Audio Player
Starting at:
Noam Chomsky on Panpsychism, Mind Body Problem, and Are Computers Conscious?
October 25, 2022
•
1:02:02
•
undefined
Audio:
Download MP3
⚠️ Timestamps are hidden: Some podcast MP3s have dynamically injected ads which can shift timestamps. Show timestamps for troubleshooting.
Transcript
Enhanced with Timestamps
141 sentences
7,525 words
Method: api-polled
Transcription time: 61m 21s
The Economist covers math, physics, philosophy, and AI in a manner that shows how different countries perceive developments and how they impact markets. They recently published a piece on China's new neutrino detector. They cover extending life via mitochondrial transplants, creating an entirely new field of medicine. But it's also not just science they analyze.
Culture, they analyze finance, economics, business, international affairs across every region. I'm particularly liking their new insider feature. It was just launched this month. It gives you, it gives me, a front row access to The Economist's internal editorial debates.
Where senior editors argue through the news with world leaders and policy makers in twice weekly long format shows. Basically an extremely high quality podcast. Whether it's scientific innovation or shifting global politics, The Economist provides comprehensive coverage beyond headlines. As a total listener, you get a special discount. Head over to economist.com slash TOE to subscribe. That's economist.com slash TOE for your discount.
With TD Early Pay, you get your paycheck up to two business days early, which means you can grab last-second movie tickets in 5D Premium Ultra. TD Early Pay, that's how TD makes payday unexpectedly human.
It happens when someone changes the location or is not running enough to solve the problem, because he does not know enough well on computers, he does not know how to change the settings. However, there are great questions from Yoshabah, from Professor Avigolo, from Karla Frischten, from Filip Goff, from Tim Mlin. So many great questions, so please, hold on, hold on. Donald Hoffman even has a few questions about Space Time is Damned.
As usual, because Czka hears poorly, I printed out questions to him earlier. And so you will hear how I send OK, go to questions 25, go to questions 22 and so on. This is happening because we cannot have a simple exchange of sentences, as I would do with a regular guest from my grandson's fingers. They do not hear me, a regular guest from my grandson's fingers, but Czka has difficulties, so we have to hold on to questions, answers, questions, answers. OK, now we move on to regular introduction. This is the eighth time when I am lucky to talk to Professor Czka, the father of modern linguistics.
And according to tradition, we stick to philosophy, awareness, meaning, not politics.
In the description there is a playlist with each of the theories of everything that has been cataloged below, and in about three weeks I will publish a three-hour compilation of the best philosophical thoughts on the subject of hollering with constantly encoded inscriptions. If you want to report to a volunteer to help check whether the inscriptions are actually correct, because there is a lot of specialized terminology and names, write to me a private message on Twitter, it is with Kurt. This is Touvite Kurte.
Thank you, Professor. Thank you for joining me for the eighth time. Thank you. It's my pleasure to be with you again. So Joscha Bach asks, what is the most important unsolved problem in cognitive science? Well, there are various criteria to determine what is the most important problem.
For a working scientist, the most important unsolved problems are those that are on the verge of understanding. Those to which you have a certain understanding of how to approach, but which you have not really solved. These are the ones you work on. Well, according to this criterion, there is an infinite number of important unsolved problems.
Depending on what field you are in, you can replace any of their numbers. They will not matter to others who do not know your area of research. I think the problem may be, the question may lead to far-reaching problems, problems that have major consequences.
In this case, there are also many of them, but oh, the most important of them, which I think is a problem of voluntary action. So there is a well-known article about the state of knowledge on this topic.
Two leading researchers, Robert Yamian, published the articles of the Star Dallas Journal of the American Academy Star a few years ago and analyzed the discoveries regarding this problem and what remained unsolved. And they asked the question, as they say, at the end, with terror.
They say that we know how to deal with a marionette and strings, but we can't say anything about a footballer. Regardless of how much they are looking, regardless of what experiments they conduct, neural experiments and others, I can't chew what is behind my decision to raise my finger or not, or my decision to give one, not another, answer to this question.
This is a very far-fetched question. I think it is completely unsolved. There are many, many scientists who believe that we have an answer. The answer is defined by complex laws of physics and so on.
The phenomena, which structures are too complex to deal with them. I think it's an unverifiable thesis. If you feel comfortable adding it, okay, it does not do anything. So I think it's a completely unsolved problem.
Let's move on to the question 1c, still about shabach, how did you update your thinking about A and in the last 5 years? I basically didn't do it, and the reason is that A and did not develop in the last 5 years in a way that would have anything to do with my thinking about it.
It has developed in many areas, but they are simply not related to my thinking about it. For example, there are recent successes of deep learning programs that shed significant light on serious scientific problems, such as the composition of proteins. Methods that are used are not the kind that concern AI.
The next question asks if the last successes of machine learning surprise me. Well, it assumes that they are the last successes. I do not know any in the areas where I work mainly in language. There are many achievements called achievements that receive a lot of enthusiastic press comments, but when you look at them, they basically say nothing to us.
Let's take the GPT series, which received many enthusiastic comments, lambda or other similar ones. I don't see what's in them.
What has been shown is that if you throw in a couple of supercomputers with 50 TB of data, you can find surface regularities that, if you connect them, will lead people to think that the program is doing something, they do not sound too interesting to me.
We know that programs do nothing, because the ears do not meet the most basic conditions required to explain, namely that you say why things are in this way and, most importantly, why they are not in some other way.
If I come to a physics conference, I have a wonderful theory that covers all the laws of nature, those that you have discovered, those that you have not yet discovered. And the theory is so simple, I can summarize it in just two words. Everything will go. He does not get any rewards. He does not say why things are not in some other way. And that's what all these programs are doing.
They work equally well in the case of impossible systems. When it comes to possible systems, if you give them a body, a huge body, which violates the basic rules of the language, it will work well, or maybe even better. So, whatever you do, it doesn't tell us anything about the language or knowledge.
And it seems to me that all the systems I know have this problem. So there are no surprising successes. There are very useful achievements. For example, the transcription of life, on which I rely, because I have hearing problems. This is a great achievement.
I am glad that Google has made an effort to create it, but it does not tell us anything about the way in which people interpret sentences. I am not surprised and there is nothing that could update my thinking or a useful achievement of 13 combined cases. The next question sounds like brains and minds work completely differently than today's neural networks.
Do you think that today's approach can be scaled and improved to achieve a similar intelligence to human, or do we also have to withdraw from deep learning, return to the drawing board and build something different from the basis if we want to get closer to human efficiency? No, I do not think that the approach of deep learning had anything to do with the way minds work. They are very useful.
Much more serious, refined mathematics, other important achievements, but it's about something else. Not about the way minds work, partly because of the reasons I just mentioned. It does not distinguish the way minds and minds work from the way they do not work.
As long as you do not make this distinction, nothing will be said about how the brain and mind work in a specific case of the language, the one I looked at most carefully. The problem is exactly the one I mentioned. Systems such as the GPT series of others do just as well in the case of languages as languages. So they are very similar to this, imagine that you are talking at a physics conference.
OK. Next is the key awareness for building systems that learn, think and create on a human level. Awareness is part of the way people learn, think and create. Maybe it's not a very important part.
The majority of intellectual activities is in what is called learning, thinking and creation, and is inaccessible for consciousness. So many things happen that we are not fully aware of and we cannot be aware of, but consciousness enters at a certain level here and there. So if anything is to think, learn and create in the way people do, it will have to embrace consciousness.
Now, when we say, on the human level, it opens other questions, what is the human level? We would have to answer this before we get the answer to this question. And I do not know any characteristics on the human level other than the statement that this is how people do it.
Supposedly, on the human level, I take into account things that are not the way people would achieve this level in some way. But then we must have a characteristic of what this level is. I don't know anything. Okay. And number 1f, so the next one, are you still a mystery in the sense that understanding the mind and consciousness is not possible for us, or do you also think that there is a direction of study that you can sketch?
First of all, I have never said that this is not possible for us. In fact, I think that we can understand quite a lot about mind and consciousness. There are many questions that we do not have answers to, even bad answers, and that despite good research from ages, they still do, as I mentioned, quoting Betsy and Mac.
Is it within the range of possible human understanding? Well, it refers to the previous question. Are people organisms in the normal sense, or are they beyond the range of organisms? I think that people are organisms. If so, they will be like other organisms. Their abilities have their limits.
The range and borders are connected. They have to do with the internal, essential nature of the organism. So if you are, let's say, a rat, you can be trained to solve many types of labyrinths that cannot solve the labyrinth of the first numbers, in which you have to turn right at each option of the first number.
And the reason is that the first numbers simply do not fit in the range of cognitive abilities of the red rat. There are many things that do not fit in the range of our cognitive abilities. It happens that I live in the desert behind my yard or desert ants that have tiny brains, but are capable of cognitive achievements that people cannot achieve, such as their navigational abilities.
We can repeat this with instruments to a certain extent, but I can't find the way, like a ant. So this is a limitation of my abilities. Do we have other types of limitations? Well, if we are organisms, then undoubtedly, then a question arises that interests everyone. Is there something like the ability to distinguish?
Whatever it is, is it an explanation beyond the scope of our cognitive abilities? It's an empirical question, isn't it? Is there a direction of research that you can sketch? Certainly! Those who, for example, are being chased by Beats and Namians, very good scientists, are trying to find out. They weren't able to. Does it exceed their cognitive abilities? We just don't know.
