Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - Noam Chomsky AMA on UFO's, Cryptocurrencies, Nietzsche, Kurt Gödel, and Fear of Death

Episode Date: June 2, 2021

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX0hn6F-jsINoam Chomsky reveals his thoughts on his own death, meeting Kurt Gödel, and more. Sponsors: https://brilliant.org/TOE for 20% off. http://algo.com for supply chain AI.Patreon for conversations on Theories of Everything, Consciousness, Free Will, and God: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal Crypto (anonymous): https://tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE PayPal: https://tinyurl.com/paypalTOE Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802 Pandora: https://pdora.co/33b9lfP Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: https://reddit.com/r/theoriesofeverythingLINKS MENTIONED: Janice Fiamengo interview with Curt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwT-w47Il5cTHANK YOU: Henry Hoffman-Bakoussis for enumerating the questionsTIMESTAMPS: 00:00:00 Introduction 00:02:29 [Stephen Wolfram] If we knew the operation of each neuron, could we understand linguistics? 00:04:06 [Sebastiaan Kampers] Is there meaning outside language? 00:05:03 [Ar On] Are you more proud of your contributions to linguistics or of your contributions to politics? 00:05:44 [Cowicide] How can one discuss philosophy while staying non-political? 00:07:56 [Ar On] What are your thoughts on mandating vaccines? 00:10:04 [Bulldog Madhav] How to avoid despair, after seeing life's meaninglessness 00:13:39 [Amjad Hussain] How to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience? 00:16:58 [CryptoND1] Will crypto lead to a monetary revolution? Good or bad? 00:17:53 [Global] Blockchain technology for direct democratic voting system? 00:22:42 [John Doe] What about the latest UAP / UFO revelations by pentagon? 00:23:28 [Patrick O'Donnell] How to communicating with aliens 00:31:04 [Connor] Opinion on Frankfurt school? 00:31:38 [Wiil-Waal] Do you fear death? Why / why not? 00:32:46 [Ivan Bilu] How to explain multiple personalities, with different languages? 00:34:02 [Brandon] Speaking in tongues phenomenon and spirituality 00:35:52 [Prof. Janice Fiamengo] Feminism / MeToo and liberty 00:39:19 [Biers Adajew] Societies with a belief in free will vs. no free will 00:41:48 [Ideas Sleep Furiously] Who's the smartest person Chomsky ever met 00:48:08 [Tobia Davico] On Jacques Lacan and his influence on Chomsky 00:51:45 [Queerdo] Are you a part of an anti-aging study based on plant diet? 00:53:06 [Henry S] How does Chomsky stay sharp at 92? 00:54:30 [Noah Müller] Connection between language and movement 00:55:37 [Lavl2001] Why are psychedelics illegal? 01:01:56 [Joshua Bracho] Do you have any thoughts on the work of Friedrich Nietzsche? 02:28:12 [Ravi Ray] Objectively determine that some works of art are better than others 01:04:20 [Biers Adajew] What are Chomsky's views on anti-natalism? 01:06:04 [Hamid] What do you think about "It from Bit" idea from John Wheeler? 01:06:34 [Jens] On Steven Pinker's words and rules theory of language* * *Just wrapped (April 2021) a documentary called Better Left Unsaid http://betterleftunsaidfilm.com on the topic of "when does the left go too far?" Visit that site if you'd like to watch it.

Alright, hello to all listeners, Kurt here. That silence is missed sales. Now, why? It's because you haven't met Shopify, at least until now. Now that's success. As sweet as a solved equation. Join me in trading that silence for success with Shopify. It's like some unified field theory of business.

Whether you're a bedroom inventor or a global game changer, Shopify smooths your path. From a garage-based hobby to a bustling e-store, Shopify navigates all sales channels for you. With Shopify powering 10% of all US e-commerce and fueling your ventures in over 170 countries, your business has global potential. And their stellar support is as dependable as a law of physics. So don't wait. Launch your business with Shopify. Shopify has award-winning service and has the internet's best converting checkout. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash theories.

Noam Chomsky needs a little introduction. He's revolutionized the field of linguistics, and in many ways he founded that field. Ordinarily, he's asked questions ad nauseum about politics, and I'm wholly uninterested in that. This channel is geared toward answering the question of what is the theory of everything if there is one. That is, making progress toward theories of everything, theoretical physics, and consciousness. It's because of this latter topic that we chose to stay within the purview of psychology, philosophy, and cognitive science with Noam Chomsky. There are a couple sponsors to today's podcast. Algo is an end-to-end supply chain optimization software company with software that helps business users optimize sales and operations,

planning to avoid stockouts, reduce returns, and inventory write-downs while reducing inventory investment. It's a supply chain AI that drives smart ROI headed by an equally bright individual by the name of Amjad Hussain, who has been a huge supporter of this podcast nearly since its inception. The second sponsor is Brilliant. Brilliant illuminates the soul of math, engineering, and science through bite-sized interactive learning experiences. Brilliant's courses explore the laws that shape our world, elevating math and science from something to be feared to a delightful experience of guided discovery. More on them later. If you'd like to hear more conversations like this,

then please do consider supporting at patreon.com slash KurtJaiMungle. I've also recently opened up a crypto and a PayPal account. So feel free to donate through whichever medium you feel most comfortable with. These podcasts tend to take plenty of preparation and I would like to do them more frequently with more intensity.

