Hence the misleading "hard problem" of consciousness. — Manuel

Again, my 2 cents worth: Chalmers wouldn't have a problem with this essay. He brings up gravity himself as an example of the kind of conceptual revolution that might be required to approach the hard problem.

If there's a misunderstanding, maybe it's in the way others have taken up his ideas.

Yep, that's correct.

He's very open minded and considers almost all approaches to consciousness.

Others who use this term are misled by it, as if experience were "not physical" or "spooky".

Others who use this term are misled by it, as if experience were "not physical" or "spooky". — Manuel

OH, I see what you're saying. :up:

Sure. No problem. I don't agree with Strawson's panpsychism either, though he's pretty clear with the terms "experiential" and "non-experiential". — Manuel

I don't find terms like "qualia" or "experiential" all that clear myself, and I haven't seen where Srawson added anything useful in that regard (but I've only seen his "Realistic Monism"). I've read a couple of papers that try for a more critical analysis of these concepts (including one by Stoljar), but the matter remains murky in my mind.

(Chomsky doesn't say much about the subject in this essay, except perhaps where he brings up Mary's Room puzzle. But here, as elsewhere, he just writes down some notes and quotes, adds that he disagrees with some influential analyses of the problem, and leaves it at that. The relevance of this discussion to the rest of the essay is unclear.)

Panpsychism is just glorified magical thinking, in my opinion. It's not the exoticism of the concept that bothers me, but its explanatory nullity.

The zombie argument isn't particularly convincing, I don't think, I mean, we essentially have very similar examples in people who sleepwalk, or so it seems to me. — Manuel

I just don't understand the argument, i.e. what it is that conceivability actually implies and why we should care.

People who sleepwalk are not examples of P-zombies, because they don't behave like conscious people in all outward respects.

(Chomsky doesn't say much about the subject in this essay, except perhaps where he brings up Mary's Room puzzle. But here, as elsewhere, he just writes down some notes and quotes, adds that he disagrees with some influential analyses of the problem, and leaves it at that. The relevance of this discussion to the rest of the essay is unclear.) — SophistiCat

You're right, because he also doesn't see what the big issue is with qualia. He agrees with Russell here:

Russell held that there are “three grades of certainty. The highest grade belongs to my own percepts; the second grade to the percepts of other people; the third to events which are not percepts of anybody," constructions of the mind established in the course of efforts to make sense of what we perceive.”

Then he goes on to say: "...we recognize their existence [of our own percepts] , at the highest grade of certainty in fact."

Both quotes on pp.181.

One could call a percept a "quale", but Chomsky doesn't. A percept means a moment of experience, such as you reading this sentence as you currently are. Or looking at the window and seeing green grass, or hearing a car zoom by, etc.

I'm unclear why this is confusing, outside of the terminology itself. It's been overwhelmingly taken for granted up until the 20th century, when it suddenly became a problem to a small group of people.

Panpsychism is just glorified magical thinking, in my opinion. It's not the exoticism of the concept that bothers me, but its explanatory nullity. — SophistiCat

I agree. I studied it for several years, but was not convinced, also on your grounds of it not explaining much.

I just don't understand the argument, i.e. what it is that conceivability actually implies and why we should care. — SophistiCat

I thought the whole argument was meant to show that experience isn't necessary for a human being to exist as they do. But I also do not see the force to this argument, nor understand the attention given to it.

People who sleepwalk are not examples of P-zombies, because they don't behave like conscious people in all outward respects. — SophistiCat

That's likely true.

There is nothing - nothing - about object permanence that makes physicalism or mechanism 'common-sense based technical notions'. — StreetlightX

Contact action, like object permanence, is a “common sense” notion. Same with the moon illusion or any other optical illusion— it’s simply how we see and experience things.

That doesn’t mean the mechanical philosophy is common sense. It means the 17th century notion of understanding was based on contact action. Turns out that’s completely wrong — fine. But importantly, nothing has been proposed since to replace that notion.