Question number two comes from Professor Donald Hoffman 2a. What do you think about the statement of Nemi Armani Hammemed, David Gross and other physicists that space-time is doomed? That we have to look for new structures completely outside of space-time and quantum theory, which will give the beginning of space-time and quantum theory?
From these three questions A, B and C, the first two A and B completely exceed my competencies to answer them. I just don't know enough about quantum theory given arguments, so I can't say anything about it. Okay, so let's move on to 2C, what about what these discoveries regarding the abandonment of spacetime may mean for the problem of mind and body of Professor Donald Hoffman's authorship?
I have an opinion, whatever it is worth, that they do not mean anything for the problem of mind and body, because such a problem does not exist. Once there was a problem of mind and body. Dirt is his classic lecture.
Of course, Descartes argued that in his physics he claimed that he was able to explain aspects of the world, including most of the properties of people, keeping in mind what at that time was called mechanical philosophy. Philosophy simply meant science.
Mechanical science is a basic concept of science that was bound from Galileo to Newton, namely that the world is a complex type of thing that is constructed by qualified craftsmen.
At that time in Europe it was a prolifer, there was an increase in complex objects, which, structures, which were developed by highly qualified craftsmen, who surprised people with their consistency, similarity to what people can do or what other animals can do.
And the basic concept was that the world is simply something created by incomparably more qualified artists, levers and so on. Descartes mistakenly thought that his physical theory would explain almost all of nature in these frames. It was not accurate, I mean that the systems did not work.
In fact, one of Newton's lectures was a transition through this, but other scientists, Quages and others understood that the physics of the art simply does not work. But he had an explanation of everything in these categories. Then he correctly noticed that there are some things that do not fit in the mechanical explanation.
One of his main examples was basically what I said earlier, with the exception of the fact that he spoke a language that does not stick with a finger.
Think Verizon, the best 5G network is expensive? Think again. Bring in your AT&T or T-Mobile bill to a Verizon store today.
This is the system he was considering.
With certainty, it seems to be a normal property of human behavior. He convincingly argued that it does not fit in mechanical science. Therefore, as a scientist, he proposed a new principle of the Kitten's race of the thinking substance. Then you had a problem of mind and body. How are these two substances connected to each other?
This problem disappeared along with Newton, who proved that there is no body in the sense of Descartes. There are no physical beings in anything similar to the sense of early modern science. Newton himself considered this result to be completely absurd. He claimed that no person with any scientific knowledge could accept it.
And in fact, he spent the rest of his life trying to overcome it. And his contemporaries noticed what they said, that it was not about the fact that Newton's theories were incomprehensible, they could understand them perfectly. It was the kind of world that he postulated, which was absurd.
And in fact, in this context, Newton made his famous statement that he does not propose any hypothesis. He presented only mathematical theory, not physical theory. Eventually, with time, Newton's mathematical theories were accepted, and scientists lost interest in whether theory, if theory is understandable.
Is what I describe understandable? This question disappears. As far as I can say, the problem of the mind probably disappeared with it. We have no concept of the body except that which is postulated by our best theories, which equally well cover the mind.
In fact, John Locke drew this conclusion immediately, saying that for all of us, organized matter is simply properties that we cannot imagine such as interaction without contact, contact. So it can also have properties such as thinking. He put it in a theological context, but we can skip it.
The problem of thinking about matter, what properties of matter do you think, where is the matter, what the world consists of, was widely considered in the 18th century, we still do not have a legitimate answer. So I just don't see how the problem of mind and body, at least in the classical sense, can be formulated in Newton. I don't know any other sense in which it could be done.
Question number 3. It comes from Professor Avi Golo. Coffee helps me work, helps me graze from carbohydrates. It has become one of the best parts of my day, so I am happy that we cooperate with Trade Coffee. They cooperate with the best independent burners to burn fresh and send the best coffee in the country directly to your home according to your preferred harmonogram.
This is important to me because I work at home, their team of experts does all the work, testing hundreds of different coffees to land in the final, carefully selected collection of 450 unique coffees. I chose these three, and the Trade Coffee team worked on creating a special offer for the theory of everything for two recipients based on a few questions.
. . .
This is www.drinktrade.com all for $ 30 discount. This comes from Professor Avi Golo. Imagine that we will develop intelligent systems, which will be able to cooperate with each other. Do you expect that they will develop their own origin, including a language that is more advanced than human languages and which people will not be able to understand?
In this case, they could create their own society of AI systems. We could always disconnect them from the electrical socket, although some would consider it both significant and murderous. Well, to answer this question, we must have the concept of intelligent AI systems. There is certainly
If we understand intelligent, capable of interacting with each other, reacting to other people's states, and so on. Reacting to the characteristics of the environment, which are important for the choice of action, and so on. If we mean it, there are many intelligent systems, people, animals, trees. So let's take a tree.
Trees are intelligent in this sense. If you have a forest, trees interact with each other. They send signals to each other. They change what they do. They are dependent on the signals they receive from others. Of course, they react to the environment. So it looks like these are sensible systems in every known meaning of this word. They interact with each other.
Well, it depends on how the AI system differs from natural systems. What is the AI system? Essentially, the AI system is a program.
The program is basically a theory that is presented in the notation that the computer can implement. So we are basically asking whether we can develop sensible theories? I'm not sure what it exactly means. Maybe the theory of sensation? Can we develop the theory of sensation? And now we return to earlier questions.
Does it fit in a certain range? Of course we can. We have many such theories. Are they complete? No, they are not complete. But of course we expect that the theories will not be complete. Does the possibility of their completion fit in human cognitive abilities? We never know if we agree that we are organisms.
If we are mysterious in this sense, yes, we are organisms, not angels, then we could, we could not. So I don't see how to continue the question for these reasons. Okay, question number 4 from Prof. Karla Frischten. Do you think that machines will ever talk to each other or with us?
Let's define the conversation as asking questions and answers in order to solve the uncertainty about the world or ourselves. What I'm going to do is whether any conscious artefact can communicate with another conscious artefact, or two artefacts must share a common basis or narration that inherits the same kind of phenotype and experience. Let's take the tree again.
There are conscious natural artifacts. They share a common basis and narration in a sense that they inherit and interact with each other. So there are natural objects that have these properties. Well, let's get back to the machines. First of all, let's remember what we all know when we talk about artificial intelligence.
When we talk about machines, we do not mean the physical object. We mean the program. Alan Ture started the modern field of artificial intelligence with his famous 1950 article on whether machines can think. He did not mean whether the computer thinks. He meant whether there is a program that thinks.
He considered this question, as you remember, too senseless to serve as a discussion, because we did not have a clear idea of thinking, we proposed some alternative concept, i.e. imitation. So when we ask if machines, ancient artifacts, will talk to each other, we ask if there are programs that can interact with each other? I guess so. Why not?
The trees can do it. We can construct a program that can do it. They must have some common ground, otherwise they will not be able to react. But they have experience, they are under the influence of the environment. The same type of phenotype, I think, in a sense. There will be something in them. So it seems to me that the task, as long as I understand, maybe I don't understand something.
It seems to me that the question remains at this level. Can we create programs that will ask questions and answer them? They will not solve the uncertainty about the world, because programs have no idea about the uncertainty about the world, it just does not appear in programs.
People using programs may claim that they solve a certain uncertainty about the world, as the programs to build a protein solved a certain uncertainty about the world, or, let's say, a program commanding a statement, which, let's say, uses brutal force to prove the statement, starting with axiomats, going through all possible evidence from the shortest to the longest, and finally you come to the proof if it is a statement.
Well, it would weaken the uncertainty about mathematics, but the program would not know about it. We know about it. Next question number 5, Professor Timlin said, because I sent him an e-mail and asked him if he had any questions for you.
In fact, I just mentioned oczki in my diploma classes. I said, because I heard that czki was inspired by the postulates of universal grammar due to the new riddle of Goodman's induction. It happens because the riddle of czki assumes that there must be some limitations and priorities in natural languages to be able to learn them.
I wonder if this is historically correct, and if so, do you still think that universal grammar is the right way to express this limitation? Well, I bet you know what the new Goodman riddle is about, taking it very simply.
He asked what types of predicates are throwable in the sense that they match the rights of such as statements and we can use them for what will happen later. So the example, the known example, which he gave, was the grogi predicate, which is defined as a sign of the green before the time t, where t is a certain time in the future.
Blue after T. And then you look at all the smarags. We are before T. All are green. All have grown. But depending on whether we predict green or growth, we make a different prediction after T. Then Goodman argued that the game is not throwable, and green is throwable. I was actually his student when he developed it and discussed it in the courses.
In principle, it had to answer the question. It had nothing to do with my views on universal grammar. To be honest, I did not think that his explanation of the differentiation, which he presented as an argument to try to show that green is throwable and true, was never convinced that the argument was fulfilled.
Of course, I knew the Hume argument, which Goodman discusses in his book, but not quite exactly. The famous Hume argument about induction is such, as Hume said, that you have to assume that it is conducted because of what he called the animal instinct.
As an animal, we have an instinct that leads us to accept inductive reasoning in certain cases, not in others. In a sense, I expressed it more carefully, with certain predicates, not others and ... Yes, I think that this is the only answer to conducting induction in such a range in which we use some animal instinct. But I don't think it was necessary to be so sensitive to postulate universal grammar.
