DUDE ALL WORDS ARE CONTAINED INSIDE THE FUCKING HUMAN GENOME LMAO

He never claimed words are embedded into genome, he said the ability to produce language is inherent to the human race.

Remember that time Darwin said finches could produce language? Me neither.

His grammar theory is at the core of modern automata theory and is part of foundation material at every undergrad CS course. Applications are endless from efficient source parsing to control flow analysis to computational linguistics. Don't know much about psychology.

What does your soul say?

I'm not too familiar with his works but the concept chomsky languages is at the foundation of automata theory, which is extremely important in CS (that's how you build compilers for instance)

You are totally way in over your head if you don't understand the specific claim Chomsky is making. Other animals do have 'language' but not with the rich recursive structures that human languages have.

>who do people take this guy seriously again?
jewish nepotism

wow, powerful chomsky quote

How many atoms are there in the universe?

Scientists say that there could be more atoms in the universe than grains of sand in every beach on Earth

Personally I think there could be more atoms on Earth than grains of sand in every beach on Earth

the ability to produce space probes is also inherent to the human race.
proof: space probes exist.

No, only a chosen few can, unlike language

Thats not what he said or implied or anything like it you fucking retarded pleb

Give me an honest summary of this guy.

A linguist with a passion for innate language, radical politics, and army money.

Personally I think there could be more atoms in the grains of sand in every beach on Earth than grains of sand in every beach on Earth

>DUDE ALL THINGS ARE CONTAINED INSIDE FUCKING GOD LMAO

If you've sat down and done syntax trees they can take time to parse, yet our brains know how the structure mechanics work without even thinking about linguistics, it's just instinctively "generated". Why is that?

Even if automata theory is nice that doesn't mean grammar is innate.

So he could be a character from mgs?

There's a spinoza book on the coffee table of my psychiatrist's office and the selling quote on the cover is "perhaps not the best thinker, but his ethics are unmatched" or something to that effect. Why would they put this on the cover of the book? It reads to me "this guy was a fucking idiot but he knew how to be a good boy". Why should that make me want to read philosophy?

if you read ethics it's clear how autistic he was

>>DUDE ALL WORDS ARE CONTAINED INSIDE THE FUCKING HUMAN GENOME LMAO
How does he explain this statement?

Re: psychology: the psychlinguistic theories on language comprehension inspired by Chomsky's theories are pretty bunch bunk.
un an unrelated note i find it interesting that the chomskian psycholinguistics brigade is headquartered in new england.

and while the concept of morality is clearly the biggest delusional emofag meme in history, i can respect chomsky for btfo'ing attention whoring chumps like sam harris

>Spinoza (1634-77) is the noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers. Intellectually, some others have surpassed him, but ethically he is supreme.

Is this the quote? It's by fucking Bertrand Russell lmao

most notable argument is "poverty of the stimulus", refering to the unfounded but understandable assumption that given how awesome our grasp of semantics and syntax is, there's no way we could simply aquire these patterns through our environment. i.e., there must be something innate about syntax
in reality, babies are fucking incredible pattern-recognition machines
www.atsweb.neu.edu/hlittlefield/CourseDocs/Acq/SaffranEtAl-1996.pdf

no i'm not jenny saffran - she talked to the grad students at my uni once and sounded like an attention whore

>there must be something innate about syntax
Does he make a statement on how humans have way different uses of syntax, depending on the language? How does he tackle this problem?

most people, especially early psycholinguistics who knew more about descriptive linguistics than machine learning, underestimate the awesome pattern recognition abilities of the human brain.

Yeah I think that's the one. I usually bring my own books when I have an appointment so I don't peruse the free shit that often.

exactly - so he proposed the idea that there are metaphorical switches in the brain corresponding to the presence/absence of all the various syntactical rules that differentiate languages from one another, and that a big part of language aquisition for a child is the proper flipping of these switches to correspond to its particular language environment.
It's an interesting idea and i can't say it's particularly retarded - when i was first learning these theories it made sense to me. but people like pinker and the whole "new england" school of psycholinguistics/neuroscience are really stretching the credibility of an idea in an age when there's so much evidence against it. it's a form of conceptual nepotism lol

It sounds whacky for sure, but people have had way more absurb theories, like the bicameral mind, the cave etc. But like said a million times in this topic, babies and young children can learn languages very easily.
I am more of the opinion that memetics play a larger role than we think when it comes to language. After all we are mimicking our parents/our enviroment when it comes to simple linguistics concepts such as accent etc.

>the cave
what's that? i only know plato's cave
>the bicameral mind
i love what i've read so far. one of my favorite parts of that book is when he casually mentions how obvious it is that there was no historical character named aristotle, and that it's all an amalgation of different authors

>plato's cave
And that was what I was reffering to.
> there was no historical character named aristotle
Oh wow, never heard that one bfeore actually, is there any basis? I am going to google it, legit never heard anything about this theory ever.

I just looked it up in my copy - it's a footnote on p.45 of the paperback mariner books 2000 edition (in the first chapter "the consciousness of consciousness", section on "the location of consciousness"):
>it is so obvious that the writing ascribed to aristotle were not written by the same hand that i prefer this designation

dude was definitely an unapologetic genius imo

He says it's obvious yet I can't find much on the subject.

>who do people take this guy seriously again?

because his work is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed, academic research and presented in a coherent fashion, devoid of continental style obscurantisms .........not how many people have subscribed to his youtube channel.

do you even read?