I don’t see anything chauvinistic about any of this. You’re simply misreading it.

because Chomsky lacks any terms other than 'the physical' or the mechanical to grasp the world, the failure of his pet vocabulary must imply the failure of human understanding and vice versa. — StreetlightX

Theory.

Physical and mechanical are hardly his “pet vocabulary” — he’s in fact arguing that they fail, but we have other ways of understanding the world. Ways that aren’t based on “common sense.” Namely, our explanatory theories — which are revised in time.

Yeah it "evolved", but exactly how is just one of those mysterious things that we'll never know, because his vision of language is Platonic and basically theological. — StreetlightX

His view of language is biological. Never once has he said the evolution of language is a mystery we’ll “never know.” In fact he’s offered plenty of ideas about it over the years. It happened, obviously, through generic changes. Chomsky just doesn’t think it happened through gradual steps.

You’ve now made a number of things up. Platonist, chauvinist, priest, arrogant, etc. Not sure why. But it has nothing to do with Chomsky. It’s fabrication. But that’s your business.

:100:

but we have other ways of understanding the world. Ways that aren’t based on “common sense.” Namely, our explanatory theories — which are revised in time. — Xtrix

In which case so much for the failure of mechanism to imply anything - literally anything - about our cognitive abilities.

But importantly, nothing has been proposed since to replace that notion. — Xtrix

Nothing has been proposed? Says who exactly? Have you opened a philosophy journal recently? There are a blossoming of theories all over the place. If you mean there there has not been a consensus reached, then, well, who cares? Consensus is for flies who like shit. And it turns out that the last consensus was pretty rubbish too. Again, just because Chomsky own limited imagination is so limited, does not mean it is limited for others. Neither should anyone else give in to his protestations that they ought to be of limited of imagination as he.

In fact he’s offered plenty of ideas about it over the years. It happened, obviously, through generic changes. Chomsky just doesn’t think it happened through gradual steps. — Xtrix

Lol, Chomsky literally says that his shitty conception of language cannot be accounted for by natural selection - after which he postulates, with exactly zero elaboration - that it might have been exapted from prior adaptations ... and that's it. It's lip service. It's all he can offer because his shitty conception of language has so thoroughly hermetically sealed it off from the world - being nothing but an instrument of the expression of thought - that it's basically metaphysics - in the bad sense - masquerading as science. Everything about Chomsky's understanding of language is pseudo-scientific, from the ground up. It's all trash, every word of it. He's a closet creationist and nothing he says about language ought to be taken seriously on pain of dying of embarrassment.

Chomsky's theory of language evolution:

1. No language.
2. ??? [exaptation from something, somehow, very quickly, but not natural selection]
3. Language!

In which case so much for the failure of mechanism to imply anything - literally anything - about our cognitive abilities. — StreetlightX

I’d say a notion of the material world in the early scientific evolution being abandoned, one based on common sense notions — and which hasn’t been replaced to this day — certainly tells us something about our cognitive abilities. It shows us that yet again our intuitions, everyday experiences, folk source, and common sense notions simply don’t work. We have to find other ways of grasping the world — and we have.

Have you opened a philosophy journal recently? There are a blossoming of theories all over the place. — StreetlightX

I’m talking about science, and I’m talking matter, physical, material, “body,” etc. If a new technical notion has been proposed, I’m happy to take a look.

In fact he’s offered plenty of ideas about it over the years. It happened, obviously, through generic changes. Chomsky just doesn’t think it happened through gradual steps.
— Xtrix

Lol, Chomsky literally says that his shitty conception of language cannot be accounted for by natural selection — StreetlightX

Not once does he say this. Not once.

I suppose if your starting assumption is that Chomsky is an idiot, the above sounds reasonable. But what he says is that there’s little evidence to suggest that gradualism explains language. That’s not saying it’s God-created, that it’s a mystery, that it’s beyond science, that it didn’t evolve, or that natural selection doesn’t apply (of course it does).

True, language could be magic. But that’s the opposite of what Chomsky had said for 70 years or so.