There is simply no alternative. I mean, there was a time when I was a student, actually in the 40s and 50s of the 20th century, it was assumed that learning a language is a matter of training and habit.
Quoting the leading American linguist Leonard Bloomfield, the philosophy of language has taken the same view, perhaps the most influential Anglo-American language philosopher. For him, the language was a complex of dispositions to react to the settings in its image in a benereal and operative setting.
Well, these views go away in oblivion when you look at the acquisition of the language. It's not like that at all. The acquisition of the language is based on what Hume called the animal instinct.
There is a certain ability that human non-speech has, and which does not have a chimpanzee, which makes it possible for human non-speech to quickly acquire the language on the basis of scattered data, which for the chimpanzee are simply noise. It must be because of some animal instinct, if you prefer some kind of innate ability. It is as basic as it can be.
But if there is an innate ability, there should be a theory of this innate ability. The term universal grammar in contemporary meaning is simply the name of this theory. So the postulation of human universal grammar is an elementary rationality. There is no alternative. Is this the right way to express limitations? I can't imagine what the alternative is.
If you believe that there is something born that distinguishes the mute from the male pet, which is certainly true, then you have to postulate it. Okay, question 17 So 171717 is from Professor Philip Goff. We both agree with Russell that physics tells us what matter does, but it does not reveal its inner nature.
Therefore, the only thing we know directly about the inner nature of matter is that part of it, that is, what is in the brain, is experienceable. So either the matter outside the brain also has an experienceable inner nature, or it has some other property, whose nature is completely unknown. For sure, the first option is
Mr. Psychism should be preferred due to simplicity. What do you think about this argument? Well, simplicity depends on the simplicity of the theory, depends on the evidence that you consider. Consider various evidence, various theories will be simpler, more difficult.
So let's accept the basic frames commonly accepted in contemporary philosophy, in which this question appears, returns to the differentiation, returns to the differentiation of David Chmere between the easy problems of consciousness and the difficult problem. The difficult problem is to sound like it is to see the sunset?
This is a difficult problem. The easy problem is what are the neurological, genetic and other properties that come into the awareness of sunset. I have never been particularly satisfied with this formula, because it is not clear to me what the difficult problem is.
If someone asks me how it is to see the sunset that you are looking at, I can give a very detailed answer. The red spot here makes me feel happy and continues in these extensive details. So there is no problem with describing how it is to watch the sunset.
But if someone asks me how it is to watch the sunset, I don't think it would have an answer. At least I can't imagine what the answer is. And if the question doesn't have a formulated answer, it's not an authentic question. It's just a language expression in the form of a question. It is on par with the question why things happen in the form of a question that is not a real question.
There are no possible answers. So the difficult problem is that, as I can see, it does not really exist. We are left with an easy problem, which is of course very far from easy. What happens when I see the sunset and I am aware of it, what can I describe in detail, what is happening? In this context, there were questions.
Now one of the answers to this is that all nature has the property of consciousness. This is one possibility. Another possibility, another, often given answer, is the lack of consciousness. This is an illusion of blood in each of these answers.
I think we can expect an answer that says that consciousness is the property of people, other animals, but not the table on which my computer rests. Is it less of an example answer than pansechism? It depends on what our proofs are. Let's assume that one day we will get a real answer to the so-called easy problem.
Let's assume that we will find neurological properties, genetic properties, which are responsible for my moments of consciousness and for what is not there. What do I know without consciousness, like most of my intellectual activities? Let's assume that we will find a way to distinguish them and distinguish people from tables.
Well, then the simplest argument, as I think, will take into account all these discoveries and information, and then I do not think that Mr. psychism was the simplest answer. This answer, which simply postulates something, why there is no evidence that the particles have these properties.
Although we already have evidence that only certain types of organizations, regardless of what the world consists of, have these properties. So simplicity depends on what you take into account. The simplicity of the theory depends on what it has to do with.
If we take into account the full range of evidence that we hope to obtain by making progress in the so-called easy problem, I think we have simpler theories. Okay. 24. Do you have a solution to the paradox of lies? No. There is nothing new to say about paradoxes. Many have been said about them, but I have nothing to add. And what about Raven's paradox?
Okay.
26. So the following, each word in the dictionary is defined in the categories of other words in the dictionary, which indicates that there are some basic concepts that must be understood without referring to other words, such as the axiom of the language, or that in some way the meaning of the words is inseparably related to the relationship that each word has to others. Are these the only two options?
Well, we have to ask ourselves whether we are talking about human language or about formal systems that someone has constructed, such as, for example, meta-thematics or quantum theory. In these two cases, there are various answers. In the case of a formal system that someone has constructed, there must be some basic concepts in relation to which others are defined.
It is true in the case of mathematics. It is true in the case of physics, as long as it is formalized and so on. So in this context, yes, it is correct. And what about human language? Well, the question does not appear in human language, because the words in the dictionary do not have a definition.
When you look through the dictionary, let's say the most detailed dictionary, you will find the e-d, look at the definition of the word, there it is far from the definition. This is an explanation that gives a number of tips that allow you, with your rich intuition, to understand the language, guess what the word means.
But you do most of the work, remember that the dictionary does almost nothing and ... Try to define the simplest words that will come to your mind. Book, table, river, cat, whatever you want, has a rich and complex meaning. Such that is known to the deaf without experience, which creates another fundamental, mysterious problem.
In what way are nemovlents able to assimilate the rich and complex meaning of the most basic words in just a few presentations, as shown by experimental research? A serious problem. One of them refers to the first question. One of those deep ones that we do not have a real answer to. But there is no definition.
There are only definitions of technical terms that are invented. So if someone introduces the term TENSOR, let's say UH, they give its definition. But these are not the kinds of words that are simply appropriated in everyday life. These words do not have definitions. They are connected in many ways.
But the ear has no particular reason to believe that some of them, I mean to a certain extent, will be more basic than others. But there is no reason to believe that there is some finished collection that is basic, like the axiomat system. I can add here, only for those interested, that there is a very interesting work that deals with the issue of how we use our lexical elements.
Words are not really proper units, but minimal elements bearing meaning. How do we use them? There are two different theories on this topic. One is that, to simplify, let's call them words. The other is that words are stored. We have a reserve of words in our mind. We gain access to words when we try to understand a sentence or look at a sentence. This is more or less a standard theory.
There is an alternative that is quite interesting, mainly developed by Alek Morans, a linguist and neurobiologist from NY. He stated that we do not store words, we store the rules of creating words and whether the word is actually used in the lexicon or not is in some sense irrelevant.
And he has quite interesting arguments, neurological, psycholinguistic and others, claiming that in reality it is only generative rules, and not just words. So the possible world word, which by chance is not in our lexicon, let's say Blake, is treated the same as those that are not there. This is quite an interesting scientific question.
Dawkins introduced the concept of an extended phenotype. Is there any connection between the language and the extended phenotype? It depends on what we understand by language. Language is one of these informal terms of general use, which is too imprecise to describe.
So, as in all other strict sciences, when linguists try to discuss and understand something about the language, psychologists or neurologists give a technical definition of the language. So, for example, if a physicist is asked what energy is, what work is, what spin is, he will not give a definition, which is in the common language.
There are no definitions. What they do is to define a technical term that differs from that in the general language. And the same applies to this case. So we have to ask what we understand by language? Well, if we mean a technical term, which I would call the eye language, the internal language, then the extended phenotypes have nothing to do with it.
If we use the word language in a loose, metaphorical, healthy sense, then perhaps extended phenotypes have something in common with it. Is our obsession at the point of the Turing test the remnant of the influence of behaviorism? Or behavior, however convincing, whenever it definitely implies awareness?
Should we use any other test than the touring test?
Football fan, a basketball fan, it always feels good to be ranked. Right now, new users get $50 instantly in lineups when you play your first $5. The app is simple to use. Pick two or more players. Pick more or less on their stat projections. Anything from touchdown to threes and if you're right, you can win big. Mix and match players from
any sport on PrizePix, America's number one daily fantasy sports app. PrizePix is available in 40 plus states including California, Texas,
Florida and Georgia. Most importantly, all the transactions on the app are fast, safe and secure. Download the PricePix app today and use code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. That's code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. PricePix. It's good to be right. Must be present in certain states. Visit PricePix.com for restrictions and details.
Well, first I can mention as a historical fact that the Turing test actually reaches the 17th century after the establishment of the art of a second substance for such things as the creative use of language.
His co-workers, mainly Jack Dordon, took the obvious next step and said whether we can discover experimental tests that will tell us whether the creation, which looks like us, has this property or not. Then he went through various things that are a bit like a touring imitation game. This is basically a touring test.
But there was a fundamental scientific reason to discover the properties of the body. Well, as I said, it somehow disappeared along with Newton. If we can test behavior using the game imitating touring touring, does it mean awareness? No, no, you can come up with a program that can do it, which is not aware. Should we use some other test?
It depends on what we are trying to achieve. I do not see any specific goal in the attempt to understand whether the machine is making any machine meaning, the program is doing something like thinking. But if we consider the important question, well, we use any test that fits our specific definition of thinking or what we are looking for.
Okay. Question number 30 with colorless ideas that flow in the wind. You showed that you can have a compound sense without a semantic sense. In addition to idioms and common phrases, can something have a semantic sense without being a compound? So if so, can it be applied to mathematics or physics?
