Interactions like these are more and more rare because every time two people have a conversation, one is expected to DESTROY, ANNIHILATE, DEMOLISH the other... So that we post a video about it for clicks and worship.
This is just demonstratably not the case, you can go to any Jordan Peterson video and see that his comment sections are usually respectful and intrigued towards the discussion taking place, granted his interlocutors are being respectful and genuine. i.e his debates with Sam Harris and Slavoj Zizek. The only time you see exaggerated titles like that are usually when Jordan Peterson is in fact being attacked by someone in bad faith, like Cathy Newman or SJW college students.
For any public intellectual you can find sensationalistic cuts of them speaking. Just stay clear of them and they won't appear on your timeline. You can't encourage such pettiness. It's something JP himself is obviously firmly oppused to, other than Chomsky who's known to be a little disparaging from time to time.
Noam Chomsky is on another dimension of thinking. Imagine never believing that the function of language is to facilitate communication? Like, that seems like a natural way to se things.
I’ve always found it impossible to avoid that idea, but it’s flimsy even to casual inquiry- look, all sorts of animals communicate, and many of them lived in the same general environment where humans evolved. What made humans special? It wasn’t just the need to communicate, it was some other kind of pressure/adaptation. And it’s something which apes just don’t have, otherwise extensive efforts to train them in language would have worked by now. Apes are capable of communicating their needs and desires with simple representational sign language. This is not really comprehension of an entire language.
Meh. When you base your life on your intellect and not the size of your car/house then it hurts when your arguments are seriously and apparently correctly disputed....
I think somewhere I heard Chomsky say that Universal Grammar seemed obvious to him, even before he began procuring evidence for this intution.@@wecx2375
I understand parts of it after reading "What Kind of Creatures Are We?" Enough to find it brilliant. I have more reading to do before I know every part. These challenges are suitable for a person. I recently ordered a book that is a debate he once had with Piaget, who I have found tough sledding to get through, but well worth it before. Perhaps that will illuminate me further.
Chomsky’s position on the origin of language is controversial, but is most likely at least in part right: our language capacity cannot have evolved gradually for the purpose of communication. However weird it sounds, our language capacity may be accidental due to a number of cognitive modules have evolved for more specific but different reasons. Once those modules had evolved, the capacity for language emerged as a by-product. Think of our capacity to do advanced math - there couldn’t have been an evolutionary pressure for us to be able to do calculus. Rather, our ability to do calculus is a consequence of a plethora of modules having evolved independently but together gives us the capacities necessary for our brain to do advanced math. Another question is, what is it good for? That is to say, if our language capacity didn’t evolve for communication, what is its function in the sense of what is it good for? Well, it sure is good for communication, but we seem to use it for something else much more, viz. as a tool for centralizing and processing otherwise disparate cognitive functions. In short, a tool for thinking.
I recall an indigenous professor who talked about a common belief among First Nations that the older creatures (eg birds) developed far more efficiently in communication than humans over time (a different pitch or squeak relays valuable information for food, danger, mating etc). Therefore what Chomsky says makes common sense. If it were communication adaptation efficiency alone for survivability, our language would just simplify to efficient utterances. Instead we developed a computational efficient system to acquire language and generate infinite range of thoughts from finite means. Over time the introspector won out because the contemplation proved valuable for communication as well, but that's by fortunate convergence.
The biologist brought sensible and well-considered questions to Chomsky. (Let's forget about his final comment lapsing into pomo philosophy of science .) Chomsky ultimately wins the dialectic pretty handily, but I thought this was an extremely interesting and informative back and forth.
He's very intelligent, but his points are often not. Linguistics is his discipline so I won't refer to this exact example but I remember one lecture where he was explaining for about 5 minutes that "USSR was not real marxism". I think he believes his stuff, why wouldn't he if others believe him, but you definitely have to watch out when you're listening to him, because a lot what he says is just speech 100. The guy is a hardcore intellectual who basically believes that any structure is oppressive and without it (i assume?) people would be good by nature and their only natural need is to contribute. That's absolutely not true at all.
