Saying we can't understand something is saying we know all the things we could understand . Saying we can understand something is saying we know all the things we can't understand . Saying there is possibility of knowing something is saying we know all impossible things of our understanding .
Saying we can't understand something assumes you know all the things we can understand. I disagree , it only assumes what it asserts : that we can't understand some things . It means assuming knowing all the things we can understand regarding specific topic , not all things in reality . To make example , i can say we will never bulid buildings that float in sky , it only assumes knowing that in engeneering we will never have such knowledge , it doesn't assume babies will or will not be born , nuclear war can't happen etc .But let's go for topic argument and say it is what that ment . I would put tht argument on it's head and say : it is lack of humility to say we will understand everything , because it assumes we have no lack of understanding of reality .Saying we can know something also assumes you know all the things we could understand . Saying there is possibility of knowing something also assumes we know all the things we could understand because we assume we have knowledge on all possibilities . Whatever person argues it is with same outcome : 1) saying p thus x where p is ( knowing all things we can understand ) and x( we can't understand something, we can understand something , there is possibility of understanding something) . If you want to go down that path you would have to say : we don't know something we can't understand , we don't know something we can understand and we don't know there is possibility of understanding . Anything else is the same in all 3 examples : we are saying we know all things we could understand so we say something won't happen ( because we know all the things that will) , something will happen ( because we know all the things that will and will not happen so that something happens ), something might happen ( we know that all the things that are impossibe to happen so we know something is possible )
Frans de Waal, featured here as an opponent of Dawkins and his "selfish gene" theory, notably takes the work of the naturalist Peter Kropotkin quite seriously. De Waal's criticism of what he calls "veneer theory" traces the longstanding, establishment view of nature as inherently brutish, violent, and most importantly structured upon selfishness, which he dates back to at least the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. In Kropotkin's day, around the turn of the 20th century, perhaps the most major proponent of the view of nature as a "war of all against all" was Thomas Henry Huxley, whom Kropotkin criticized as taking a wholly reductive view of natural phenomena and merely upholding the ruling social sensibilities of the Victorian ruling class. Kropotkin developed extensive arguments that, while selfishness is certainly observable in the natural world, it is rather a tendency toward "mutual aid" among life-forms which stands as the key principle of evolution. This effectively reflects the general opinion of the Russian school of Darwinian naturalism at the time. This clip of course does not feature much of de Waal's serious counterpoints to Dawkins, and clearly cuts out at moments when de Waal is only beginning to explain his argument. Even for the sake of understanding the other side, whether or not one might ultimately agree with it, reading de Waal's writings on "veneer theory" is essential. So too should more people interested in this debate read Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" and his "Ethics: Origin and Development"-these studies remain a critical point of reference for challenges to theorists of natural egoism such as Dawkins.
you're an ancom. why are you restricting this video with a statist copyright monopoly right?? consider relicensing under creative commons (its in the advanced video settings) (or at least clarifying that you aren't going to use copyright against the rest of us wrt this video somehow)
There's a difference between sincere altruism and fake altruism like someone doing good things in vain. Fake altruism wouldn't have the same outcomes as sincere altruism regarding immortality. I don't think the origins came from selfishness which works in the short term and has negative consequences. The quality of sincerity is important along with other valuable traits that led to human survival and domination.
“Concerning the gods, I cannot ascertain whether they exist or whether they do not, or what form they have; for there are many obstacles to knowing, including the obscurity of the question and the brevity of human life” ❤
just hoping i get to see Roger Penrose and Chomsky together in a conversation. Choose whatever topic you like, but just make it happen before Time snatches from us the possibility of it happening.
What about people and pets? RU-vid has endless examples of people devoting inordinate amounts of money, time, and energy to taking care of all sorts of animals.
Blah blah blah... I think his point is that humans are only as smart as possible.... Which is ironic because he talked in circles and said nothing.... But ain't he smart....?
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
The Grand Pa soft spoken encyclopedia of Marxist politics, economics, semantics Aka endless Revisionist History. Always reinventing himself as a proper Anarchist Sociopath should do. Not doubt 60+++ years of the same "Analysis" just changing ' critical' words to seem appropriate and relevant for decades. Chomsky Parenti Wolf Zinn Cornel West And countless other "Academic" Left Wing Peopagandists all saying and reading from the same playbook. Since Democracy ( Demagogues) Murdered Socrates for pointing out their endless logical fallacies and Deconstructionist arguments that Every Dictator in recorded human history has used to work their way into Absolute power and murdered Tens of tens of tens of Millions OF HUMAN BEINGS IN PEACETIME. THE TIME HONORED OLD FASHION way Forced labor Starvation And the Final Solution That even Hitler couldn't out do DISEASE. THE PERFECT SOLUTION TO Uncooperative Socialist Citizens.