It seems that in mathematics and physics, when you just do not have a sense of composition, the whole equation, mathematical sentence, is not well set and therefore it is pointless. Can you imagine cases in which we have misdefined mathematical statements that matter? A lot of examples in the history of mathematics. Let's take, for example, something as simple as arithmetic or geometry.
I mean that Arithmetic and Geometry were studied by Wayne very effectively for millennia, before the concepts were well defined. It was not well defined there. There was no good, serious, in the modern sense, definition of basic concepts of arithmetic until about 1860.
Geometry has not been formalized to Hilbert around 1900, but of course they have always been used efficiently and efficiently. And only after formalization they are well defined. The concept of the border is a well-known case. We return to the difference and total calculation from the 17th century.
Newton's differential and total account was based on the intuitive concept of the boundary. In fact, in the history of mathematics, there is a long debate about whether Newton's proofs actually contain two meanings in the use of zero. Is it true that in one sentence Newton used zero to mean zero, and in the other to mean the smallest number?
He did not have the theory of boundaries. Well, a long debate on the subject of those times. But what happened? Apparently, the history of mathematics says that I don't know much about it myself. I only rely on the stories that British mathematicians worked hard, trying to sharpen and explain concepts that in reality have not been done until the mid-19th century.
Continental mathematical mathematicians have basically ignored it. And Gauss, another mathematician, other great mathematicians, developed the majority of classical analysis based on not clearly defined concepts. While the British mathematicians, in the majority, were in the background, because they really did not have a clear idea. Well, yes, you can certainly imagine such cases. In fact, there are many of them.
There were two additional questions, one anonymous and the other from Professor Norman Wildberger, to which we could not answer, so we asked them by e-mail. Professor Norman Wildberger says, here is the question I would like to ask Professor Schke. Are there any language proofs for universal or almost universal concepts of mathematics in people? Maybe concepts are not the right word here. If not, how to formulate a reasonable question in this direction, and now I will ask the computer to read Schke's answer.
Definitely the knowledge of arithmetic is a classic case, the topic of the famous debate between Darwin and Wallace. Both have decided that the knowledge of arithmetic is universal, although it could not be selected most clearly. Wallace suggested some new force operating in evolution. Darwin did not want to accept it. It must be born. There is no way to find out that the whole numbers last forever.
There are certain reasons to believe that it can have the same roots as the language ability. The simplest language would have a single lexical element and the simplest rule of internal spelling, which gives the following function and the basics of adding. Hence, it is not difficult to move on to adding. So, any reprogramming of the brain that gave a recurrent calculation, most clearly unique for people, could provide a basis for both language and arithmetic.
If it comes to math in general, it's a different matter. There is a famous comment by Kroners that God created natural numbers, and man created the rest, which translates as arithmetic is born, but human creativity, whatever it is, has created the theory of multiplicity and so on. And the second question is, how far does the grammar go?
People talk about the grammar of narration and stories or the grammar of video games, such as common paths and patterns rooted in players who are unaware and widely used in almost every video game.
Is it the generalization of grammar, which has only a fleeting similarity to the linguistic concept of grammar? Or is there any common neurological, and even psychological basis between these types of foreign words of grammar? There is no clear answer. We can expand the terms for broader applications, such as foreign words of the language of the stars. This is not arbitrary, but there are no clear rules. The term grammar without such metaphorical extensions is too imprecise to use it in language learning.
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that in two minutes I have a meeting that I have to go to. Thank you, thank you, professor. The podcast is over. If you want to support such conversations, consider going to patreon.com Kert Aimung Aleja.
This is Kurt Jungle. This is support from patrons and sponsors, who allow me to do this for a full time. Each dollar helps a lot. Thank you!
▶ View Full JSON Data (Word-Level Timestamps)
{
"source": "transcribe.metaboat.io",
"workspace_id": "AXs1igz",
"job_seq": 9364,
"audio_duration_seconds": 3680.76,
"completed_at": "2025-12-01T01:23:35Z",
"segments": [
{
"end_time": 20.896,
"index": 0,
"start_time": 0.009,
"text": " The Economist covers math, physics, philosophy, and AI in a manner that shows how different countries perceive developments and how they impact markets. They recently published a piece on China's new neutrino detector. They cover extending life via mitochondrial transplants, creating an entirely new field of medicine. But it's also not just science they analyze."
},
{
"end_time": 36.067,
"index": 1,
"start_time": 20.896,
"text": " Culture, they analyze finance, economics, business, international affairs across every region. I'm particularly liking their new insider feature. It was just launched this month. It gives you, it gives me, a front row access to The Economist's internal editorial debates."
},
{
"end_time": 64.514,
"index": 2,
"start_time": 36.34,
"text": " Where senior editors argue through the news with world leaders and policy makers in twice weekly long format shows. Basically an extremely high quality podcast. Whether it's scientific innovation or shifting global politics, The Economist provides comprehensive coverage beyond headlines. As a total listener, you get a special discount. Head over to economist.com slash TOE to subscribe. That's economist.com slash TOE for your discount."
},
{
"end_time": 87.722,
"index": 3,
"start_time": 66.357,
"text": " With TD Early Pay, you get your paycheck up to two business days early, which means you can grab last-second movie tickets in 5D Premium Ultra. TD Early Pay, that's how TD makes payday unexpectedly human."
},
{
"end_time": 112.295,
"index": 4,
"start_time": 88.148,
"text": " It happens when someone changes the location or is not running enough to solve the problem, because he does not know enough well on computers, he does not know how to change the settings. However, there are great questions from Yoshabah, from Professor Avigolo, from Karla Frischten, from Filip Goff, from Tim Mlin. So many great questions, so please, hold on, hold on. Donald Hoffman even has a few questions about Space Time is Damned."
},
{
"end_time": 142.824,
"index": 5,
"start_time": 112.841,
"text": " As usual, because Czka hears poorly, I printed out questions to him earlier. And so you will hear how I send OK, go to questions 25, go to questions 22 and so on. This is happening because we cannot have a simple exchange of sentences, as I would do with a regular guest from my grandson's fingers. They do not hear me, a regular guest from my grandson's fingers, but Czka has difficulties, so we have to hold on to questions, answers, questions, answers. OK, now we move on to regular introduction. This is the eighth time when I am lucky to talk to Professor Czka, the father of modern linguistics."
},
{
"end_time": 149.087,
"index": 6,
"start_time": 142.824,
"text": " And according to tradition, we stick to philosophy, awareness, meaning, not politics."
},
{
"end_time": 178.695,
"index": 7,
"start_time": 149.821,
"text": " In the description there is a playlist with each of the theories of everything that has been cataloged below, and in about three weeks I will publish a three-hour compilation of the best philosophical thoughts on the subject of hollering with constantly encoded inscriptions. If you want to report to a volunteer to help check whether the inscriptions are actually correct, because there is a lot of specialized terminology and names, write to me a private message on Twitter, it is with Kurt. This is Touvite Kurte."
},
{
"end_time": 202.346,
"index": 8,
"start_time": 180.111,
"text": " Thank you, Professor. Thank you for joining me for the eighth time. Thank you. It's my pleasure to be with you again. So Joscha Bach asks, what is the most important unsolved problem in cognitive science? Well, there are various criteria to determine what is the most important problem."
},
{
"end_time": 229.121,
"index": 9,
"start_time": 205.486,
"text": " For a working scientist, the most important unsolved problems are those that are on the verge of understanding. Those to which you have a certain understanding of how to approach, but which you have not really solved. These are the ones you work on. Well, according to this criterion, there is an infinite number of important unsolved problems."
},
{
"end_time": 252.039,
"index": 10,
"start_time": 231.391,
"text": " Depending on what field you are in, you can replace any of their numbers. They will not matter to others who do not know your area of research. I think the problem may be, the question may lead to far-reaching problems, problems that have major consequences."
},
{
"end_time": 275.828,
"index": 11,
"start_time": 256.988,
"text": " In this case, there are also many of them, but oh, the most important of them, which I think is a problem of voluntary action. So there is a well-known article about the state of knowledge on this topic."
},
{
"end_time": 304.258,
"index": 12,
"start_time": 279.343,
"text": " Two leading researchers, Robert Yamian, published the articles of the Star Dallas Journal of the American Academy Star a few years ago and analyzed the discoveries regarding this problem and what remained unsolved. And they asked the question, as they say, at the end, with terror."
},
{
"end_time": 337.892,
"index": 13,
"start_time": 308.097,
"text": " They say that we know how to deal with a marionette and strings, but we can't say anything about a footballer. Regardless of how much they are looking, regardless of what experiments they conduct, neural experiments and others, I can't chew what is behind my decision to raise my finger or not, or my decision to give one, not another, answer to this question."
},
{
"end_time": 365.998,
"index": 14,
"start_time": 338.746,
"text": " This is a very far-fetched question. I think it is completely unsolved. There are many, many scientists who believe that we have an answer. The answer is defined by complex laws of physics and so on."
},
{
"end_time": 389.036,
"index": 15,
"start_time": 367.09,
"text": " The phenomena, which structures are too complex to deal with them. I think it's an unverifiable thesis. If you feel comfortable adding it, okay, it does not do anything. So I think it's a completely unsolved problem."