For example, at the end of August, we have Josje Bak and Donald Hoffman coming on to discuss the nature of consciousness. And actually, tomorrow we have Kevin Knuth and Jacques Vallee on UFOs. Thank you so much, no matter what you choose. This channel may as well be called Theories of Gnome because of how often we've had Gnome Chomsky on.

He's now a dear friend, and perhaps there'll be a sixth time. So if you want, feel free to leave some questions in the comments, and I'll cull and collect them for later. If you also want to facilitate the understanding and perhaps the cultivation of one's own theory of everything, or our own theory of everything for this channel, then please join the Discord. There's plenty of wonderful, astute conversation happening there,

and I'm constantly impressed with the level of civility and even ingenuity displayed in that Discord. Thank you so much, and enjoy. Okay, Professor, thank you for coming. Very pleased to be with you again. We'll start with question number 41. That is, Steven Wolfram asks, is it true that we may have a description of how brains work slash process language at a microscopic level, and we still may not have a satisfactory science of linguistics?

That is, that the lower level doesn't necessarily inform us about the higher level. a higher level? Well, first of all, the idea of a description of how brains work at a microscopic level is a dream. People don't even know where to look. So, for example, there's very good arguments that the computational work done by the brain, even in animals like insects, is probably at the cellular level, even internal had detailed information, say about cells or about atoms or whatever, it would tell you very little about the way in which systems work. You could know everything about how the atoms work in a car, and you wouldn't know how the car works. These are just at a different level of organization. The next question will be question number one, which is from Sebastian Kampers, and he asks, is there meaning outside language? Depends what you mean by meaning. The term is very loose.

It's an English word. Doesn't translate very well into other languages. In English, the term is used very loosely. So you talk about the meaning of life, the meaning of the stars, anything. So the question has no answer unless you specify what you mean by meaning. There is a problem of meaning in language. What do the words and expressions of language mean. The rest is metaphor. Okay, we'll do question number two, which is from Erron, and he asks, or she asks,

are you more proud of your contributions to linguistics or your contributions to politics? Well, I don't think it's a question of pride. It's just, if I look at, objectively, at the contributions, the ones to linguistics are far more substantive. In the domain of politics, pretty much everything you say is on the surface. There isn't much of any particular depth to say. any particular depth to say. Okay, then we'll get to question number 32, and it says Cowicide. Cowicide asks, How can one discuss philosophy while staying non-political?

By discussing philosophy while staying non-political. In a sense, there are human consequences to almost anything you do. But when you're discussing, for example, the problem of philosophy that you like, Take any problem of philosophy that you like. What's the basis for deciding whether a scientific theory is the right one or not? What are the criteria for determining that question of philosophy of science? There's nothing political about it. Anyone, whatever, with any political

view whatsoever can discuss it. I mean, a lot of my own work when I was, for many years, happened to be with distinguished philosophers who were at the absolute opposite end of the spectrum for me politically but it had no effect on our philosophical discussions some people say that you can't discuss philosophy without being political and that virtually everything we do is political somehow do you agree with that? I think it's everything we do. There are things that have so few human consequences that to say that they're political is meaningless. discussing say with van quine first philosophy teacher one of the first of the question of whether there are whether you can make a distinction between analytic and synthetic sentences is there anything political about that if so what is it okay we'll move on to question

33 the next one. Eran, again, what are your thoughts on mandating vaccines? It's a mixed story. I think people who refuse to accept vaccines, I think the right response for them is not to force them to, but rather to insist that they be isolated. If people decide I am willing to be a danger to the community by refusing a vaccine, they should then say, well, I also have the decency to isolate myself. Okay, I don't want a vaccine, but I don't have the right to run around harming people.

I'll just, that should be a convention. Enforcing is a different question. It should be understood. Enforcing is a different question. It should be understood, and we should try to get it to be understood. If it really reaches the point where they are severely endangering people, then, of course, you have to do something about it. So if someone, if smallpox turns out to become rampant again, and some people are insisting on running around to public places where they might have smallpox, well, you've got to do something about it. We're not at quite that situation, but it's a similar one.

So I think we should first attempt to establish conventions that will be understandable by people with some moral capacity, try to convince them that it's your right to refuse to get a vaccine, but then it is your responsibility to isolate yourself so you don't harm others. Bulldog Madgav, number 34. I would really like to know how Chomsky avoids despair given all that's wrong in the world and also given the shortness and potential meaninglessness of life? Well, I've had 92 years, which doesn't seem short. Never thought that life was meaningless. Thought it was constantly rich in opportunities,

significance, happiness, aspirations. I don't know anything that's meaningless about that. The way to avoid despair is to recognize how much you can achieve if you devote yourself to it. You can look over the past record. See, I can look over, say, pretty much 85 years say of conscious life

conscious of what's happening in the world and there have been enormous changes not all to the good but many very positive they haven't just happened they weren't miracles they happened because people did not

succumb to despair and feelings of meaninglessness, but devoted themselves to improving the world. People whose names we don't know, endless numbers of them, and it's made a difference. And it happens right to the present moment, right to the present moment. Right to the present moment. You can see it in today's newspapers.