This. Chomsky was already disproven years ago

norvig.com/chomsky.html

That's because there's probably noone seriously researching the topic. I mean, in a sense it's irrelevant, because as philosophy the works ought to speak for themselves.
I take his footnote to mean something like,
>btw i just wanted to mention that i'm so smart that i figured out that aristotle DIDN'T EVEN EXIST but i can't really get into it in this text because it would be totally irrelevant to my main thesis that humans used to be PHILOSOPHICAL FUCKIN ZOMBIES MAN

he was clearly skilled imo at recognizing subtle patterns in the world that most do not, and perhaps a consequence of that was seeing the occasional pattern (e.g. slight discrepancies in conceptual style across multiple works ascribed to aristotle) that were simply random

It just bugs me that he would say that since Aristotle is historically attested as far as I know.

thanks for the link

honestly, the whole "statistical pattern recogntion can't derive meaning" just seems like a less sophisticated attempt at copying the chinese room argument
chomsky is clearly smart but considering the pace at which peer-reviewed, academic reserach is accumulating, and the extent to which this evidence clearly points against innateness in many things, and the absolute ignorance chomsky and his followers have re: contemporary machine learning,

at this point he's just fuckin trolling

It's a bullshit opinion, Spinoza's contributions to metaphysics, early Enlightenment liberal themes, and biblical criticism are pretty fucking major. He does seem like an unusually chill person, but he is by no means a skippable thinker.

>Dude syndicalism lmao
>Programming n sheeeeit
>Fucking American Empire, collapse plz reeeees

le teapot man said it what else would you expect

>and the extent to which this evidence clearly points against innateness in many things
An hero Derrida

just to play devil's advocate: it's may be the case that a character named aristotle existed, but isn't it possible that the writings of other men were somehow incorporated with his own writings, under his name? Think about the extent to which it is really possible to prove authenticity of authorship when it comes to manuscripts from 2000+ years ago. Until recently I believe, people were still arguing about the authenticity of the character "shakespeare", who only only lived less than 500 years ago.
So to someone like jaynes, who was used to turning commonly assumed, socially accepted, but ultimately poorly evidenced constructs on their head, the whole notion of historical/archeologically proven authenticity would be laughable. his own intuition concerning the likelihood of history memes simply being wrong about yet another thing, as they are wrong about many things, would be justified.

i don't know what derrida has to with anything. i also don't know what scientific evidence derrida or chomsky or most other philosophers have ever brought to bear concerning the neural basis of language aquisition.
tl;dr read some neuroscience and experimental psychology bitch

>derrida ever providing evidence for anything

Ah yes, the way it happened with Homer. It could be possible with Aristotle too, but at least Politics and Nicomachean Ethics are his.

Entered the thread to post this. OP is an idiot.

>mfw mafuckas hatin but they'll never be this cool

I could beat him up.

It was Chomsky who first brought up the idea of a Language Acquisition Device, an idea most of the modern psycholiguistic theories are grounded on.

If you're implying that the current psychological theories on language somewhat diverge from Chomsky's viewpoint then you are either delusional or an uneducated faggot.

I beat up guys half your size

>perhaps not the best thinker
Ooooh kill em

>t. delusional as well as uneducated faggot

i can't tell if you're an actual grad student/academiafag slaving away to prove that syntactic categories and rules are innate, or just an internet fanboy. i certainly can't tell which of the two would be more pathetic

read a book for fuck's sake, this is Veeky Forums after all
mitpress.mit.edu/books/rethinking-innateness

maybe if you actually read his work you'd know

ITT: pseuds

based chomsky

please show me the rigorous peer reviewed research behind universal grammar

>Like him or not, Chomsky's rarely wrong

Sorry, his work is debunked by the facts, just like geocentrism was. That's how science works.

ITT: lets send Noam an email one word at a time

Ill start:
we

itch

our

balls

I don't agree with the guy on everything but we can at least agree he is more intelligent than anyone in this thread.

Anywhere from seven to eighteen.

Language is a virus from outer space, bro.

big if true

among

WTF he can't possibly be so retarded. How can that be possible if a genome is necessarily composed of atoms. Now i get why Sam Harris was right about this retard

the genes contain the potential to grow an organism that can speak words but the words aren't in the genome
t. nofun

sweaty

This kills the Chomskyan.

Because he's CIA.

Do you prefer radical behaviorism?

...

>TFW sent him an email recently concerning evidence I've found that humans do actually have language acquisition structures that demonstratively bias the mind towards learning particular kinds of hierarchical forms, but only if certain brain structures are shown to be active, which selectively occurs in some humans and not others
>He hasn't emailed me back and I'm not sure if his wife has just decided to ignore me given she handles he mail now

I bet you thought this was pretty smart.

>I agree with Chomsky that it is undeniable that humans have some innate capability to learn natural language

"Genome" means God/Self in biobabble.

>application is truth
Fuck off, STEMspergs
Genomes don't exist.

A remnant of a time when social science still was about making a theory up and making everything fit into said theory.

SPINOZISTS BTFO

It hadn't occurred to me before but yes, Chomsky would fit snugly into an mgs game

You mean COINTELPRO, just like all Anarchist scum, they betrayed Republican Spain, looted and pillaged Ukraine, and are now tools of US imperialism against the rightful government of Syria

Do the beaches contain the castles?

>because his work is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed, academic research and presented in a coherent fashion
None of this is a thing to take seriously
>rigorous
Not defined, not justified.
>peer-review
Not justified
>academic research
Not justified

Try again, normativenigger

Aren't our texts ascribed to Aristotle lecture notes, compiled by students well later?
Why would we assume that those students couldn't have done some editing?
Fucking hell, Chomsky is a dope.

>read some baseless STEMspergery based in an infinite number of assumptions
I'd rather eat your mother's ass. Meaning, I would rather kill myself first.
>evidence
>existing
Try again, bub

It means in Aristotle body of work there are some works which were just his students notes, not that he never existed o never was mentioned

Andrea Moro is one of the most famous neuroscience guys and he supports Chomsky