},
{
"end_time": 411.459,
"index": 16,
"start_time": 390.828,
"text": " Let's move on to the question 1c, still about shabach, how did you update your thinking about A and in the last 5 years? I basically didn't do it, and the reason is that A and did not develop in the last 5 years in a way that would have anything to do with my thinking about it."
},
{
"end_time": 442.807,
"index": 17,
"start_time": 415.589,
"text": " It has developed in many areas, but they are simply not related to my thinking about it. For example, there are recent successes of deep learning programs that shed significant light on serious scientific problems, such as the composition of proteins. Methods that are used are not the kind that concern AI."
},
{
"end_time": 475.503,
"index": 18,
"start_time": 445.589,
"text": " The next question asks if the last successes of machine learning surprise me. Well, it assumes that they are the last successes. I do not know any in the areas where I work mainly in language. There are many achievements called achievements that receive a lot of enthusiastic press comments, but when you look at them, they basically say nothing to us."
},
{
"end_time": 497.517,
"index": 19,
"start_time": 477.619,
"text": " Let's take the GPT series, which received many enthusiastic comments, lambda or other similar ones. I don't see what's in them."
},
{
"end_time": 525.145,
"index": 20,
"start_time": 501.305,
"text": " What has been shown is that if you throw in a couple of supercomputers with 50 TB of data, you can find surface regularities that, if you connect them, will lead people to think that the program is doing something, they do not sound too interesting to me."
},
{
"end_time": 549.002,
"index": 21,
"start_time": 528.2,
"text": " We know that programs do nothing, because the ears do not meet the most basic conditions required to explain, namely that you say why things are in this way and, most importantly, why they are not in some other way."
},
{
"end_time": 579.002,
"index": 22,
"start_time": 552.193,
"text": " If I come to a physics conference, I have a wonderful theory that covers all the laws of nature, those that you have discovered, those that you have not yet discovered. And the theory is so simple, I can summarize it in just two words. Everything will go. He does not get any rewards. He does not say why things are not in some other way. And that's what all these programs are doing."
},
{
"end_time": 605.009,
"index": 23,
"start_time": 579.548,
"text": " They work equally well in the case of impossible systems. When it comes to possible systems, if you give them a body, a huge body, which violates the basic rules of the language, it will work well, or maybe even better. So, whatever you do, it doesn't tell us anything about the language or knowledge."
},
{
"end_time": 630.708,
"index": 24,
"start_time": 606.493,
"text": " And it seems to me that all the systems I know have this problem. So there are no surprising successes. There are very useful achievements. For example, the transcription of life, on which I rely, because I have hearing problems. This is a great achievement."
},
{
"end_time": 657.91,
"index": 25,
"start_time": 631.954,
"text": " I am glad that Google has made an effort to create it, but it does not tell us anything about the way in which people interpret sentences. I am not surprised and there is nothing that could update my thinking or a useful achievement of 13 combined cases. The next question sounds like brains and minds work completely differently than today's neural networks."
},
{
"end_time": 681.817,
"index": 26,
"start_time": 658.285,
"text": " Do you think that today's approach can be scaled and improved to achieve a similar intelligence to human, or do we also have to withdraw from deep learning, return to the drawing board and build something different from the basis if we want to get closer to human efficiency? No, I do not think that the approach of deep learning had anything to do with the way minds work. They are very useful."
},
{
"end_time": 703.029,
"index": 27,
"start_time": 683.626,
"text": " Much more serious, refined mathematics, other important achievements, but it's about something else. Not about the way minds work, partly because of the reasons I just mentioned. It does not distinguish the way minds and minds work from the way they do not work."
},
{
"end_time": 733.063,
"index": 28,
"start_time": 704.155,
"text": " As long as you do not make this distinction, nothing will be said about how the brain and mind work in a specific case of the language, the one I looked at most carefully. The problem is exactly the one I mentioned. Systems such as the GPT series of others do just as well in the case of languages as languages. So they are very similar to this, imagine that you are talking at a physics conference."
},
{
"end_time": 757.278,
"index": 29,
"start_time": 734.735,
"text": " OK. Next is the key awareness for building systems that learn, think and create on a human level. Awareness is part of the way people learn, think and create. Maybe it's not a very important part."
},
{
"end_time": 788.541,
"index": 30,
"start_time": 759.121,
"text": " The majority of intellectual activities is in what is called learning, thinking and creation, and is inaccessible for consciousness. So many things happen that we are not fully aware of and we cannot be aware of, but consciousness enters at a certain level here and there. So if anything is to think, learn and create in the way people do, it will have to embrace consciousness."
},
{
"end_time": 812.858,
"index": 31,
"start_time": 790.896,
"text": " Now, when we say, on the human level, it opens other questions, what is the human level? We would have to answer this before we get the answer to this question. And I do not know any characteristics on the human level other than the statement that this is how people do it."
},
{
"end_time": 842.244,
"index": 32,
"start_time": 813.985,
"text": " Supposedly, on the human level, I take into account things that are not the way people would achieve this level in some way. But then we must have a characteristic of what this level is. I don't know anything. Okay. And number 1f, so the next one, are you still a mystery in the sense that understanding the mind and consciousness is not possible for us, or do you also think that there is a direction of study that you can sketch?"
},
{
"end_time": 873.439,
"index": 33,
"start_time": 843.797,
"text": " First of all, I have never said that this is not possible for us. In fact, I think that we can understand quite a lot about mind and consciousness. There are many questions that we do not have answers to, even bad answers, and that despite good research from ages, they still do, as I mentioned, quoting Betsy and Mac."
},
{
"end_time": 903.336,
"index": 34,
"start_time": 875.282,
"text": " Is it within the range of possible human understanding? Well, it refers to the previous question. Are people organisms in the normal sense, or are they beyond the range of organisms? I think that people are organisms. If so, they will be like other organisms. Their abilities have their limits."
},
{
"end_time": 931.186,
"index": 35,
"start_time": 904.172,
"text": " The range and borders are connected. They have to do with the internal, essential nature of the organism. So if you are, let's say, a rat, you can be trained to solve many types of labyrinths that cannot solve the labyrinth of the first numbers, in which you have to turn right at each option of the first number."
},
{
"end_time": 957.722,
"index": 36,
"start_time": 931.664,
"text": " And the reason is that the first numbers simply do not fit in the range of cognitive abilities of the red rat. There are many things that do not fit in the range of our cognitive abilities. It happens that I live in the desert behind my yard or desert ants that have tiny brains, but are capable of cognitive achievements that people cannot achieve, such as their navigational abilities."
},
{
"end_time": 988.951,
"index": 37,
"start_time": 960.265,
"text": " We can repeat this with instruments to a certain extent, but I can't find the way, like a ant. So this is a limitation of my abilities. Do we have other types of limitations? Well, if we are organisms, then undoubtedly, then a question arises that interests everyone. Is there something like the ability to distinguish?"
},
{
"end_time": 1018.234,
"index": 38,
"start_time": 989.445,
"text": " Whatever it is, is it an explanation beyond the scope of our cognitive abilities? It's an empirical question, isn't it? Is there a direction of research that you can sketch? Certainly! Those who, for example, are being chased by Beats and Namians, very good scientists, are trying to find out. They weren't able to. Does it exceed their cognitive abilities? We just don't know."
},
{
"end_time": 1042.602,
"index": 39,
"start_time": 1019.94,
"text": " Question number two comes from Professor Donald Hoffman 2a. What do you think about the statement of Nemi Armani Hammemed, David Gross and other physicists that space-time is doomed? That we have to look for new structures completely outside of space-time and quantum theory, which will give the beginning of space-time and quantum theory?"
},
{
"end_time": 1071.664,
"index": 40,
"start_time": 1045.503,
"text": " From these three questions A, B and C, the first two A and B completely exceed my competencies to answer them. I just don't know enough about quantum theory given arguments, so I can't say anything about it. Okay, so let's move on to 2C, what about what these discoveries regarding the abandonment of spacetime may mean for the problem of mind and body of Professor Donald Hoffman's authorship?"
},
{
"end_time": 1099.275,
"index": 41,
"start_time": 1074.309,
"text": " I have an opinion, whatever it is worth, that they do not mean anything for the problem of mind and body, because such a problem does not exist. Once there was a problem of mind and body. Dirt is his classic lecture."
},
{
"end_time": 1119.735,
"index": 42,
"start_time": 1100.162,
"text": " Of course, Descartes argued that in his physics he claimed that he was able to explain aspects of the world, including most of the properties of people, keeping in mind what at that time was called mechanical philosophy. Philosophy simply meant science."
},
{
"end_time": 1133.848,
"index": 43,
"start_time": 1122.432,
"text": " Mechanical science is a basic concept of science that was bound from Galileo to Newton, namely that the world is a complex type of thing that is constructed by qualified craftsmen."
},
{
"end_time": 1161.852,
"index": 44,
"start_time": 1141.408,
"text": " At that time in Europe it was a prolifer, there was an increase in complex objects, which, structures, which were developed by highly qualified craftsmen, who surprised people with their consistency, similarity to what people can do or what other animals can do."
},
{
"end_time": 1190.009,
"index": 45,
"start_time": 1164.258,
"text": " And the basic concept was that the world is simply something created by incomparably more qualified artists, levers and so on. Descartes mistakenly thought that his physical theory would explain almost all of nature in these frames. It was not accurate, I mean that the systems did not work."