Only the (theoretical) ideology of the former Soviet Union was Marxism /Leninism, in practice the USSR has been an oligarchy / dictatorship pretty much from the start. @@henrykkaufman1488
Al Rhayul absolutely.. most are opiniated, hence my nick. I was lucky to grasp what I could of this excerpt* and fortunately I know a bit about I/O. why am I posting this? for the first 2 lines. cheers.
Saying language evolved to serve communication is like saying the eye evolved to see. The eye only evolved to see after millions of smaller adaptations that made seeing a possibility.
youtoobfarmer the discretions are about is the language means of communication? According to Professor Chomsky and some other scholars the communication is the secondary to the internal thought process.... in simple term we first think internally and then we communicate. In fact if we do realize this process then our awareness will be helpful....
If the function of language is primarily to think, then language is the very vehicle for knowledge; knowledge being the very vehicle for reason; reason being the very vehicle for morals.
Firstly, the distinguished gentleman interviewing Chomsky here is very commendable insofar that he presented very refined and purposeful juxtapositions to Chomsky's findings and thus inspired a hugely insightful exhibition of just some of Chomsky's profound findings on the subject. This guy's really asked the right questions and I'm glad he had the forum to do so. Secondly, Chomsky's responses are beyond satisfactory as he engages the scientific enquiry with a obviously grander scope made obvious by his clear explanation of the language concept , as it is generally actually used, as some kind of interface negotiator (I'm interpreting here). Rather than language being strictly a product of hierarchical structuring,like biological and physical build or evolution, he contends that the user's experience of language use is some kind of real world medium in which one can negotiate ones thoughts(internal) and understanding of the outside world (external) with a view of surviving(innate function of living things). The description of linking interfaces is meaning the reconciliation between internal and external. When Chomsky correctly explained that language isn't optimised for communication interpersonally he is referring to misunderstandings , arguements and conflicts us humans routinely have and before anyone's real intentions were or ever will be understood. Language is a medium to understand others and our attempts to be understood but is not the function of language. If the function, we would be able to say everything we wish to say while never angering other's by misunderstanding or otherwise. Language allows us to engage our thoughts and notions(abstract or otherwise) with an external world we face circumstantially. The linking of interfaces is further support by Chomsky's point on external dialogue and not by the contrary view. The biologist mentioned animals. I've seen dogs have nightmares in their sleep, moving and complaining in their sleeping place. What would they do with words if they could? Explain the internal, ie translate their thoughts. The thoughts and feelings evidently there still
So he's saying we invent language to think, not to speak? Fascinating. In fact, this is in line with a kind of therapy that involves simply naming your emotions. As soon as an emotion is named, it becomes easier to quantify and process.
I think Chomsky is right in one sense, at least if we’re talking about speech. The “language module” in our brain must have been largely in place for there to have been an evolutionary pressure for humans to restructure our throat and larynx to give us the capacity for speech. There are no other reasons for why our throats look so different from all other animals including other hominids. In fact, the way our throats are structured are otherwise only to a disadvantage, increasing the risk of chocking from pretty much zero to becoming one of the most common reasons for dying. So whereas the “language module” is necessary for speech and communication, it couldn’t have evolved for that reason - unless it turns out that it was first evolved for something like sign language, but seems unlikely too.
What you say is interesting and my mind immediately went to the chicken/egg scenario. Could the throat/larynx evolution have been prompted by some other evolutionary force and the brain development resulted from this gradual change? Obviously I can't know for certain, but I'm not so sure the throat/larynx development should be so definitely and exclusively laid at the door of an already existing brain langauge module. I often wonder when I'm watching primates or other species with apparent high levels of intelligence, even cats and dogs for that matter, what is actually going on in their minds when they appear to be contemplating their next action and whether an internal language exists and, if, so what that language might be. I presume, were it to exist, it would be unique to each individual animal as the have no ability to transmit it to others. I'd be interested to know what NC would say if it were put to him that evolution suggests that the development of the ability to speak produced greater benefits that outweighed the risks of the increased chance of choking. This suggests that our ancestors that were able to speak to each other had an evolutionary advantage over similar species that were unable to communicate verbally. It would seem to me that if it's all or mostly about internal language then the ability to speak had no advantage and probably wouldn't have evolved given the risks of choking that speaking entailed.