The question & answer part shows not enough people are familiar with the basic concept of instrumentalism. Any method and system help us to represent the world within the parameters of such methods and systems. They tell us nothing about an absolute reality.
Noam Chomsky is. A Marxist Revisionist fraud.50 years or better of Maoist semantics. Always reinventing the language of mass murder dictators fromlast century.
Yes meta~physics, the fun thing about meta~physics is you can't understand it until you experience it, well that is how tantra is taught. It works but how it works I not even sure the Guru knows but maybe there really is a God called Shiva.
Anarchists are Anarchists because like Noam, we are the smartest people on the planet, you too can be one of the smartest people just join your local anarcho~syndicist federation.
" Mind body is meaningless, there is no body, because we have no theory of material" Chomsky is just like Dennett, he just dismisses serious problems with some vague explanation of how necessity for theory of material is invalidating possible observations of unembodied or biologically unconstrained minds. That is an obvious absurdity that seems to me prove how Chomsky's dogmatism about Lockean conceptions of organized matter producing thought, is obscuring his view since he dismisses such obvious possibility as having soul. We are not so stupid to miss the fact that out of body perceptions supported by veridical evidence are in fact pointing to mind and biological body difference and ontological independency of the mind. Not to mention that such events are pretty common and natural, expected in survived patients with cardiac arrests, and otherwise accumulative, consistent and loyally universal in content. Therefore we should hold on with dogmatic judgements about inseparability of mind and body, when there is ever growing presence of counter evidence that threatens to kick the dogma out of scientific stage.
Does anyone know where one might find more info on the early 20th century corporate law he describes here? Has Chomsky written about it anywhere? Thanks :)
If our cognitive abilities are the same as 50,000 years ago are you going to tell me this is the first time we have been this advanced . Okay! Thanks AI for the recommendation. Thanks for posting this lecture.
bald wants you to consider him anyway, his society (culture) matters, and you must be oppressed or coerced by it. I think it went right over his stubborn head.
what a disgusting persona Norm turned out to be. "let the antivaxxers die" or whatever was his exact, hitleristic quote. Fuck you noam, you were once one of my idols.
Dennett does not understand that "infinite" is different from "everything". Chomsky says that language can generate "infinite" elements, like the decimal numbers between 1 and 2 which do not include 3. So the fact that we can generate infinite thoughts has nothing to do whatsoever with the question of whether we can understand all the mysteries of nature. We generate thoughts and sentences within the limits of our human nature. I cannot understand how some people can take Dennett seriously. He seems embarrassingly stupid to me.
Newton had to reluctantly give up the mechanistic doctrine because of the "action at a distance" (gravity); Einstein opposed the "spooky action at a distance" (quantum entanglement), but recent work in experimental physics shows that he was wrong (return to "occult forces"); quantum mechanics, although incomprehensible and utterly mysterious, is undoubtedly the most robust theory in the history of science; current physical theories, unlike previous ones, although more predictive, have less explanatory power, and hence, do not give us a deeper understanding of the world; the holographic principle, which states that there is an unexplained (mysterious?) relationship between the geometry of space-time (topology) and information; the cosmological constant (Λ), which is so finely tuned that it leads some physicists to abandon the Copernican principle; several physicists today claim that space-time is doomed; Gödel's incompleteness theorems, revisited by the algorithmic theory of information, have as a consequence that almost all mathematical facts escape reason (see Gödel, Chaitin, Calude); Turing's discovery that most problems are uncomputable; etc. No wonder that ignorabimus has become fashionable again. It makes us want to re-examine our usual assumptions about the comprehensibility of the world, or lack thereof, and question one of Einstein's most famous quotes: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." Today science and mathematics have consequences which many find perplexing. Personally, what I find the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it seems incomprehensible.
"A pure sceptic" The guy in the white shirt asks a question that challenges Chomsky's scepticism. First Chomsky interrupts him to subtly disparage his lisp. Then Chomsky in passive voice accuses him of scepticism. MIT man Chomsky is as slithery as the nematode worm he mentions. And why the nematode worm turns left is no big mystery. What a charlatan, and how easily people are duped. If someone wants a summary of Chomsky's message is, its " we don't know anything, pass the pay check".
Why does no one call out Chomsky's bull shit? "All there is is information" " material is no more real than ectoplasm" . Just another common or garden mystifier (and he pretends to poo poo the "mystery men") . He throws out a lot of verbiage and name drops but is thoroughly reactionary at base. The Emperor is stark naked.
liberalism in its classical era was developed in a post-feudal but pre-capitalist environment crucial distinction nobody ever told me that no professor, no text book it just clears up a lot of confusion edit: McGee is impressed with the clarity