},
{
"end_time": 1213.37,
"index": 46,
"start_time": 1191.032,
"text": " In fact, one of Newton's lectures was a transition through this, but other scientists, Quages and others understood that the physics of the art simply does not work. But he had an explanation of everything in these categories. Then he correctly noticed that there are some things that do not fit in the mechanical explanation."
},
{
"end_time": 1227.022,
"index": 47,
"start_time": 1216.749,
"text": " One of his main examples was basically what I said earlier, with the exception of the fact that he spoke a language that does not stick with a finger."
},
{
"end_time": 1249.735,
"index": 48,
"start_time": 1229.309,
"text": " Think Verizon, the best 5G network is expensive? Think again. Bring in your AT&T or T-Mobile bill to a Verizon store today."
},
{
"end_time": 1282.073,
"index": 49,
"start_time": 1254.275,
"text": " This is the system he was considering."
},
{
"end_time": 1307.432,
"index": 50,
"start_time": 1282.654,
"text": " With certainty, it seems to be a normal property of human behavior. He convincingly argued that it does not fit in mechanical science. Therefore, as a scientist, he proposed a new principle of the Kitten's race of the thinking substance. Then you had a problem of mind and body. How are these two substances connected to each other?"
},
{
"end_time": 1335.247,
"index": 51,
"start_time": 1309.616,
"text": " This problem disappeared along with Newton, who proved that there is no body in the sense of Descartes. There are no physical beings in anything similar to the sense of early modern science. Newton himself considered this result to be completely absurd. He claimed that no person with any scientific knowledge could accept it."
},
{
"end_time": 1361.032,
"index": 52,
"start_time": 1336.613,
"text": " And in fact, he spent the rest of his life trying to overcome it. And his contemporaries noticed what they said, that it was not about the fact that Newton's theories were incomprehensible, they could understand them perfectly. It was the kind of world that he postulated, which was absurd."
},
{
"end_time": 1392.619,
"index": 53,
"start_time": 1363.029,
"text": " And in fact, in this context, Newton made his famous statement that he does not propose any hypothesis. He presented only mathematical theory, not physical theory. Eventually, with time, Newton's mathematical theories were accepted, and scientists lost interest in whether theory, if theory is understandable."
},
{
"end_time": 1414.445,
"index": 54,
"start_time": 1393.456,
"text": " Is what I describe understandable? This question disappears. As far as I can say, the problem of the mind probably disappeared with it. We have no concept of the body except that which is postulated by our best theories, which equally well cover the mind."
},
{
"end_time": 1439.394,
"index": 55,
"start_time": 1417.466,
"text": " In fact, John Locke drew this conclusion immediately, saying that for all of us, organized matter is simply properties that we cannot imagine such as interaction without contact, contact. So it can also have properties such as thinking. He put it in a theological context, but we can skip it."
},
{
"end_time": 1468.319,
"index": 56,
"start_time": 1442.807,
"text": " The problem of thinking about matter, what properties of matter do you think, where is the matter, what the world consists of, was widely considered in the 18th century, we still do not have a legitimate answer. So I just don't see how the problem of mind and body, at least in the classical sense, can be formulated in Newton. I don't know any other sense in which it could be done."
},
{
"end_time": 1491.067,
"index": 57,
"start_time": 1469.48,
"text": " Question number 3. It comes from Professor Avi Golo. Coffee helps me work, helps me graze from carbohydrates. It has become one of the best parts of my day, so I am happy that we cooperate with Trade Coffee. They cooperate with the best independent burners to burn fresh and send the best coffee in the country directly to your home according to your preferred harmonogram."
},
{
"end_time": 1510.998,
"index": 58,
"start_time": 1491.067,
"text": " This is important to me because I work at home, their team of experts does all the work, testing hundreds of different coffees to land in the final, carefully selected collection of 450 unique coffees. I chose these three, and the Trade Coffee team worked on creating a special offer for the theory of everything for two recipients based on a few questions."
},
{
"end_time": 1540.52,
"index": 59,
"start_time": 1510.998,
"text": " . . ."
},
{
"end_time": 1567.159,
"index": 60,
"start_time": 1541.698,
"text": " This is www.drinktrade.com all for $ 30 discount. This comes from Professor Avi Golo. Imagine that we will develop intelligent systems, which will be able to cooperate with each other. Do you expect that they will develop their own origin, including a language that is more advanced than human languages and which people will not be able to understand?"
},
{
"end_time": 1594.735,
"index": 61,
"start_time": 1568.968,
"text": " In this case, they could create their own society of AI systems. We could always disconnect them from the electrical socket, although some would consider it both significant and murderous. Well, to answer this question, we must have the concept of intelligent AI systems. There is certainly"
},
{
"end_time": 1624.155,
"index": 62,
"start_time": 1596.015,
"text": " If we understand intelligent, capable of interacting with each other, reacting to other people's states, and so on. Reacting to the characteristics of the environment, which are important for the choice of action, and so on. If we mean it, there are many intelligent systems, people, animals, trees. So let's take a tree."
},
{
"end_time": 1651.34,
"index": 63,
"start_time": 1625.026,
"text": " Trees are intelligent in this sense. If you have a forest, trees interact with each other. They send signals to each other. They change what they do. They are dependent on the signals they receive from others. Of course, they react to the environment. So it looks like these are sensible systems in every known meaning of this word. They interact with each other."
},
{
"end_time": 1681.271,
"index": 64,
"start_time": 1652.278,
"text": " Well, it depends on how the AI system differs from natural systems. What is the AI system? Essentially, the AI system is a program."
},
{
"end_time": 1712.637,
"index": 65,
"start_time": 1682.739,
"text": " The program is basically a theory that is presented in the notation that the computer can implement. So we are basically asking whether we can develop sensible theories? I'm not sure what it exactly means. Maybe the theory of sensation? Can we develop the theory of sensation? And now we return to earlier questions."
},
{
"end_time": 1735.486,
"index": 66,
"start_time": 1713.08,
"text": " Does it fit in a certain range? Of course we can. We have many such theories. Are they complete? No, they are not complete. But of course we expect that the theories will not be complete. Does the possibility of their completion fit in human cognitive abilities? We never know if we agree that we are organisms."
},
{
"end_time": 1760.333,
"index": 67,
"start_time": 1736.988,
"text": " If we are mysterious in this sense, yes, we are organisms, not angels, then we could, we could not. So I don't see how to continue the question for these reasons. Okay, question number 4 from Prof. Karla Frischten. Do you think that machines will ever talk to each other or with us?"
},
{
"end_time": 1789.735,
"index": 68,
"start_time": 1761.527,
"text": " Let's define the conversation as asking questions and answers in order to solve the uncertainty about the world or ourselves. What I'm going to do is whether any conscious artefact can communicate with another conscious artefact, or two artefacts must share a common basis or narration that inherits the same kind of phenotype and experience. Let's take the tree again."
},
{
"end_time": 1820.657,
"index": 69,
"start_time": 1791.254,
"text": " There are conscious natural artifacts. They share a common basis and narration in a sense that they inherit and interact with each other. So there are natural objects that have these properties. Well, let's get back to the machines. First of all, let's remember what we all know when we talk about artificial intelligence."
},
{
"end_time": 1848.729,
"index": 70,
"start_time": 1823.865,
"text": " When we talk about machines, we do not mean the physical object. We mean the program. Alan Ture started the modern field of artificial intelligence with his famous 1950 article on whether machines can think. He did not mean whether the computer thinks. He meant whether there is a program that thinks."
},
{
"end_time": 1878.404,
"index": 71,
"start_time": 1851.357,
"text": " He considered this question, as you remember, too senseless to serve as a discussion, because we did not have a clear idea of thinking, we proposed some alternative concept, i.e. imitation. So when we ask if machines, ancient artifacts, will talk to each other, we ask if there are programs that can interact with each other? I guess so. Why not?"
},
{
"end_time": 1904.77,
"index": 72,
"start_time": 1879.224,
"text": " The trees can do it. We can construct a program that can do it. They must have some common ground, otherwise they will not be able to react. But they have experience, they are under the influence of the environment. The same type of phenotype, I think, in a sense. There will be something in them. So it seems to me that the task, as long as I understand, maybe I don't understand something."
},
{
"end_time": 1929.633,
"index": 73,
"start_time": 1905.998,
"text": " It seems to me that the question remains at this level. Can we create programs that will ask questions and answer them? They will not solve the uncertainty about the world, because programs have no idea about the uncertainty about the world, it just does not appear in programs."
},
{
"end_time": 1957.176,
"index": 74,
"start_time": 1932.875,
"text": " People using programs may claim that they solve a certain uncertainty about the world, as the programs to build a protein solved a certain uncertainty about the world, or, let's say, a program commanding a statement, which, let's say, uses brutal force to prove the statement, starting with axiomats, going through all possible evidence from the shortest to the longest, and finally you come to the proof if it is a statement."
},
{
"end_time": 1981.22,
"index": 75,
"start_time": 1964.002,
"text": " Well, it would weaken the uncertainty about mathematics, but the program would not know about it. We know about it. Next question number 5, Professor Timlin said, because I sent him an e-mail and asked him if he had any questions for you."
},
{
"end_time": 2003.951,
"index": 76,
"start_time": 1982.295,
"text": " In fact, I just mentioned oczki in my diploma classes. I said, because I heard that czki was inspired by the postulates of universal grammar due to the new riddle of Goodman's induction. It happens because the riddle of czki assumes that there must be some limitations and priorities in natural languages to be able to learn them."