I would guess it followed the necessity to adapt to speech but it doesn't affect the argument that language developed very quickly for introspection and then part of that introspection then funneled to transmitting a greater range of information. Chomsky's point is that language didn't develop for that reason. It developed to increase the range of thoughts.
@@samuel-i-amuel4457 I think that may be the thing. Not being able to hear or speak does not equal an absence of language abilities, as those who cannot hear or speak can still understand language. Plus there's also sign language.
Chomsky was always very brilliant and unbias. There is no actual function (purpose) to anything in evolution, including language. We find uses/reasons after the mechanism is in place over a long and excruciating evolutionary process.
She say's I am in such a hurry to be with her, that I truncate too much - in effort to help make a better world, a better Country, so we can be together. That I am truncating my life. What she doesn't seem to understand is those are composition error's from a man who is "shakin' not stirred.".
Language's purpose is to categorize the world into concepts. A stone is not just "a stone" it is THE stone, it's the same stone tomorrow if I mark it. Hebrew (an old language) has the same word for "object" and "word" = DAVAR. If you loose the nerves in the temporal lobe (that handles language) for a given word, you also loose the ability to see the object for that word. It's the same reason most mythologies start with a God that creates the world through words, not because the words create things, but they DEFINE them. Most people have probably experienced looking at a picture, and not being able to see what it is. You can see colors, but not what they "are" until you "suddenly" can. It's because the brain has defined what the paintings are, in relation to a concept. Basically everything is "unrecognizeable" until the brain plasters it's concept over the sensory-material.
I've also heard him say (and i am heavily paraphrasing), it is a human trait that we tent to do this (catagorization), and that our use of this method is quite arbitrary. for instance "chair" can be identified even without the requisite "chair legs" if that chair doesn't have legs, although this is a commonly identifiable quality of "chair". So words themselves do not define things, exactly. Do you have any thoughts?
@@nathananderson401 That's true. Good example with the chair. I'd say words do define things, but mostly related to "usage". So you can use a "box" which is a "box" as a "chair". It becomes a chair, when you use it like one. Also, think of the cat in Alice in Wonderland, "the grin without the cat". Where you have the category, abstracted from the normal phenomena. I think it's also important to pay notice, that the temporal lobe, where the words resides, are just under the central sulcus, where senseimpressions and motoric commands are registered and effectuated. So there's a close relationship between words and acting in the world and experienceing the world.
Lasse Jensen thank you for replying. It's wonderful to talk about this sort of thing. I'm sorry I'm just now replying. I liked that you pointed out the proximity and functionality of components in the brain. I think there can be no doubt that the two must be linked and evolutionary so. Right after I'd made my comment to you, I looked up universal grammar theory, which shed some light on what chompsky was saying for me. Please, if you have any more to add, do so.
@@nathananderson401 No worries :) What else is important, I think, is that the temporal lobe has two important centers. Wernicke's and Broca's. Wernicke's is the brain's "dictionary" and Broca's is where the grammar resides. The active and passive part of language. Furthermore, the dictionary, wernicke's area, lies just under the somato-SENSORY cortex, and Broca's, the grammar, lies just under the somato-MOTORIC cortex. So language is highly connected to our sensory and motoric part of the brain. This, I think, further exemplifies, that language is tightly connected to reality, or experience, and reality/experience to behaviour. The Kabbalists also defines the alfabet as the atoms of the universe. Of course language is not the root of the material universe of atoms, but of the cognitive universe of experience, which our brain produces. Both our motorical and sensory impulses are modified by the frontal lobes, which we experience as "willpower" and "effectuating an action". On the sensory part, the frontal lobes inhibits all incoming sensory input except for that which we focus on. People with problems with the frontal lobes tend to have a hard time controlling their behaviour and some their coginitive behaviour, leading to skizophrenic conditions. Theories go, that animism and shaman's experience is the impulses behind the cognitive phenomena, which is why there is a "spirit" in all objects, which is the impulse behind them. Kabbalists also differentiates between "what"/MA which is the object, and "who"/MI which is the entity/impulse behind the object. Shaman's can also tap into different patterns of behaviour, which can be seen as behaviour patterns, not modified by the frontal lobes, and going to a spirit world, which is build in layers, which corresponds well with the brain producing behaviour and a cognitive world in steps.
