Chomsky on Humanism II (1/3)

arzoyan Says:

Jun 28, 2010 - 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

600percentjesus Says:

Sep 11, 2010 - 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

arzoyan Says:

Sep 28, 2010 - 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

johammbass Says:

Apr 12, 2011 - Capitalism works precisely because we are animals

johammbass Says:

Apr 12, 2011 - 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

TheGodlessGuitarist Says:

Jun 18, 2011 - 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.

MaxwellGreene1 Says:

Aug 7, 2011 - 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.

maguiSally26 Says:

Aug 7, 2011 - Chomsky is my Jesus. +

TheGodlessGuitarist Says:

Aug 20, 2011 - 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.

MaxwellGreene1 Says:

Aug 20, 2011 - 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.

TheGodlessGuitarist Says:

Aug 21, 2011 - "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.

MaxwellGreene1 Says:

Aug 21, 2011 - 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.

TheGodlessGuitarist Says:

Aug 21, 2011 - 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 Says:

Aug 31, 2011 - watch?v=5cSgVgrC

MaxwellGreene1 Says:

Sep 1, 2011 - Yo, it was a dead link.

TheGodlessGuitarist Says:

Sep 9, 2011 - Sorry about that. Try this one: watch?v=jrCZYDm5D8MDan Dennett on Free Will and Determinism.

fede2 Says:

Sep 11, 2011 - 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.

icygood101 Says:

Oct 20, 2011 - 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 =] ?

fede2 Says:

Oct 20, 2011 - 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.

JustMereArt Says:

Nov 30, 2011 - Does anybody know the name of the piece by Russell, which Chomsky references? I'd like to give it a read.

JustMereArt Says:

Dec 1, 2011 - 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

Diderooot Says:

Feb 29, 2012 - re: Chomsky on Libet's experiment - Is Chomsky saying that there could be such a thing as "unconscious free-will"?

maldoror01 Says:

Mar 8, 2012 - Yeah.

Diderooot Says:

Mar 19, 2012 - Chomsky is referring to Lecture III in Russell's "Our Knowledge of the External World" (1914).

MaxwellGreene1 Says:

Apr 10, 2012 - You're very, very confused.