Everything about Chomsky's understanding of language is pseudo-scientific, — StreetlightX

Funny you say this. I recall you cited Daniel Everett a while back in support of your claims — who’s shown to be a borderline fraud, and whose conclusions of the piraha language being thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.

He's a closet creationist — StreetlightX

Okay! :up:

You have to realise than anyone who questions naturalism is a 'closet creationist'. Like Thomas Nagel.

I’d say a notion of the material world in the early scientific evolution being abandoned, one based on common sense notions — and which hasn’t been replaced to this day — certainly tells us something about our cognitive abilities. It shows us that yet again our intuitions, everyday experiences, folk source, and common sense notions simply don’t work. We have to find other ways of grasping the world — and we have. — Xtrix

*yawn* Again with the conceptual chauvinism. Again, the failure of Chomsky's toys says nothing about anything else. Just because you'd like to give your toys pride of place (by using the weasel words of 'based on common sense' - as if lots of things couldn't be 'based on common sense' or that 'common sense' mandates any technical elaboration of it whatsoever, or that 'common sense' is, in fact, common) doesn't mean they have pride of place.

I’m talking about science, and I’m talking matter, physical, material, “body,” etc. — Xtrix

No you're not. You like to pretend that you're talking about science, but of course, you are not. You're talking about some conceptual schemes foisted upon science from without, while trying to claim the prestige and backing of science to naturalize what is effectively some backwater vocabulary of a limited cabal of European thinkers. Like I said, science will chug along just fine - in fact, does chug along just fine - without reference to this backwater philosophical vocabulary. In fact this philosophical vocabulary is quite dead precisely because science has been chugging along without it.

Not once does he say this. Not once. — Xtrix

Oh I see I've made the mistake of assuming you've ever read the person you're discussing:

At present, however, we see little reason to believe either that FLN can be anatomized into many independent but interacting traits, each with its own independent evolutionary history, or that each of these traits could have been strongly shaped by natural selection, given their tenuous connection to communicative efficacy.

http://psych.colorado.edu/~kimlab/hauser.chomsky.fitch.science2002.pdf

Chomsky is not questioning naturalism.

Well, maybe not, but his generative grammar seems at odds with it. Anyway, carry on.

Hey, we agree on something!

Oops! Better watch my step! :yikes:

as if lots of thing couldn't be 'based on common sense' or that 'common sense' mandates any technical elaboration of it) — StreetlightX

I’m sure lots of things are based on common sense. That does not mean we formulate technical notions out of them. This is one case in which we did— and they failed. It’s not simply any case— it was the prevailing view at the beginning of modern philosophy and modern science. I’d say that’s relevant.

You're talking about some conceptual schemes foisted upon science from without, while trying to claim the prestige and backing of science to naturalize what is effectively some backwater vocabulary of a limited cabal of European thinkers. — StreetlightX

Foisted upon science? So Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Locke, etc…the founders of modern philosophy and science — all backwater imbeciles.

:up:

Oh I see I've made the mistake of assuming you've ever read the person you're discussing:

At present, however, we see little reason to believe either that FLN can be anatomized into many independent but interacting traits, each with its own independent evolutionary history, or that each of these traits could have been strongly shaped by natural selection, given their tenuous connection to communicative efficacy.

http://psych.colorado.edu/~kimlab/hauser.chomsky.fitch.science2002.pdf — StreetlightX

Apparently the only article you’ve read. As you’ve cited it over and over again.

Nevertheless— he doesn’t once say that:

language cannot be accounted for by natural selection — StreetlightX

Not once. Read the quote again. There’s very little reason to believe that language evolved in parts or for communication.

Of course natural selection played a role in language. It wouldn’t still be here if it didn’t confer an advantage. That’s different from saying it evolved through incremental steps, each through natural selection. Chomsky is arguing against gradualism.

https://chomsky.info/20140826/

Well, maybe not, but his generative grammar seems at odds with it. — Wayfarer

At odds with naturalism? How? What’s the alternative— that language is supernatural?

The level of misunderstanding here is baffling. No offense— but how much of Chomsky have you really read?