@@LasseJ789 are there some books you can recommend on the anatomy of the brain? Specifically the function of the temporal lobes with focus on wernicke's and broca's temporal lobe centers? Do you have reference for the correlation between animism/shamanism-brain-behavior?
Language functions as a means of modifying the future. We modify the future in our minds. We test our ideas by communicating and planning with others and then we set about cooperating on projects that will exceed our personal abilities and lifespans.
The biological benefit of language is first the preservation of life. Warning others of danger and increasing survivability of members of a group. Also planning and dealing with environmental factors that will increase the survivability of countless generations who benefit from the investment of labor spent by forebears. The internal communication is somewhat evident in the orangutan and it’s pattern recognition of which trees fruit at which time of year.
What does he mean by 'linking the interfaces'? What are the interfaces? Are they (1) computational system (i.e. thinking) and (2) externalisation (i.e. talking, writing, sign language, etc.)? I don't get what he means by the system is optimized to link the interfaces
Now this is a rather technical point. If you read something about brief history of GB (Government and Binding), you will get to know. To tell you a little is that there are two interfaces in human which are AP (Acoustic Phonetic) interface and CI (Conceptual Intentional) interface, which regulate sound and meaning respectively. language is optimally designed for linking those two interfaces, as Chomsky himself put.
What he’s describing is the comment section on RU-vid. It’s a plethora of individual thought on a 10 min clip pouring out, including your own. If it wasn’t, no one would bother commenting.
imho isntworthmuch Do you actually have a view. I’ve seen the couple of posts of yours in the comments. 1 mocking & 1 congratulating like you have the answer whilst saying nothing. Cowardly at best...jog on.
To be honest, I don't get the biologist's argument... although I'm not a biologist of course. But why should anything be "for" anything? Not just language but the skeletal structure, the wing of a bird, the eyes of an insect...all of it just randomly mutated and it happened to survive because it just happened to increase its fitness (or it happened to be indifferent to fitness but spread in the gene pool anyway). Unless you're talking about a divine creator, it's all random mutations even if by now they are extremely sophisticated and give an organism specific and developed skills. You can ask "what does the organism do with it" though, of course, but that's a different question than "what is it for". I think that's just anthropomorphizing a process in nature just because it happens to involve living creatures.
My guess was that he was suggesting that language was used for internal thinking processing. For example you may be trying to remember something(from the night before) and your internal dialogue acts like a navigator of the mind. This organises the complexity of the brain for information to be retrieved. I could be completely wrong on that.
Metacognition, the thoughts in your head, is fundamentally associative. Your thoughts are an endless chain of associations (frequently loose), either associating your current thought with the previous thought, or with what you just experienced in your environment. Imagine having this associative system of thoughts without language. Would it still be functional? Sure. An animal could smell something familiar which is associated with a food source but not coming from something that it doesn't typically identify as food. By experiencing this familiar smell and then thinking about food via association, a new food source may be discovered. This is possible without language, and it is also the foundation of logic. Although this system works without language, it can be made to be much more flexible and capable with language. Language can serve as a bridge to associate things which otherwise it would not be possible to associate with only environmental stimuli. There is nothing about an oak tree and a cat that is similar by any of our senses. They don't look the same, they don't make the same noises, they don't have similar smells, they don't move the same or taste the same. A system of association which can only use environmental stimuli could never associate the experiences of an oak tree and a cat together (unless cats are always hanging out in oak trees.. but you get the point). However, with the use of language we know that an oak tree and a cat do have something in common, they are both alive. This word "alive" links an oak tree and a cat together in a way that, without language, is not possible. If you think about it, you can find all sorts of associations between things in our environment which are only possible with language. In this sense, language super-charges our ability to leverage our metacognitive system of association to link and categorize things in our environment. And since association is the foundation of logic, language super-charges that as well.
Language Grammar, like a bird's wings, exists all at once or not at all. Their respective irreducible complexity implies design and final-causality, even if developed over time.
I love ho often Chomsky just applies logic and the rules of scientific inquiry to assumptions. When one is curious instead of forcing some agenda we learn that many of our assumptions are just lazy bullshit
Can’t language have multiple functions? Couldn’t language have developed to fulfill one function but then was adapted to fulfill an alternate or additional function?
