Do You Now Worry That NOAM CHOMSKY Might Lose His Mind?

[GammaGlobulin]

I worry.

 

Chomsky is of my generation.

If Chomsky loses his mind...

 

Then....

 

What might this say about me?

 

 

 

Noam is getting older...

 

Same as you...

Same as me...

 

So sad....

 

 

[2baht]

18 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

If Chomsky loses his mind...

Who cares? He'll be on the level as GG ! ????

[GammaGlobulin]

25 minutes ago, 2baht said:

Who cares? He'll be on the level as GG ! ????

I will NEVER be on his level.

 

And, neither will you....

 

 

[2baht]

Just now, GammaGlobulin said:

I will NEVER be on his level.

 

And, neither will you....

 

 

I don't aspire to be! ????

[Lacessit]

Going by a recent YouTube video of him, IMO he already has.

Not something I worry about for myself. Genetics are saying I will die with my mental faculties still working.

[2baht]

59 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

 

 

 

Who is this Piers What's his Name fellow? Sounds like a bit of an insignificant whinging Pom to me! Does he play cricket?????

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by 2baht

[soi3eddie]

He's 94 years of age. How many at that age still have their mind, let alone their life?

 

[GammaGlobulin]

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Going by a recent YouTube video of him, IMO he already has.

Not something I worry about for myself. Genetics are saying I will die with my mental faculties still working.

Noam has deteriorated. 

 

So have we all. 

 

Except you, apparently. 

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

7 minutes ago, soi3eddie said:

He's 94 years of age. How many at that age still have their mind, let alone their life?

 

Completely agree. 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

22 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Going by a recent YouTube video of him, IMO he already has.

Not something I worry about for myself. Genetics are saying I will die with my mental faculties still working.

You are joking, right...? 

 

You are so old that you don't know NOTHING about genetics, nor how genes are turned on, or off. 

 

All you care about, these days, is your next pedicure. 

 

How can you even call yourself a scientist? 

 

Almost everything you say sticks in my craw. 

 

 

[stoner]

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

What might this say about me?

if you need to ask this...you're living in denial. 

[save the frogs]

33 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

You are joking, right...? 

 

You are so old that you don't know NOTHING about genetics, nor how genes are turned on, or off. 

 

All you care about, these days, is your next pedicure. 

 

How can you even call yourself a scientist? 

 

Almost everything you say sticks in my craw. 

 

 

looks like a friendship is disintegrating 

[GammaGlobulin]

36 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

You are joking, right...? 

 

You are so old that you don't know NOTHING about genetics, nor how genes are turned on, or off. 

 

All you care about, these days, is your next pedicure. 

 

How can you even call yourself a scientist? 

 

Almost everything you say sticks in my craw. 

 

 

BENCHWORK 

BENCHWORK 

 

Will we never hear the end of your BENCHWORK? 

 

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Noam has deteriorated. 

 

So have we all. 

 

Except you, apparently. 

 

 

Three strikes is out.

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.  Keep it civil.

 

[bendejo]

3 hours ago, 2baht said:

Who is this Piers What's his Name fellow?

The late queen's revenge against what is now the USA for The Revolutionary War.  Quoth she: "send this dipstick across the pond, they deserve him!"

Rumor is his mum named him that at birth, but she actually was saying "take him down to the piers and toss him off."

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by bendejo

[thaibeachlovers]

Can't say I've ever watched, or read anything by,  this guy, whoever he is.

Why is he worth my time?

[GammaGlobulin]

On 8/21/2023 at 7:05 AM, save the frogs said:

looks like a friendship is disintegrating 

Or, the return of Don Rickles?

 

Unfortunately,

This world has seen the last of HIM.

 

And, maybe a good thing too if he is not your cup of tea.

Was there ever a remark too cutting for the likes of Rickles?

 

Humor must now always be PC.

Which, in fact, is no longer humorous.

 

We are living in the age of the blahs...

 

 

[save the frogs]

4 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Or, the return of Don Rickles?

you were being hostile towards lacessit.

 

especially given that he has been your most loyal follower ... he's been in all your threads giving his viewpoints ... you're out of line. 

 

[ipeterrobinson17]

Chomsky is a genius - what's so sad in the videos above? are you sad about his long hair/beard or slow speech or something he actually said?

 

seems like the usual Chomsky to me and still incredibly perceptive.

 

i'll be happy to reach 94!

[mfd101]

5 minutes ago, ipeterrobinson17 said:

Chomsky is a genius - what's so sad in the videos above? are you sad about his long hair/beard or slow speech or something he actually said?

 

seems like the usual Chomsky to me and still incredibly perceptive.

 

i'll be happy to reach 94!

Chomskyan linguistics does seem to have faded away in to the twilight over the last 20 or 30 years.

[GammaGlobulin]

11 minutes ago, ipeterrobinson17 said:

Chomsky is a genius - what's so sad in the videos above? are you sad about his long hair/beard or slow speech or something he actually said?

 

seems like the usual Chomsky to me and still incredibly perceptive.