There are things that people are willing to say and understand and comprehend now that wouldn't have been understood at all not very long ago. For example, we can open the New York Times today and read an article by Benjamin Applebaum, which writes about social issues and how the legal system that distributes funds to unemployed workers, how it functions. funds to unemployed workers, how it functions. And as he points out, it functions on pure racist grounds established in the 1930s, 1940s, because racist southern states did not want federal benefits to go to their mostly black workers. We still have a residue of that today, but at least today,

it's generally can be generally condemned not by the Republican Party, but by others and it can be an issue. We can try to move to change. Okay, pick that at random because it happens to be an issue you can try to move to change okay pick that at random because it's happens to be an article that just read but you can pick almost random and find similar things the world in many ways there are serious significant improvements higher understanding, greater sensibility, small changes of policy, plenty of problems, plenty of reasons for being concerned, deeply upset, but not despair, because it can be changed. You despair when you think it can't be changed, and that's not true.

It can be. Thank you. We'll get to question 37 and that's from amjad hussein and for those watching amjad is a huge supporter of the podcast thank you his company algo which you can look it up algo.com supports this podcast as a sponsor of it. Amjad asks, how do we differentiate between good science and pseudoscience? Do we need pseudoscience, sometimes also called fringe science, to do ideation and experimentation? And eventually some of those pseudo fringe scientific ideas move toward becoming real science with predictive powers, with predictive power and weight and ways to test falsifiability. So how do we differentiate between good science and pseudoscience? with predictive power and ways to test falsifiability.

So how do we differentiate between good science and pseudoscience? I would put it a little bit differently. How do we differentiate between good science and science that's not so good? I don't know what pseudoscience... I mean, there is pseudoscience. Pretense. Okay, we don't want just pretense. But within the search for understanding truth, the basic goals of science, there are many approaches. The ones that are, we find viable ones and the better ones. It's not a yes or no. It's not a yes or no business. So, for example, ideas that were considered very marginal, not taken seriously for a long time, even in physics, let alone other sciences, later are discovered to have a high degree of credibility and worth pursuing. They always keep them on the shelf, think about them.

It's not pseudoscience, it's just ideas that don't seem to make any sense at some particular time. They might later on. Meanwhile, you just keep pursuing the only methods that you have. Critical careful analysis, careful study of the data, debate and discussion about ideas and theories, experimentation when it's appropriate. And out of that mixture of options comes a general move towards better science. It doesn't happen in a day.

Take Isaac Newton's theories. I mean, they were considered so exotic that at his own university at Cambridge they weren't even taught for about 40 or 50 years. Well, by now after that they just became scientific

common sense. That's the way science functions. We'll get to question 39. 39, that is CryptoND asks, do you believe that Bitcoin could potentially lead to a true monetary and fiscal revolution, or do you think things will stay the same and perhaps even get worse? Well, first of all, I'm no specialist on this topic,

so my opinions don't really amount to very much. But for what they're worth, I don't see any sign that Bitcoin is replacing, is coming to anything like a monetary or fiscal revolution. I suspect it's, for the moment, kind of a fad. Pardon the fact that it's, for the moment, kind of a fad. Part of the fact that it's using extraordinary amounts of energy. Very serious problem. Okay, we'll get to question five from page one.

And that's from Global Digital Direct Subsidiary Democracy asks, does Chomsky think that blockchain technology could be utilized to problems of a democratic voting system are technical. They're not questions of how to make it work smoothly. There are very serious problems in a democratic system. To take a pretty obvious problem, Simply ask the question whether under our system or any modification of it that might be given by digital technology, whether voters are represented by their own representatives. It's a pretty straightforward question. Fair measure of democracy. Pretty easy to study. You study the attitudes and preferences of voters, compare it with the votes of their own representatives.

That has been done in very sophisticated ways. The most recent study by The most recent study by McGuire and Delahunt uses all sorts of sophisticated and deep learning and so on and so forth. Comes out with pretty much the same results as other studies. The large majority of voters are not represented. Their own representatives act independently of what the preferences of the electors are of their voters. They're listening to other voices. And we know exactly how it works. If you're in the Maguire-Delahunt, they say maybe it's up to 90 percent. Other estimates have been 70 percent. As you move, and of course it's the lower part of the income spectrum, the wealth spectrum. So as you get to the higher levels, yes of course they're represented. In fact those are the voices that their representatives are listening to. And the reasons have a lot to do with things that have nothing to do with blockchain technology or anything else.

Simply the distribution of wealth in the society and the way in which that enters the political system. So, for example, campaign funding. So if you're elected to Congress, the first thing you do on the first day in office is start calling the mega donors, the people who have lots of money to contribute to campaigns, because you have to start preparing the funding for the next campaign. Campaign electability is predictable with very high precision simply by looking at the variable of campaign funding. Thomas Ferguson, political scientist, has done the main work on this. Very high predictability. So you're on the phone talking to the donors.