He's speaking of naturalism a la scienticism, think Dennett or the Churchlands. On this view, then UG does seems at odds with "naturalism". But that naturalism is not the one that actually exists.

One label Chomsky uses consistently in philosophy is "methodological naturalism". However, he is not of the camp that "evolution explains everything" at all. He cites a very interesting article by Lewontin related to this.

At odds with naturalism? How? What’s the alternative— that language is supernatural? — Xtrix

Not supernatural, but you may recall that one of the still-influential dogmas of empiricism is that there are no innate ideas. It is still so widely accepted that Steve Pinker (of all people) felt obliged to write a book against it (called The Blank Slate.) So Chomsky's 'generative grammar' does, I think, tend to undermine that dogma - if not by suggesting innate ideas, then innate capabilities, which I think are regarded with suspicion by many naturalists on dogmatic grounds.

No offense— but how much of Chomsky have you really read? — Xtrix

Hardly anything. I did read the paper that Manual posted. I've read other snippets, including this one, which also suggests an approach rather at odds with the mainstream. Unlike others here, I'm not an expert, but then I don't claim to be. I just made an observation, is all.

(From that review I linked: 'Is there an ontological discontinuity between humans and other animals? Berwick and Chomsky arrive, on purely empirical grounds, at the conclusion that there is. All animals communicate, but only humans are rational; and for Berwick and Chomsky, human language is primarily an instrument of rationality.' That is bound to engender pushback, ain't it? 'Speciesism', I think.)

I’d say that’s relevant — Xtrix

Oh gee, I guess you said it - and Chomsky said it - so it must be true.

all backwater imbeciles. — Xtrix

Given that the vocabulary is dead in the water - something we which all agree with - then yeah. We do not owe the contingencies of vocabulary which we have now outstripped anything; nor to those contingencies tell us anything necessary about our cognitive capacities. Really, do you have anything else other than an argument from prestige?

Of course natural selection played a role in language. It wouldn’t still be here if it didn’t confer an advantage. That’s different from saying it evolved through incremental steps, each through natural selection. Chomsky is arguing against gradualism. — Xtrix

Yes, it's telling that the only positive thing Chomsky does in fact have to say on the topic of evolution is in regard to it's pace. Which, conveniently, serves as an excuse as to why he cannot say anything else. The pithy article you cited is nothing but a list of excuses as to why Chomsky can't say anything else about language and evolution - because he has categorically placed it outside the ambit of evolution.

As for the weasel wording of "he isn't talking about natural selection he is talking about gradualism" - well, this isn't the big disjunction you think it is because even in the article you cite, he talks about both in the same breath: "it was acquired not in the context of slow, gradual modification of preexisting systems under natural selection but in a single, rapid, emergent event that built upon those prior systems but was not predicted by them". In other words: magic. Look, I believe in catastrophism in evolution, but it's 100% clear to anyone with a brain that Chomsky's recourse to catastrophism is nothing but an excuse to veil over his theology of language.

Foisted upon science? So Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Locke, etc…the founders of modern philosophy and science — all backwater imbeciles. — Xtrix

No, but they are dead white guys, and that counts.

:up:

Regarding the article of this thread, don’t take my word for it — it’s all right there:

As the impact of Newton’s discoveries was slowly absorbed, such lowering of the goals of scientific inquiry became routine. Scientists abandoned the animating idea of the early scientific revolution: that the world will be intelligible to us. It is enough to construct intelligi- ble explanatory theories, a radical difference. By the time we reach Russell’s Analysis of Matter, he dismisses the very idea of an intelligible world as “absurd,” and repeatedly places the word “intelligible” in quotes to highlight the absurdity of the quest. Qualms about action at a distance were “little more than a prejudice,” he writes. “If all the world consisted of billiard balls, it would be what is called ‘intelligible’—that is, it would never surprise us sufficiently to make us realize that we do not understand it.”