 

i'll be happy to reach 94!

I will be sad, very sad, if I should outlive Chomsky.

Why would I want to live in a world without Noam?

I have heard people say that Chomsky has been wrong when he, according to these pundits, did not come out harshly enough against certain acts of terror, as well as voicing other similar criticisms. But these people are completely mistaken. Chomsky never condoned violence or terrorism, for example. This is an intentional twisting of what Chomsky stated. Many don't like Chomsky because he tries to use the same "yardstick" when analyzing US Gov behavior and when comparing this behavior to the behavior of other "states".

 

It's fine for anyone to criticize Chomsky, as long as they do not intentionally warp his words, or misrepresent his arguments, which happens all too often.

 

But then, when you REALLY go back to what he has stated, you see that there is very little to object to, and that he did not say what his detractors say he said.

 

 

Some guys just like to spout nonsense about Chomsky.

The reasons why are obvious.

 

 

 

[ipeterrobinson17]

1 hour ago, mfd101 said:

Chomskyan linguistics does seem to have faded away in to the twilight over the last 20 or 30 years.

wow, really! seems like Wikipedia is not aware of this, so maybe i will update them if you would be so kind as to give me the references that support your statement.

 

his field of study might have been linguistics, but he's known by most for his "political activism and social criticism" as in the videos above.

[GammaGlobulin]

10 minutes ago, ipeterrobinson17 said:

wow, really! seems like Wikipedia is not aware of this, so maybe i will update them if you would be so kind as to give me the references that support your statement.

 

his field of study might have been linguistics, but he's known by most for his "political activism and social criticism" as in the videos above.

If you spend time listening to Chomsky's views about the Origin of Language, he seems to be saying that language evolved FIRST from some "internal conversation" humans had, some form of language that humans had which was not actually vocalized, ie something like sub-vocalizations which then evolved into an "external" spoken language that could be used for communication. Who's to say if this might be farfetched.

 

He gave a nice talk about this at Google one year, and here is another video where he talks about the origins of language:

 

 

Please feel free to search Google Talks for a more thorough presentation by Noam..

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

38 minutes ago, ipeterrobinson17 said:

wow, really! seems like Wikipedia is not aware of this, so maybe i will update them if you would be so kind as to give me the references that support your statement.

 

his field of study might have been linguistics, but he's known by most for his "political activism and social criticism" as in the videos above.

When people think of Chomsky and Linguistics, they often first think of his work, "Syntactic Structures" published in 1957...

 

Since that time, Chomsky has said that he disagrees with "some" of what he wrote.

 

I happen to have a full copy of Syntactic Structures on my SSD, and will post it here in case anyone is interested in seeing what it looks like.

It starts out, simple as pie, but then quickly gets into the meat of the issue, and is far tougher going for those that choose to read the whole thing...

 

Enjoy!

 

 

 

 

Chomsky_Syntactic_Structures_2ed_2002.pdf

[mfd101]

8 hours ago, ipeterrobinson17 said:

wow, really! seems like Wikipedia is not aware of this, so maybe i will update them if you would be so kind as to give me the references that support your statement.

 

his field of study might have been linguistics, but he's known by most for his "political activism and social criticism" as in the videos above.

He may be 'known' to the masses for his fairly one-eyed political activism & social criticism, but he will be remembered in history for his linguistic theories, from his 1956 start thru to the constant zigging & zagging by the 1990s as his theories at last received the serious criticisms they merited. Meanwhile Linguistics has moved on to other things, along with semiotics.

[save the frogs]

On 8/20/2023 at 6:09 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

What might this say about me?

Your fixation on this one particular individual is stupid.

There's a lot of intelligent people in the world.

No need to fixate obsessively and incessantly like a groupie on Chomsky.

 

[GammaGlobulin]

27 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Your fixation on this one particular individual is stupid.

There's a lot of intelligent people in the world.

No need to fixate obsessively and incessantly like a groupie on Chomsky.

 

Well, sure...

We can talk about a different intelligent person if you wish.

What about Steven Pinker?

 

 

But then we might need to start a new Topic, because this topic is about Chomsky...

 

(Please Note: I was at the University of McGill at the same time Pinker was there as an undergrad. But I never met the guy. Still, we can talk about him if you wish.)

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by GammaGlobulin

[save the frogs]

48 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

We can talk about a different intelligent person if you wish.

What about Steven Pinker?

I haven't read any of his books.

If you have read his work AND you think sth he says benefits the general public, please feel free to summarize it succinctly.

 

[GammaGlobulin]

24 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

I haven't read any of his books.

If you have read his work AND you think sth he says benefits the general public, please feel free to summarize it succinctly.

 

Well then:

 

Both Chomsky and Pinker argue that language is the product of some encoded genetic component or mutation without which language would not be possible.

 

The alternative hypothesis to this would be that there is no genetically encoded "language instinct" and that language acquisition is simply a product of culture, and that language acquisition occurs in children solely as a result of learning through trial and error.

 

Do you have any thoughts concerning which hypothesis might be correct?

And why?