Meanwhile, hordes of corporate lobbyists are invading your office to talk to the staff, overwhelming them with all sorts of claims, evidence, demands, and so on. Staff may be very good people, but they're not going to be able to deal with this mass of power. So you end up with legislation written substantially by the corporate lobbyists, the same people who the representative is talking to on the phone to try to get funding

for his next elections. It's not 100% of what happens, but it's a very substantial part of the political system. So out of that kind of arrangement comes an enormous gap between voters and their own representatives for all but the very top of the income level. No technical problem is going to overcome that. It's the wrong place to look. So whether blockchain could do anything, I don't know, would have no effect on this. Whether blockchain could do anything, I don't know. It would have no effect on this. John Doe, question seven. John Doe wants to know, what does Chomsky think about the latest UFO slash UAP revelations confirmed by the Pentagon? Well, I think the word revelation is a little strong. I would say claims. We don't know what they mean.

There are lots of possible explanations for why an airplane pilot would think he's seeing something. I think UFO is one of the least likely explanations for it. So let's look at the evidence with an open mind. But quite frankly, I don't expect anything to come of it. Okay, we'll get to question 17. This is also about aliens. If we were to make contact with aliens, what kind of language could we use to ask them questions like where are you from why are you here etc and this

is from Patrick O'Donnell if we first of all it's very unclear that there are intelligent aliens anywhere within the parts of the universe that are accessible to us. Remember, there are physical constraints on what parts of the universe are accessible to us. It's a huge, enormous number of planets, very similar to ours. But that doesn't mean that you're going to find intelligent life. But that doesn't mean that you're going to find intelligent life. In fact, there's some evidence that recent studies that show that the probability of reaching the even cellular complexity that allows life, let alone intelligent life, are quite small.

So there's no reason to assume that there is intelligent life. We might literally be alone in the parts of the universe that are accessible to us. But suppose we do run into, that might be the answer to the famous Fermi paradox. Where are all these planets around which are very much like ours? How come we don't get any indication of any intelligent life? You look at what we call intelligent life on Earth. If by intelligent you mean something like human intelligence, my dog is intelligent, but it's not going to communicate with aliens. So if we mean the kind of

intelligence that would allow this question to be raised, it's a phenomenal accident. Life has been around on Earth for almost four billion years until maybe a couple hundred thousand years ago.

This question couldn't even been asked. It's an instant of evolutionary time and it's the result of a long series of accidents which could have turned out some other way. So we don't know, but suppose there is, suppose we do make some contact. Well, the first question would probably be, how much is two plus two? The one thing that intelligent life is likely to have is arithmetic. And there are pretty good reasons for that. There's quite some interesting studies by Marvin Minsky, one of the founders of artificial intelligence and a very smart guy, friend, colleague, died a couple of years ago. He was one of those scientists who was very interested in the possibility of making contact with aliens. And he and one of his students back in the 60s did an

interesting study. They took what are called Turing machines, abstract computers. It doesn't matter what the physical structure is, just think of it the way a computer functions abstractly. And they studied the simplest ones, the ones with the fewest states and the fewest symbols, and just let them kind of run free, see what they would do. It turns out that almost all of them crashed.

They either ran into endless cycles or one or another way just crashed. Some survived. The ones that survived produced the successor function, the function one, two, three, four, which is the foundation of arithmetic. If you have the successor function, you can then move with a few tweaks to get addition,

subtraction, multiplication, essentially arithmetic. So what Minsky concluded is that if there's intelligent life somewhere, nature will at least have found the simplest possible form of intelligence, namely successor function. And in fact, that's pretty widespread in the organic world. So for example, ants can count the number of their steps. If an ant is wandering in the desert and it wants to know how to get home, it counts up as a record of the number of steps it's made and takes them back. So something like the successor function is pretty widespread. It's of some interest that the successor function and the elements of arithmetic And the elements of arithmetic actually are very closely related to the core computational properties of human language.

You take the very simplest possible case of a possible language, a lexicon with just one word in it, and the most simple computation, you get something like the successor one. So it's very likely in many grounds that if evolution ever reached this point, it would at least have that. So the first point of effort to interact with some alien intelligence would be to see if we can at least find common ground on arithmetic, then move on from there. Questions like the ones asked, what they want, where are you from, why are you here, that's way off in the distance. First you want to try to see if it's possible to make some contact at all. You're watching this channel because you're interested in theoretical physics,

consciousness, and the ostensible connection between the two. What's required to follow some of these arguments is facility with mathematics, as well as discernment of the underlying physical laws, and you may think that this is beyond you, but that's false. Brilliant provides pellucid explanations of abstruse phenomenon such as quantum computing, general relativity, and even group theory. When you hear that the standard model is based on U1 cross SU2 cross SU3, that's group theory for example. Now this isn't just for neophytes either. For example, I have a degree in math and physics and I still found some of the intuitions given in

these lessons to vastly aid my Penetration into these subjects for example electricity and magnetism sign up today at brilliant org slash toe that is t o e For free you'll also get 20% off the annual premium subscription try four of the lessons at least don't stop before four And I think you'll be greatly surprised at the ease at which you comprehend subjects you previously had trouble grokking. Links are in the description. Razor blades are like diving boards. The longer the board, the more the wobble, the more the wobble, the more nicks, cuts,

scrapes. A bad shave isn't a blade problem. It's an extension problem. Henson is a family-owned aerospace parts manufacturer that's made parts for the International Space Station and the Mars rover. Now they're bringing that precision engineering to your shaving experience. By using aerospace-grade CNC machines,

Henson makes razors that extend less than the thickness of a human hair. The razor also has built-in channels that evacuates hair and cream, which make clogging virtually impossible. Henson Shaving wants to produce the best razors, not the best razor business. So that means no plastics, no subscriptions,

no proprietary blades, and no planned obsolescence. It's also extremely affordable. The Henson razor works with the standard dual edge blades that give you that old school shave with the benefits of this new school tech. It's time to say no to subscriptions and yes to a razor that'll last you a lifetime. Visit hensonshaving.com slash everything.