@@tamas5931, it's just the musings of a failed, heretical, treasonous linguist. All kidding aside, I did study for a doctorate in linguistics, but I didn't get it. I fled when I began seeing multiple causes or perhaps contributing factors to linguistic phenomena, and my mentors didn't like it when I said so.
Never thought I would see Francis canonize Oscar Romero which Chomsky referenced quite a few times. liberation theology or not, it is quite the feat. btw, nice hard long work on your channel.
Over ten minutes of two people entering conflict because of their different methodologies. Chomsky is very much pragmatic: the main function of language is what we demonstrably do with it today. His interlocutor searches for evolutionary function: humans evolved with the capacity for speech because it increased their chances of survival. I think Chomsky is being dishonest in trying to superimpose his way of thinking on his interlocutor. After all, we also have non-linguistic thoughts: we can imagine signs and concepts based around all of our five senses. Arguing, as Chomsky (as a lot of other analytic philosophers do) that language is an instrument of thought is denying the fact that thoughts are not in essence linguistic. Rather, chronologically and in a very short time, a thought comes before; it is then modeled by the chosen system of communication. That's demonstrable through methods of communication other than language: the visual art as its system/language, cinema has its, so do comics, even sign language. A thought can also be translated (in the very broad sense of the word), indicating that it what it does is less transform itself than change recipient. (Literature and philosophy student, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this)
How much of what Chomsky tells (if that is the right word) this apparently completely uninformed biologist can be characterized as communication in the sense of conveying information, and how much is about establishing a social relationship with him because people just have to talk when they are close to each other? And just imagine the amount of language going on inside Chomsky's skull if what he says or utters or externalizes is only a tiny fraction of his language use during this session. Wow.
Frist, the function of language it just related with what we want the human kind frome this language's this how we know the function .all the respect to the founder of the linguistic moderne.
This is to my mind a rather petty demonstration of Chomsky's will to be right at all costs albeit rhetorically brilliantly delivered by Dark Rhetoric. Chomsky narrows down the meaning of function to "present dominant use" to refute the broader meaning of function as used by biologists, viz. the function for which a biological structure has evolved. On the other hand, he fails to give an analytical explanation of "thought". The eye evolved from single photosensitive neurons with the function of orientation and which we use now mostly as an interface for work (e. g. on a computer) or entertainment (e. g. when watching RU-vid-Videos). In the same way language (unless you believe talking humans were created by God all in one go) in all probability evolved as a means for orientation and connection of human groups, i. e. for communication, and only second by the internalisation of dialogue partners and the evolution of self as a means of "thought and cognition", which is ultimately self-communication. So, of course one function of language is nowadays and predominantly it's use als a means of self-communication or "thought", and to a statistically lesser degree a means for interpersonal communication. But to deny the latter function only on the basis of frequency of use is either fuzzy thinking or ill will. However, I don't think Noam Chomsky should be a fuzzy thinker.
"in all probability" here seems to mean - from my perspective. i'm far from expert, but if in all probability means something other than in my opinion, i'd want to hear why other explanations are massively less probable even with scant evidence available. why couldn't it have been to develop more advanced thinking, and then externalized language grew out of that? or any other explanation? your position seems clearly plausible, but why substantially more probable than other explanations, or especially than all others combined.