But even without external surprise, we should recognize how little we understand the world, and should also realize that it does not matter whether we can conceive of how the world works. In his classic introduction to quantum mechanics a few years later, Paul Dirac wrote that physical science no longer seeks to provide pictures of how the world works, that is “a model functioning on es- sentially classical lines,” but only seeks to provide a “way of looking at the fundamental laws which makes their self-consistency obvious.” He was referring to the inconceivable conclusions of quantum physics, but could just as readily have said that even the classical Newtonian models had abandoned the hope of rendering natural phenomena intelligible, the primary goal of the early modern scientific revolution, with its roots in common-sense understanding.

It is useful to recognize how radical a shift it was to abandon the mechanical philosophy, and with it any scientific relevance of our common-sense beliefs and conceptions, except as a starting point and spur for inquiry.

To read this and conclude Chomsky is arguing that because some ideas were abandoned, that somehow everything is mysterious — is absurd.

To read this and conclude that he offers no alternative to the mechanical philosophy or an account of modern understanding— is absurd.

This is what comes of reading to refute, rather than reading to truly understand. So be it.

Yes, it's telling that the only positive thing Chomsky does in fact have to say on the topic of evolution is in regard to it's pace. Which, conveniently, serves as an excuse as to why he cannot say anything else. — StreetlightX

He says much more, in fact.

The pithy article you cited is nothing but a list of excuses as to why Chomsky can't say anything else about language and evolution - because he has categorically placed it outside the ambit. — StreetlightX

I’ll assume you didn’t read it. I think that’s the simple explanation for this comment— which is utter fabrication. The entire article, in fact, is about the evolution of language— just not one you like.

To say he’s placing language “outside the ambit” of science is truly laughable. Unless mutations to regulator genes is considered saying “nothing” and retreating into mysticism.

"it was acquired not in the context of slow, gradual modification of preexisting systems under natural selection but in a single, rapid, emergent event that built upon those prior systems but was not predicted by them". In other words: magic. — StreetlightX

See above. Proposing a rapid neurological rewiring via genetic mutation is “magic”?

Again, this makes sense if we assume Chomsky is a closet priest/mystic who is using all this as a cover and …

an excuse to veil over his theology of language. — StreetlightX

But I see exactly zero evidence for believing that. Why you do, I don’t know.

Perhaps Chomsky is completely wrong about language. But claiming he’s a mystic resorting to magic, while at the same time taking seriously the long-refuted “work” of Dan Everett — that’s just not convincing.

So Chomsky's 'generative grammar' does, I think, tend to undermine that dogma - if not by suggesting innate ideas, then innate capabilities, which I think are regarded with suspicion by many naturalists on dogmatic grounds. — Wayfarer

True.

Unlike others here, I'm not an expert, but then I don't claim to be. I just made an observation, is all. — Wayfarer

So far the only person who’s clearly read and understood Chomsky - that I see here - is Manuel. There’s a lot of misunderstanding around what Chomsky says about a lot of things, so it’s important to read him directly, listen to lectures/interviews/Q and As, or speak with him directly.

The rest is just speculation and fabrication, based on God knows what (casual reading, secondary sources, etc).

Right, so you don't have anything argument apart from an argument from prestige. Got it.

Unless mutations to regulator genes is considered saying “nothing” and repeating into mysticism. — Xtrix

Hahahaha, 'evolution happened because some changes took place in genes' = 'evolution happened because evolution happened'. Does your credulity know no bounds? Which genes? How? When? Via what mechanisms? For what reasons? And - most importantly - how do those changes relate to linguistic ability? If you find tautologies convincing then no wonder you think anything that Chomsky has written on evolution is of any significance whatsoever.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Ray Jackendoff has rightly called Chomskys' view on evolution and language a 'retreat to mysticism', which, of course, it is.

How to pretend to science:

1. Propose some bullshit.
2. Say that its origins are shrouded in evolutionary history.
3. But it's compatible with evolution because "some changes happened to some genes - which ones? Dunno - somewhere, at some point, pretty quickly but who knows really".
4. And how do those genetic changes - whatever the fuck they are - relate to linguistic ability? Who the fuck knows?
5. Bullshit validated.