If you use that code, you'll get two years worth of blades for free. Just make sure to add them to the cart. Plus 100 free blades when you head to H-E-N-S-O-N-S-H-A-V-I-N-G dot com slash everything and use the code everything. Okay, from the live chat, Connor McD wants to know, what's your opinion on the Frankfurt School? It's very hard to answer general questions like that.

They had some interesting contributions. Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, others. Some of it we can learn from. Personally, myself, I don't get a lot from it, but I think it's worth studying. Okay, question 30. That's on page 3. Will Wall wants to know, do you fear death? Why or why not?

Well, when I was about 10 years old, maybe 12 years old, I started to think about what would happen when I die. And what concerned me was that when my consciousness ended, how could I know whether the world would even persist? Would there be anything else or would that be the world would even persist? Would there be anything else or would that be the end of the universe? And that was a pretty frightening idea. But it took me about a year or two to get over it. I said, yeah, I think the world will persist. So death is part of life. Enjoy life while you have it.

Do what you can with it. It'll end. The world will go on. Okay, the question right before that, 29. Ivan Bilu. Why do people have multiple personality disorders, and how do you explain someone waking up and speaking a foreign language? Well, if they're speaking a foreign language,

it's a language that they already knew. They're not going to speak a foreign language they never heard before. A person who's lived his whole life in Tucson, Arizona, where I now am, is not going to wake up in the middle of the night and start speaking Swahili. As to why there are personality disorders, psychology doesn't really understand this.

Human mind is a very complex system in which you have bare understanding doesn't reach this form. We know that it happens. We know it's a syndrome. We can try to deal with it, but the sources of it are well beyond the reach of science at this point. We don't know the answer to much simpler questions about the mind. We don't know the answer to much simpler questions about the mind. Question 19, similar, from Brandon from Sacramento, who asks, What are Professor Chomsky's thoughts on glossolalia, or speaking in tongues?

Is there an explanation for why this is associated with spiritual experience? Again, I've seen it in evangelical churches, and it happens, but what's involved in it, again, is far beyond the reach of any scientific understanding. We have to recognize that science is hard. It's hard to explain even simple things. Take ants again. Just trying to figure out how the ants in my backyard can navigate. They can navigate way better than I can. They can deal with properties of the sun, where it is,

and all sorts of things that are way beyond my capacity. They do this with a very tiny brain, minuscule brain. Nobody knows how it works. If you can't answer questions like that, with a very tiny brain, miniscule brain. Nobody knows how it works. And if you can't answer questions like that, you're not gonna answer questions about psychiatric disorders among humans. You can get some level of understanding, but it's not gonna be at any theoretical depth.

I mean, questions of understanding the world are very difficult. You can't just pose questions and say, let's find an answer to it. Okay, we'll move on to the next one, because your dog seems to not like that. Janice Viamengo asks, The Innocent Project is an organization that works toward exonerating the wrongly convicted through dna testing and reforms the criminal justice system to prevent future injustices at the same time one of the major planks of modern feminist movement is hashtag believe women which has arrived which has arised due to the hashtag me too movement,

which fights for women to stand up against sexual harassment and sexual assault. Do you think there's a conflict between these two self-declared liberatory projects? And how could that conflict be resolved? There's always a kind of conflict between those who make charges against someone and the person who is the target of the charges who wants to exonerate himself. That's what court proceedings are about. It's always a conflict. The accused, the accuser has a grievance. The accused may profess innocence. That's what happens in every court of law every day of the week. This is a particular case of a far-reaching case. This is a particular case of a far-reaching case.

The Innocence Project is properly trying to ask of those who are accused, is there sufficient evidence against them? The Me Too movement is saying there are plenty of people who are being abused, not listened to, we have to listen to them. Okay? So this is a large-scale, highly significant aspect of any legal proceeding, which has an accuser and an accused. How do you deal with it?

There's no algorithm. You have to deal with it by thinking carefully through the claims, the feelings, the attitudes on all sides, and try to adjudicate. There is a presumption of innocence. We should maintain that. We have to assume, I think it's correct to assume, the principle of innocent until shown to be guilty. Proven to be guilty is too strong. There are really no proofs, but ample evidence to demonstrate guilt. Short of that, we should presume innocence. That's tough on the abused because they may not be able to provide the evidence.

But I don't think there's a way around that. We can't, even if we can assume that the abused have a strong case, unless they can demonstrate it plausibly, it's unfair for the target to be charged. There's no way to defend yourself. Number 15. Beers Adajou from check me out asks number 15 realistically what a human society where the lack of free will is the commonly accepted truth be any different than

than the current human society where having free will is sorry let me restate realistically what a human society where the lack of free will is the commonly accepted truth be any different than the current human society where having free will is the commonly accepted truth? There are sub-communities in our society where lack of free will is the commonly accepted truth. Large part of the scientific community believes that. Large part of the philosophical world believes that, thinks everything is determined, that freedom of will is just an illusion. Actually, none of the people who profess this really believe it, in my opinion.