@@andrewirish7720 Thanks for asking and no, "in all probability" does not mean "from my perspective". The human language faculty is quite complex in terms of vocal and auditory apparatus, neurological systems, and linguistic system. Unless it is denied that language has a physiological biological basis and a language acquisition device was created out of thin air (which is highly improbable), it's bound to have evolved on the basis of evolutionary principles described by biology such as mutation and natural selection. Auditory communication is prevalent among many species and even ubiquitous in primates. So unless humans were created out of thin air (which is highly improbable, despite a biblical account to the contrary), it is probable that in primate communities both non-human and early human auditory communication presented an evolutionary advantage for the community and the individual which according to biological-evolutionary principles furthered the development of more complex systems to support the needs of evolving human communities. Once there was an evolutionary pressure on the vocal apparatus as a means for communication that brain followed suit. And the brain is much more malleable and faster to change that the rest of the human physiology. By human interaction and agreement language was possible to evolve further while creating ever more pronounced evolutionary benefit for human communities thus creating a positive feedback loop for language evolution. As Charles Kay Ogden's Basic English demonstrates a vocabulary of 850 word will suffice to meaningfully communicate. Enter memory: Once there were agreed upon linguistic signs and structures, memory would enable to remember whatever primitive or complex discourse that existed: The first form of internal communication. Feed that into the general goal reaching apparatus that most species seem to have (avoid pain, seek food and pleasure) you have a basis for internal "creative" dialogue or linguistic thought. So there's the story, now what about the probabilty: Evolutionary processes have been shown to change many species, structures and processes on the basis of external evolutional pressure, external communication in a group of humans provides more benefits to the group than individual internal thought, so the evolutional pressure is higher and probability for the evolution of the various parts of the human linguistic ability is too.
@@mhstief I still find that story plausible, but do not see how it rules out other stories that equally well fit "biological-evolutionary principles". You give one story of an adaptive function which plausibly was selected for and thus gave rise to development. i don't see how your account rules out other explanations, probabilistically or otherwise. again, i have no relevant expertise, but i don't see how chomsky's or other accounts don't just as well satisfy the criteria you laid out. everyone thinks it evolved from the existing biological set of materials in conjunction with biological-evolutionary principles. it's that people disagree, or rather do not know, why or how. to say one account seems to be true in all likelihood still seems to me like saying, it makes sense to me that, unless there is a reason to say the rest of the options combined are less probable, which i might be dense but I don't see convincingly on offer here or anywhere. i could be wrong. idk. i really appreciate your thoughts. and they might imho very well be true. just not very confident and it seems that other explanations on offer have merits as well. when we enter a domain where abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation/theory leave multiple sound options on the table it seems reasonable to suspend judgement until further evidence presents. thanks for sharing. i genuinely appreciate your time and considerations.
all the respect to the founder of modern linguistics it related to what we want frome this language and what we want, like purpose frome this language's.
It’s painful watching someone stumbling on the meaning of words and their perception of existence, but most of all, the distraction that draws our attention away from all that could have been.
@@mourdebars I think so. Like physicists don't mean "energy" as we usually do. What Chomsky means is a technical notion of language as a part of the brain called the grammar that interfaces inner linguistic structures with external components like speech, sounds, and gestures. Whereas the biologist means language as merely speech.
An interface, as I understand it (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong), it's a device which sits in between two other parts in order to facilitate some processing/action. So for example, a steering wheel is an interface between the driver and the cars steering mechanisms. So language itself is an interface between some part of the language part of your brain and some other cognitive faculties in your brain. I mean, I might be way off. But I think this is why he is refuting the notion that language is specifically used for communication (as the biologist posited), because "close to 100% of language use is internal". Though some part of language is used for communication, the actual grammar of human languages are not designed very well for communicating accurately and instead are adapted for brevity so as aid in processing what you hear from another person. I think through that point he's trying to say that language itself is much bigger than the idea of just communication. I guess in summation, although you use the steering wheel to drive your car, the act of turning a car is much more complex and there are perhaps tons of different aspects to it that could be changed through a different interface, but that essentially the steering wheel isn't precisely the reason your car turns? I dunno, somebody please chime in because this was hard for me to understand, too. Google hasn't really turned anything up quickly :)
@@10xSRK fantastic, thanks for taking the time. I follow what you write, I think, lol. Trippy to think that language isn't primarily for interpersonal/social/productive communication but rather for navigating internal parts of our cognitive process. What a plague the phenomenon of inner discourse, seems more like a bug than a feature of human experience at times...
Haha, I wish I could have explained what I thought more susinctly, I'm afraid I don't follow it one hundred percent myself. I would definitely say that certain aspects of our social organization are buggy. But being able to communicate with people like yourself often makes it feel like it's all worth it.
The Function of Language विषय पर इस वीडियो में तर्कसंगत बातें जानने को मिली । धन्यवाद ।। 4. Dr. Amitbhai N Patel, Assistant Professor, GLS (Sadguna & B.D.) College For Girls, Ahmedabad.