Unless mutations to regulator genes is considered saying “nothing” and repeating into mysticism.
— Xtrix

Hahahaha, 'evolution happened because some changes took place in genes' = 'evolution happened because evolution happened'. Does your credulity know no bounds? Which genes? How? When? Via what mechanisms? For what reasons? And how do those changes relate to linguistic ability? — StreetlightX

You already conceded that rapid change is possible— so that already takes the claims out of the realm of “magic.” It’s a claim about how the system evolved— not that it evolved. That’s one point.

As for the questions. Which genes? Possibly regulator genes. How? Via mutation. When? We can’t possibly know exactly when— but evidence from paleoanthropology suggests behaviorally modern humans have been around for roughly 200 thousand years. For what reasons did language evolve? Possibly by chance — but that it stuck around is obvious, and so must have had a selective advantage. I find that an odd question though. What “reasons” are there for anything to evolve beyond chance and selection?

How the changes relate to linguistic ability — I can’t say I understand this question. What do you mean by linguistic ability? According to the article, language is given a technical notion. One basic property — called merge — is what is discussed, along with computational efficiency.

If you find tautologies convincing — StreetlightX

I don’t. But I’m not seeing the tautology here. Language evolved — that’s a given. How? Through changes in genes— that’s obvious. Did this happen gradually or rapidly? Chomsky argues it happened rapidly, and provides reasons and evidence (and speculation) — based on findings in genetics, paleoanthropology, cases of rapid evolution, etc. i don’t see how this equates to “evolution happened because evolution happened.” No one is arguing that language didn’t evolve — is that tautological?

Ray Jackendoff has rightly called Chomskys' view on evolution and language a 'retreat to mysticism', which, of course, it is. — StreetlightX

Never heard of him — but didn’t you mention something about “argument from prestige?”

Regardless— if he offers convincing reasons for this claim, fine. I’m not seeing them from you. Frankly I think the accusation is ludicrous, when Chomsky has said repeatedly that language is biological and has evolved, perhaps rapidly. How that’s somehow “mysticism” is yet to be shown.

As for the questions. Which genes? Possibly regulator genes. How? Via mutation. When? We can’t possibly know exactly when— but evidence from paleoanthropology suggests behaviorally modern humans have been around for roughly 200 thousand years. For what reasons did language evolve? Possibly by chance — but that it stuck around is obvious, and so must have had a selective advantage. I find that an odd question though. What “reasons” are there for anything to evolve beyond chance and selection? How the changes relate to linguistic ability — I can’t say I understand this question. What do you mean by linguistic ability? According to the article, language is given a technical notion. One basic property — called merge — is what is discussed, along with computational efficiency. — Xtrix

Ladies and gentlemen, Science.

No— plenty more to say about it, more in depth and with references. But figured I’d give at least a lightning sketch. I never said it was convincing or even anything other than speculation. But certainly not mysticism.

Also, I googled Ray Jackenoff:

Over the years, I have come to disagree with Noam on just about every detail of the formalism (beyond the existence of phrase structure), and as well on many aspects of the overall architecture of the language faculty. I have even begun to wonder (horrors!) whether Zellig Harris’s notion of transformations might be closer to the truth than Noam’s. But I still consider myself to be working within his overall vision of what language is like and how one should investigate it. I still believe that children have come equipped with a brain specialized for learning language, and I find it important to find out what that specialization is. And I still find it imperative to explore the structure of language in rigorous formal terms, even if my technology is quite different from his (and becoming more so). And I’m still in awe of his incredible intellect, which created this crazy field we’re in. I wouldn’t be in the business if it weren’t for Noam.

So I wonder about that aforementioned quote. But no matter.

But figured I’d give at least a lightning sketch. — Xtrix

Mmm, so did Chomsky, before stopping right there. And well done on Googling I'm very proud of you.

Thanks, old chap.

I guess I’ve failed to persuade you once again.

So what do you find more convincing about language evolution, beyond Chomsky?