In fact, they're trying to convince you of it. They're giving reasons. If we're all just thermostats acting in a totally determined fashion, giving reasons is a totally pointless activity. You don't give reasons to an automaton. It behaves the way it's going to behave. So my feeling is, intuitively, all of us believe that we can make a decision as to whether, say, to lift my little finger or not. I can decide do I want to

do that or don't I. I think everybody intuitively believes that there are a large number of highly sophisticated, brilliant people who think they can convince themselves that they can't make that decision. They're among us. Society functions exactly the same for them as it does for us. So the answer to the question, I think, is already given to us. There are a great many among us, some of the most sophisticated people who think about these topics, who think there is no free will everything's determined Do they behave any differently from anyone else

Not detectively Question number 18 from ideas sleep furiously Who's the smartest person Chomsky ever met? And does he have any cool anecdotes about that person? I'm a huge fan of Chomsky. Please don't let him just say they're all just normal people. I want juicy gossip. This man has met everyone from Rawls to Ed Witten. Nobody's just a normal person. Everyone has all kinds of properties, all kinds of characteristics, abilities, talents. I mean, there are people I've met in rural communities, people who can just do anything, any technical problem you present to them, say, my car doesn't work,

they can look at it and start to fix it. To me, I'd never have that talent. Some of the smartest people I've ever met would just say, throw it out. There's no way to deal with it. There are just different talents. There are people who are great musicians and do many other things. I mean, people are what they are. I've met lots of people who are conventionally very smart.

You want to ask them a question about quantum physics, they'll explain it to you. If you don't understand the latest ideas in category theory and mathematics, they'll give you a lecture about it. If you want to know about ancient Greece, they'll give you deep commentary on it. If you want to fix your motor,

they'll fix it for you. I don't know how to rank people. They're just what they are with their complex talents, abilities, interests, and so on. There's plenty of anecdotes about them. Is there someone in particular who impressed you with their intellect? Oh, plenty of people. I could name some, but we'll exclude others. Just pick one who's an old friend from high school. Was a friend until his death a couple of years ago. My only high school friend who I stayed friendly with, Hilary Putnam, brilliant philosopher, mathematician, scientist. We were pretty close most of our lives, disagreed on almost everything, philosophical,

everything else, but didn't matter, stayed close friends. I mean, there are some quite amusing anecdotes. I didn't see this myself, but a famous one has to do with Kurt Erdl, who's maybe the greatest mathematician of the 20th century. I met him, a very strange guy, very brilliant, but very strange. Two of his close friends, Albert Einstein and Oscar Morgenstern, decided to try to convince him to become an American citizen. He was an immigrant like all of them were. So he'd have to go to a place where you get tested, you know.

How's the Senate elected? That sort of thing. So Gödel studied the Constitution in depth. And he came to Einstein one day and he said there's a problem. He found a contradiction in the Constitution. And when he goes for his test, he's going to have to tell the guy that there's a contradiction in the Constitution. So Einstein and Morgenstern tried to convince him to play it down, you know, not bring it up. And apparently they were able to get him to do it down, you know, not bring it up. And apparently they were able to get him to do it. But that's, that's Gertl.

You said that Kurt Gertl was strange. What about him was strange? Well, I, I did, was appointed to the Institute for Advanced Studies back in 1958, where he was a research, senior research fellow. And of course, I wanted to meet Gödel. And so, as soon as I had a chance, I made an appointment with him, went into his office. He asked me politely, what kinds of things are you working on? I said, we're working on language. He said, you're wasting your time. It's all been solved by Leibniz.

And it turned out, then I listened for an hour to a lecture on Leibniz. He had about every book on Leibniz from the Princeton Library in his office, and he was studying Leibniz in depth. He was convinced that Leibniz basically had the answer to everything. We only had to detect it by studying carefully what he had to say. Kind of reminded me of a person who obviously I never met, Isaac Newton, another brilliant figure who spent much of his life studying the church fathers. He was convinced that the church fathers had understood things at a level of depth and insight that modern humans in his day couldn't attain, but they put it in a very cryptic fashion.

So if you studied the church fathers in depth, you would get the answers to their questions. Well, these are maybe the smartest people you can find anywhere. Very strange. smartest people you can find anywhere. Very strange. Question 24. This is Tobia Davico. He or she wants to know, question for Professor Chomsky, has Jacques Lacan influenced your thinking on the nature of language in any way? Do you recall anything in particular about your encounter with them in 1975? Thank you. From Italy. Well, Jacques Lacan was, I don't remember the year, maybe it was 75, was invited to MIT by my friend Roman Jakobson, a very eminent linguist, one of the great humanistic figures

of the 20th century. He invited him to give a talk at MIT. And nobody was much interested, but Jakobsen convinced me and close friend, Morris Halley, who was close to Jakobsen. He convinced us to try to round up an audience for him. So we managed to convince a lot of students and others to come. to come and Lacan gave a talk in French which was

so embarrassing that at the end of the Roman Jakobsen was the moderator at the end of the talk people were kind of shuffling and looking at each other and so on. It was embarrassing

because it was boring or because of some other reason? Total nonsense. Total utter nonsense. At the end, he asked. Fortunately, it was in French and plenty of people just didn't understand it. But those who did understand it were pretty much appalled. At the end, Jakobsen turned to the audience and said, asked for questions.

