think we're the same it's like we get what we can but didn't get everything we wanted compared to U.S. well we got tossed into the threat of change looking back my teacher throws me into desks once she lost her cool for what reason I didn't get a warning busted my head open my mom didn't press charges she didn't know that she didn't attack the teacher but someone must've angered her cause it was after lunch. I noticed the change in staff the less activity the assignment on the board so we had to show annitiative not sure if I spelled that right but yeah my interest in studying change not that I was reading big books it was angry kid's to fight we had the gangs become popular it was attitude the leadership was favorable to theirs I went to visit family in Mexico 6th grade they were smarter the culture is social always greeting people talking everyone is walking around to the market or plaza I missed it but it was poor some lived relatives lived on ranch dirt floors outhouse but they had a horse they rented out the acres for growing food but they were poor or cheapskate cause they had a truck didn't like going far. The ones in the city was more modern plumbing nice places not huge tho another in a colonia it's like a walled off area but everyone built there home cinder block homes the had areas for kids to play soccer but that's about it.

chomsky (or any scientific mind) wouldn't be too impressed with you presuming that you've 'heard of everything'

@@ashton1860 yes you are right, i meant everything i could find on the internet from chomsky also heard is different from fully remembering or partially or fully understood, but thats a different discussion

You get addicted to it, the concise nature of his logic and rationality, and also constantly awed by his ability to dish out information.

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

@@sweetbrown3476 Not bad thanks - kinda cold - and how is the weather condition over there?

@@sweetbrown3476 🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕

Agreed. This is a fantastic explanation of a profound thesis.

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

Lol

I love this comment so much XD

That’s a tough choice. Knowledge god is such a great song tho!

+francoisduvalcork YEEESSS

+francoisduvalcork Thank you. It's actually easier to comprehend this way

+francoisduvalcork life saver

YOU SIR, BLESS

Set to 1.5... Works even better

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

Interesting point

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there..?

True

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

@@sweetbrown3476 Interesting response to an 8 year old comment. I am doing ok and it is cold but not snowy. Normal weather for this time of year. How are you?

@@BennyOcean It's my pleasure coming in contact with you here, please contact me on my email so we can get to know each other more better. I have something very interesting i will love to share with you. Also we can get to know each other more better. Name: Sweet Brown Email: sweetestbrown27@gmail.com

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

I'll have to watch. I'm a big Noam Chomsky fan.

wow deep stuff

What would you have asked ....

Carolyn Ellis ah well some of the early questions were good - one can't make out the clueless types in an audience - even if they are all science nobel prize winners of fellows of the royal society or whatever ... philosophical maturity is unfortanately not so common...

Carolyn Ellis Yes, I also thought some of those questions were bad, but that only made me appreciate even more Chomsky's patience and his exquisite intellectual attitude. He was never condescending or patronizing in his response, but gave intelligent answers that took those (probably stupid) questions seriously.

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

+Jeremy Reagan Fun sidenote: Carl Sagan was a frequent weed smoker. He was high during writing, production and filming non stop. ... millions and millions of cannabis molecules... ;-)

i also find it interesting that in his debates about language, he doesn't necessarily say that Locke is WRONG but rather his theories doesn't account for all the information, and you kinda need to accept both Locke and Descartes, rather than choosing one or the other. to me this is has a lasting effect as to what it means to me to be a REAL scientist. You can't just stick to one theory that confirms your biases and reject all theories that contradicting theories. you have to have a lot of experiments and data that prove your theory, but also actively pursue experiments that disprove your hypothesis/theory to see if there are flaws to your ideas. you have to look at data from multiple sources and synthesize the data into something that retains consistency, and then have peers evaluate your work to see if their attempts at repeating your experiment and their data collection yield results consistent to your own. In short, science is a lot of hard work and has no place for those who seek instant gratification. In the case of language theory, you could be an empiricist or you could be a rationalist; say you are taking the empiricist view, you owe it to your argument to also look into the rationalist arguments. What is interesting is that though Skinner took the empiricist stance with a massive hard on for Locke, Chomsky didn't say "fuck that, Descarte all the way," but rather Chomsky said that the answer is an amalgamation of the two--not one or the other.

Hello how are you doing today and how is the weather condition over there?

@@sweetbrown3476 cold...wet...

@@TJ_USA It's my pleasure coming in contact with you here, please contact me on my email so we can get to know each other more better. I have something very interesting i will love to share with you. Also we can get to know each other more better. Name: Brown Email: sweetestbrown27@gmail.com

Kyle Donahue infact it shows the meaninglessness of answers

Hm, didn't think of it that way.

I think that is the point.