},
{
"end_time": 2024.053,
"index": 77,
"start_time": 2006.032,
"text": " I wonder if this is historically correct, and if so, do you still think that universal grammar is the right way to express this limitation? Well, I bet you know what the new Goodman riddle is about, taking it very simply."
},
{
"end_time": 2058.2,
"index": 78,
"start_time": 2028.404,
"text": " He asked what types of predicates are throwable in the sense that they match the rights of such as statements and we can use them for what will happen later. So the example, the known example, which he gave, was the grogi predicate, which is defined as a sign of the green before the time t, where t is a certain time in the future."
},
{
"end_time": 2088.524,
"index": 79,
"start_time": 2059.889,
"text": " Blue after T. And then you look at all the smarags. We are before T. All are green. All have grown. But depending on whether we predict green or growth, we make a different prediction after T. Then Goodman argued that the game is not throwable, and green is throwable. I was actually his student when he developed it and discussed it in the courses."
},
{
"end_time": 2111.698,
"index": 80,
"start_time": 2089.053,
"text": " In principle, it had to answer the question. It had nothing to do with my views on universal grammar. To be honest, I did not think that his explanation of the differentiation, which he presented as an argument to try to show that green is throwable and true, was never convinced that the argument was fulfilled."
},
{
"end_time": 2133.541,
"index": 81,
"start_time": 2115.196,
"text": " Of course, I knew the Hume argument, which Goodman discusses in his book, but not quite exactly. The famous Hume argument about induction is such, as Hume said, that you have to assume that it is conducted because of what he called the animal instinct."
},
{
"end_time": 2166.869,
"index": 82,
"start_time": 2138.336,
"text": " As an animal, we have an instinct that leads us to accept inductive reasoning in certain cases, not in others. In a sense, I expressed it more carefully, with certain predicates, not others and ... Yes, I think that this is the only answer to conducting induction in such a range in which we use some animal instinct. But I don't think it was necessary to be so sensitive to postulate universal grammar."
},
{
"end_time": 2181.937,
"index": 83,
"start_time": 2167.415,
"text": " There is simply no alternative. I mean, there was a time when I was a student, actually in the 40s and 50s of the 20th century, it was assumed that learning a language is a matter of training and habit."
},
{
"end_time": 2215.247,
"index": 84,
"start_time": 2186.459,
"text": " Quoting the leading American linguist Leonard Bloomfield, the philosophy of language has taken the same view, perhaps the most influential Anglo-American language philosopher. For him, the language was a complex of dispositions to react to the settings in its image in a benereal and operative setting."
},
{
"end_time": 2229.411,
"index": 85,
"start_time": 2215.896,
"text": " Well, these views go away in oblivion when you look at the acquisition of the language. It's not like that at all. The acquisition of the language is based on what Hume called the animal instinct."
},
{
"end_time": 2263.2,
"index": 86,
"start_time": 2235.162,
"text": " There is a certain ability that human non-speech has, and which does not have a chimpanzee, which makes it possible for human non-speech to quickly acquire the language on the basis of scattered data, which for the chimpanzee are simply noise. It must be because of some animal instinct, if you prefer some kind of innate ability. It is as basic as it can be."
},
{
"end_time": 2292.466,
"index": 87,
"start_time": 2263.968,
"text": " But if there is an innate ability, there should be a theory of this innate ability. The term universal grammar in contemporary meaning is simply the name of this theory. So the postulation of human universal grammar is an elementary rationality. There is no alternative. Is this the right way to express limitations? I can't imagine what the alternative is."
},
{
"end_time": 2321.271,
"index": 88,
"start_time": 2294.821,
"text": " If you believe that there is something born that distinguishes the mute from the male pet, which is certainly true, then you have to postulate it. Okay, question 17 So 171717 is from Professor Philip Goff. We both agree with Russell that physics tells us what matter does, but it does not reveal its inner nature."
},
{
"end_time": 2348.626,
"index": 89,
"start_time": 2322.654,
"text": " Therefore, the only thing we know directly about the inner nature of matter is that part of it, that is, what is in the brain, is experienceable. So either the matter outside the brain also has an experienceable inner nature, or it has some other property, whose nature is completely unknown. For sure, the first option is"
},
{
"end_time": 2374.616,
"index": 90,
"start_time": 2349.377,
"text": " Mr. Psychism should be preferred due to simplicity. What do you think about this argument? Well, simplicity depends on the simplicity of the theory, depends on the evidence that you consider. Consider various evidence, various theories will be simpler, more difficult."
},
{
"end_time": 2409.275,
"index": 91,
"start_time": 2382.244,
"text": " So let's accept the basic frames commonly accepted in contemporary philosophy, in which this question appears, returns to the differentiation, returns to the differentiation of David Chmere between the easy problems of consciousness and the difficult problem. The difficult problem is to sound like it is to see the sunset?"
},
{
"end_time": 2439.855,
"index": 92,
"start_time": 2412.193,
"text": " This is a difficult problem. The easy problem is what are the neurological, genetic and other properties that come into the awareness of sunset. I have never been particularly satisfied with this formula, because it is not clear to me what the difficult problem is."
},
{
"end_time": 2462.637,
"index": 93,
"start_time": 2441.698,
"text": " If someone asks me how it is to see the sunset that you are looking at, I can give a very detailed answer. The red spot here makes me feel happy and continues in these extensive details. So there is no problem with describing how it is to watch the sunset."
},
{
"end_time": 2493.251,
"index": 94,
"start_time": 2463.422,
"text": " But if someone asks me how it is to watch the sunset, I don't think it would have an answer. At least I can't imagine what the answer is. And if the question doesn't have a formulated answer, it's not an authentic question. It's just a language expression in the form of a question. It is on par with the question why things happen in the form of a question that is not a real question."
},
{
"end_time": 2520.998,
"index": 95,
"start_time": 2495.06,
"text": " There are no possible answers. So the difficult problem is that, as I can see, it does not really exist. We are left with an easy problem, which is of course very far from easy. What happens when I see the sunset and I am aware of it, what can I describe in detail, what is happening? In this context, there were questions."
},
{
"end_time": 2541.937,
"index": 96,
"start_time": 2522.073,
"text": " Now one of the answers to this is that all nature has the property of consciousness. This is one possibility. Another possibility, another, often given answer, is the lack of consciousness. This is an illusion of blood in each of these answers."
},
{
"end_time": 2574.77,
"index": 97,
"start_time": 2545.401,
"text": " I think we can expect an answer that says that consciousness is the property of people, other animals, but not the table on which my computer rests. Is it less of an example answer than pansechism? It depends on what our proofs are. Let's assume that one day we will get a real answer to the so-called easy problem."
},
{
"end_time": 2602.875,
"index": 98,
"start_time": 2578.49,
"text": " Let's assume that we will find neurological properties, genetic properties, which are responsible for my moments of consciousness and for what is not there. What do I know without consciousness, like most of my intellectual activities? Let's assume that we will find a way to distinguish them and distinguish people from tables."
},
{
"end_time": 2625.265,
"index": 99,
"start_time": 2605.35,
"text": " Well, then the simplest argument, as I think, will take into account all these discoveries and information, and then I do not think that Mr. psychism was the simplest answer. This answer, which simply postulates something, why there is no evidence that the particles have these properties."
},
{
"end_time": 2649.275,
"index": 100,
"start_time": 2628.848,
"text": " Although we already have evidence that only certain types of organizations, regardless of what the world consists of, have these properties. So simplicity depends on what you take into account. The simplicity of the theory depends on what it has to do with."
},
{
"end_time": 2680.589,
"index": 101,
"start_time": 2652.278,
"text": " If we take into account the full range of evidence that we hope to obtain by making progress in the so-called easy problem, I think we have simpler theories. Okay. 24. Do you have a solution to the paradox of lies? No. There is nothing new to say about paradoxes. Many have been said about them, but I have nothing to add. And what about Raven's paradox?"
},
{
"end_time": 2689.838,
"index": 102,
"start_time": 2680.896,
"text": " Okay."
},
{
"end_time": 2721.527,
"index": 103,
"start_time": 2692.261,
"text": " 26. So the following, each word in the dictionary is defined in the categories of other words in the dictionary, which indicates that there are some basic concepts that must be understood without referring to other words, such as the axiom of the language, or that in some way the meaning of the words is inseparably related to the relationship that each word has to others. Are these the only two options?"
},
{
"end_time": 2752.261,
"index": 104,
"start_time": 2724.838,
"text": " Well, we have to ask ourselves whether we are talking about human language or about formal systems that someone has constructed, such as, for example, meta-thematics or quantum theory. In these two cases, there are various answers. In the case of a formal system that someone has constructed, there must be some basic concepts in relation to which others are defined."
},
{
"end_time": 2775.623,
"index": 105,
"start_time": 2754.206,
"text": " It is true in the case of mathematics. It is true in the case of physics, as long as it is formalized and so on. So in this context, yes, it is correct. And what about human language? Well, the question does not appear in human language, because the words in the dictionary do not have a definition."
},
{
"end_time": 2804.667,
"index": 106,
"start_time": 2777.483,
"text": " When you look through the dictionary, let's say the most detailed dictionary, you will find the e-d, look at the definition of the word, there it is far from the definition. This is an explanation that gives a number of tips that allow you, with your rich intuition, to understand the language, guess what the word means."