And nobody had any, nobody wanted to say anything. So he called on me and said, would I like to comment on it? So I had to figure out a way to say something that was not embarrassing, not stupid, and said something or other. I forget what it was. But the answer to the question is no, there's never been any influence. So the question, you were trying to not be embarrassed for yourself or for him when you were trying to come up with the question? I had to say something i didn't want to embarrass him there was nothing to talk about about the content of his talk i somehow say something in that situation which would be you know appropriate be appropriate, not harsh, of course, but not supportive either. So just something to turn the discussion into some possible direction. I should say that afterwards, we all went out to Jakobsen, took us all out to dinner at a fancy restaurant.

We had a fine time with just an ordinary conversation among people. But in his professional appearances, at least at that stage of his work, it was, in my view, pretty embarrassing. Now, actually, he did earlier work, which I've cited sometime, on dream language, which I think had some interest. But that's not the work that he's famous for. Okay, speaking of eating, number 28. This is from Cuerto. I heard that you are or were participating in an anti-aging program and that a plant-based diet was a part of it. Can you tell us how that's been going? First of all,

is that even true? Oh, it's not true. I've never heard of any anti-aging program, and if there was one, I wouldn't be participating in it. However, it probably is true that a plant-based diet is generally good for your health, aside from many other advantages like mitigating the torture of animals, the very negative effect on global warming of the industrial production and agriculture and so on. So there may be very good reasons for moving towards a more plant-based diet, but more plant-based diet, but nothing that I'm involved in. My only anti-aging program is just keep working. Okay, speaking on that, number 22, Henry S., is there a practice that you partake in, in particular, that keeps your mental faculties as sharp as they are as you age? Do you personally feel as if you've slowed at all? Not particularly slowed. There are things I can't do that I used to do.

Like I often forget names, for example, forget phrases. More so than before, or you always... More so than before or you always that's a normal part of aging that's but the only thing I do is what sometimes called the bicycle theory long as you keep going fast, you don't fall. So what do you do on a daily basis? Are you writing? Are you reading? A lot of writing.

A lot of things like this. I had several talks today already. Some interviews. Tons of mail. Just constantly working, taking. I can't say it or there'll be a rush to the door, but I will extricate my animals. The canines. Well.

Okay. How about 26? Noah Mueller from Germany asks, is there a connection between language and movement? Does the language I speak actually change the way I move? Does it change the movement patterns of the speaker? Well, if you look at anybody speaking, you'll find they're almost always gesturing. And the gestural aspect does mirror properties of what is being said. It mirrors emphasis, focus, prosody, the pitch contours, and so on.

This varies from culture to culture. There are some cultures where there's a very lot of gestural activity going along with language. There are others in which people tend to be reserved and taciturn, keep their hands to their sides and so on. But I think these connections exist. I don't know of any others. How about question 40, which is Laval, 2001. He wants to know, why does Chomsky think it's the case that psychedelics are illegal

and still frowned upon when more dangerous drugs like alcohol are legal and even normalized? Well, remember that that's not always been the case. There was a time when alcohol was illegal, the whole period of prohibition.

And in general, when you look at the whole history of criminalization of substances, it's usually a kind of class and race war. It's the populations that are being subdued and controlled whose drugs are criminalized. So prohibition was a way to keep the immigrant communities who are going to saloons, to keep them under control. Incidentally, throughout the whole period of prohibition, if you were a rich New Yorker living in upstate New York, nobody was going to stop you from drinking wine.

But if you were an immigrant worker in downtown New York, you couldn't go to your favorite saloon. If you look at the history of not just psychedelics, but even, say, marijuana, Not just psychedelics, but even, say, marijuana. In fact, at the end of Prohibition, there was a big federal apparatus to implement the criminalization of alcohol. Anheuser was the head of it. So there was this huge bureaucracy. They had nothing to do. So they immediately tried to find something else to criminalize. What they picked was marijuana. Marijuana

was commonly used among Mexicans and blacks, Mexican Americans and blacks. And therefore that was picked as the target of criminalization. There were Senate hearings, all sorts of stories concocted about how marijuana makes people insane, makes them killers, you know, gotta to stop it. Actually, that ended after a while because what happened was that criminal lawyers were beginning to catch on to the fact that you could mount a criminal defense against your client, for your client, by saying he'd been smoking marijuana. So therefore, he was not conscious of what he was doing. When it got to that point, the law started being chained.

But basically it continued to be criminalization of the substances being used by parts of the population who you want to marginalize and control. Psychedelics came later. But the questioner is certainly correct. I mean, drugs like alcohol are far more dangerous. Tobacco is more dangerous than any of them. It's enormous. The number of people who die from tobacco is huge, but it's never been criminalized. Rich, powerful people, smoke, drug companies, the tobacco companies have enormous power. For decades they were able to suppress even the basic information about the lethal effects of smoking. It's finally been reduced, but on a class basis. So it's now like if you go to an elite university, walk around, university, walk around, you won't see students smoking, but you will see staff smoking. Go to a major hospital, the doctors won't be smoking, but the staff may well be outside

because they're not allowed to smoke in. So it's turned into a kind of a sort of a class issue. And smoking has been sharply reduced among more educated sectors of the population, not others. But it's never been criminalized. It was just a drug used by the wealthy and powerful and there were major capitalist institutions that just defended themselves against it. That hasn't been true for marijuana. Of course, the use of marijuana is changing slowly. Attitudes are changing, laws are changing. It's different now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. These are social and cultural changes.

But it is certainly true that criminalization had a very little relation to lethality, to harm, for other purposes. The last time we spoke, you mentioned that you were uninterested in mind-altering drugs like psychedelics and marijuana and so on. And I'm curious, is there a reason why? Is it because of the stigma or you wanted to keep your mind sharp? Just lack of any interest. No particular reason. No particular reason. I mean, you know, I was, especially in the 60s, when I was very much involved with youth culture and so on. There was marijuana all over the place, but I was never tempted. Same with friends, just not interested.

Okay, number four. Joshua Bracco wants to know if you have any thoughts on frederick nietzsche number four do you have any thoughts on the work of frederick nietzsche well my main thought is i wish i had time to read his work more carefully did you find it provocative interesting false Did you find it provocative, interesting, false? The little I've read, which is not much, is highly intriguing and interesting. But among the myriad things that I haven't had time to study, that's one.

Okay, the question right before this, three. Ravi Ray from Hong Kong wants to know, do you think that we can objectively determine that some works of art are better than others? Well, I think we can determine it. Actually, I have a criterion I use to decide whether something's a work of art. If I could do it, it's not a work of art. That's one objective criterion. But we know somehow. It's not easy. It changes over time. Attitudes as to what understanding as to what the great works of art are do change over time, but they do kind of coalesce. You somehow know. How do you know? It's a matter of what's the nature of our aesthetic capacities. A serious art critic

can be very helpful in explaining what it is that it is about, say, a great work of art that's not true of something I would draw. But is that objective? It's not just, I mean, there are objective criteria, but understanding of how this works is another one of those problems that's pretty well beyond comprehension that we can gain very intriguing understanding of it. When you read a serious art critic like say Meyer Shapiro or H. Gombrich, you learn a lot, at least I do, Meyer Shapiro or H. Gombrich. You learn a lot, at least I do, and it changes your appreciation and understanding.

Okay, number eight. Beers Adajou wants to know, what are Chomsky's views on antinatalism? Don't really see any point to it. If you don't want to have children, fine. But if why we should decide that other lives should not exist,

I don't see that I have any right to say that. What if they want to know, do you view having children as unethical because it contributes to environmental problems or overpopulation? Forget about mandating it or legalizing or not legalizing. It contributes to problems. It also contributes to progress. If we want to have works of art, for example, or scientific understanding, or technical solutions to the problems around us, they're going to come from people. If you don't have people, you don't have the contributions. Okay, someone from the chat, Drory, wants to know, this is just from the chat if a complex language is unique but other species collaborate on group

projects is it possible it was a devolution was the innovation around lying I don't understand the question do you no I don't I don't see it on the chat either

is it on the chat yeah it's on the chat I don't know why I'm't see it on the chat either. Is it on the chat? Yeah, it's on the chat. I don't know why I'm not seeing it. Okay. We're going to move on. Drury, if you can, you can rewrite that. Number 10, Hamad from Iran asks, what do you think of It from Bit from John Wheeler?

He's a great physicist. Met him. Impressive person. Competent physicist. Take him quite seriously. I'm not competent to judge. Actually, I am competent to judge. They'll have to leave. I'm afraid. Okay, that's fine. That's fine. Before you go, the last question, then, the one right before this about Steven Pinker, that one you should be competent enough to judge. Jens from Belgium asks, what do you think of Steven Pinker's words and rules theory of language

where regular verbs rely on rules and irregular verbs rely on lexical memory? Thanks. Well, when Pinker produced that book, it was a contribution, but it's now been superseded by much more far-reaching work, especially work by Charles Yang, a computer scientist,'s in a book called The Price of Productivity, where he developed a general method, a sophisticated method to determine the conditions under which someone acquiring a language would pick rules rather than lists. And it gives very precise answers to the course of development of children in the well-documented process of when they use regular verbs, irregular verbs, and so on.

But now it's based on after his work on really serious understanding of the fundamental mechanisms involved. So that supersedes all previous work on this topic. It's very sophisticated. Chomsky, thank you so much. I'm humbled every time we speak. I'm a huge admirer of you. Thank you so much. Nice to be with you. Thank you all. I'm looking through the chat. I didn't have a chance to ask all of your questions or almost any of your questions on the chat. It's extremely difficult for me to pay attention to Chomsky, which I want to do. I don't want to keep looking down. It's rude and it takes me out of the moment.

It's rude and it takes me out of the moment. But at the same time, I do want to answer your questions. You're kind enough to watch live and interested enough to type. It's a delicate balance. And I tend to choose the guest over the chat. Okay, well everyone, thanks so much for watching. Have a great one.