},
{
"end_time": 2835.623,
"index": 107,
"start_time": 2806.118,
"text": " But you do most of the work, remember that the dictionary does almost nothing and ... Try to define the simplest words that will come to your mind. Book, table, river, cat, whatever you want, has a rich and complex meaning. Such that is known to the deaf without experience, which creates another fundamental, mysterious problem."
},
{
"end_time": 2862.961,
"index": 108,
"start_time": 2837.432,
"text": " In what way are nemovlents able to assimilate the rich and complex meaning of the most basic words in just a few presentations, as shown by experimental research? A serious problem. One of them refers to the first question. One of those deep ones that we do not have a real answer to. But there is no definition."
},
{
"end_time": 2890.026,
"index": 109,
"start_time": 2864.258,
"text": " There are only definitions of technical terms that are invented. So if someone introduces the term TENSOR, let's say UH, they give its definition. But these are not the kinds of words that are simply appropriated in everyday life. These words do not have definitions. They are connected in many ways."
},
{
"end_time": 2918.507,
"index": 110,
"start_time": 2890.964,
"text": " But the ear has no particular reason to believe that some of them, I mean to a certain extent, will be more basic than others. But there is no reason to believe that there is some finished collection that is basic, like the axiomat system. I can add here, only for those interested, that there is a very interesting work that deals with the issue of how we use our lexical elements."
},
{
"end_time": 2949.258,
"index": 111,
"start_time": 2920.896,
"text": " Words are not really proper units, but minimal elements bearing meaning. How do we use them? There are two different theories on this topic. One is that, to simplify, let's call them words. The other is that words are stored. We have a reserve of words in our mind. We gain access to words when we try to understand a sentence or look at a sentence. This is more or less a standard theory."
},
{
"end_time": 2974.053,
"index": 112,
"start_time": 2951.237,
"text": " There is an alternative that is quite interesting, mainly developed by Alek Morans, a linguist and neurobiologist from NY. He stated that we do not store words, we store the rules of creating words and whether the word is actually used in the lexicon or not is in some sense irrelevant."
},
{
"end_time": 2998.882,
"index": 113,
"start_time": 2975.265,
"text": " And he has quite interesting arguments, neurological, psycholinguistic and others, claiming that in reality it is only generative rules, and not just words. So the possible world word, which by chance is not in our lexicon, let's say Blake, is treated the same as those that are not there. This is quite an interesting scientific question."
},
{
"end_time": 3020.776,
"index": 114,
"start_time": 3000.742,
"text": " Dawkins introduced the concept of an extended phenotype. Is there any connection between the language and the extended phenotype? It depends on what we understand by language. Language is one of these informal terms of general use, which is too imprecise to describe."
},
{
"end_time": 3054.377,
"index": 115,
"start_time": 3025.725,
"text": " So, as in all other strict sciences, when linguists try to discuss and understand something about the language, psychologists or neurologists give a technical definition of the language. So, for example, if a physicist is asked what energy is, what work is, what spin is, he will not give a definition, which is in the common language."
},
{
"end_time": 3082.637,
"index": 116,
"start_time": 3055.35,
"text": " There are no definitions. What they do is to define a technical term that differs from that in the general language. And the same applies to this case. So we have to ask what we understand by language? Well, if we mean a technical term, which I would call the eye language, the internal language, then the extended phenotypes have nothing to do with it."
},
{
"end_time": 3104.787,
"index": 117,
"start_time": 3083.814,
"text": " If we use the word language in a loose, metaphorical, healthy sense, then perhaps extended phenotypes have something in common with it. Is our obsession at the point of the Turing test the remnant of the influence of behaviorism? Or behavior, however convincing, whenever it definitely implies awareness?"
},
{
"end_time": 3114.889,
"index": 118,
"start_time": 3105.196,
"text": " Should we use any other test than the touring test?"
},
{
"end_time": 3137.5,
"index": 119,
"start_time": 3115.265,
"text": " Football fan, a basketball fan, it always feels good to be ranked. Right now, new users get $50 instantly in lineups when you play your first $5. The app is simple to use. Pick two or more players. Pick more or less on their stat projections. Anything from touchdown to threes and if you're right, you can win big. Mix and match players from"
},
{
"end_time": 3147.363,
"index": 120,
"start_time": 3137.5,
"text": " any sport on PrizePix, America's number one daily fantasy sports app. PrizePix is available in 40 plus states including California, Texas,"
},
{
"end_time": 3171.357,
"index": 121,
"start_time": 3147.602,
"text": " Florida and Georgia. Most importantly, all the transactions on the app are fast, safe and secure. Download the PricePix app today and use code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. That's code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. PricePix. It's good to be right. Must be present in certain states. Visit PricePix.com for restrictions and details."
},
{
"end_time": 3192.398,
"index": 122,
"start_time": 3175.845,
"text": " Well, first I can mention as a historical fact that the Turing test actually reaches the 17th century after the establishment of the art of a second substance for such things as the creative use of language."
},
{
"end_time": 3221.886,
"index": 123,
"start_time": 3197.671,
"text": " His co-workers, mainly Jack Dordon, took the obvious next step and said whether we can discover experimental tests that will tell us whether the creation, which looks like us, has this property or not. Then he went through various things that are a bit like a touring imitation game. This is basically a touring test."
},
{
"end_time": 3253.183,
"index": 124,
"start_time": 3224.121,
"text": " But there was a fundamental scientific reason to discover the properties of the body. Well, as I said, it somehow disappeared along with Newton. If we can test behavior using the game imitating touring touring, does it mean awareness? No, no, you can come up with a program that can do it, which is not aware. Should we use some other test?"
},
{
"end_time": 3282.688,
"index": 125,
"start_time": 3254.002,
"text": " It depends on what we are trying to achieve. I do not see any specific goal in the attempt to understand whether the machine is making any machine meaning, the program is doing something like thinking. But if we consider the important question, well, we use any test that fits our specific definition of thinking or what we are looking for."
},
{
"end_time": 3309.394,
"index": 126,
"start_time": 3283.763,
"text": " Okay. Question number 30 with colorless ideas that flow in the wind. You showed that you can have a compound sense without a semantic sense. In addition to idioms and common phrases, can something have a semantic sense without being a compound? So if so, can it be applied to mathematics or physics?"
},
{
"end_time": 3338.183,
"index": 127,
"start_time": 3311.101,
"text": " It seems that in mathematics and physics, when you just do not have a sense of composition, the whole equation, mathematical sentence, is not well set and therefore it is pointless. Can you imagine cases in which we have misdefined mathematical statements that matter? A lot of examples in the history of mathematics. Let's take, for example, something as simple as arithmetic or geometry."
},
{
"end_time": 3368.643,
"index": 128,
"start_time": 3342.483,
"text": " I mean that Arithmetic and Geometry were studied by Wayne very effectively for millennia, before the concepts were well defined. It was not well defined there. There was no good, serious, in the modern sense, definition of basic concepts of arithmetic until about 1860."
},
{
"end_time": 3400.93,
"index": 129,
"start_time": 3371.476,
"text": " Geometry has not been formalized to Hilbert around 1900, but of course they have always been used efficiently and efficiently. And only after formalization they are well defined. The concept of the border is a well-known case. We return to the difference and total calculation from the 17th century."
},
{
"end_time": 3431.664,
"index": 130,
"start_time": 3402.227,
"text": " Newton's differential and total account was based on the intuitive concept of the boundary. In fact, in the history of mathematics, there is a long debate about whether Newton's proofs actually contain two meanings in the use of zero. Is it true that in one sentence Newton used zero to mean zero, and in the other to mean the smallest number?"
},
{
"end_time": 3459.667,
"index": 131,
"start_time": 3432.125,
"text": " He did not have the theory of boundaries. Well, a long debate on the subject of those times. But what happened? Apparently, the history of mathematics says that I don't know much about it myself. I only rely on the stories that British mathematicians worked hard, trying to sharpen and explain concepts that in reality have not been done until the mid-19th century."
},
{
"end_time": 3492.534,
"index": 132,
"start_time": 3462.961,
"text": " Continental mathematical mathematicians have basically ignored it. And Gauss, another mathematician, other great mathematicians, developed the majority of classical analysis based on not clearly defined concepts. While the British mathematicians, in the majority, were in the background, because they really did not have a clear idea. Well, yes, you can certainly imagine such cases. In fact, there are many of them."
},
{
"end_time": 3520.794,
"index": 133,
"start_time": 3493.148,
"text": " There were two additional questions, one anonymous and the other from Professor Norman Wildberger, to which we could not answer, so we asked them by e-mail. Professor Norman Wildberger says, here is the question I would like to ask Professor Schke. Are there any language proofs for universal or almost universal concepts of mathematics in people? Maybe concepts are not the right word here. If not, how to formulate a reasonable question in this direction, and now I will ask the computer to read Schke's answer."
},
{
"end_time": 3548.097,
"index": 134,
"start_time": 3521.271,
"text": " Definitely the knowledge of arithmetic is a classic case, the topic of the famous debate between Darwin and Wallace. Both have decided that the knowledge of arithmetic is universal, although it could not be selected most clearly. Wallace suggested some new force operating in evolution. Darwin did not want to accept it. It must be born. There is no way to find out that the whole numbers last forever."
},
{
"end_time": 3576.92,
"index": 135,
"start_time": 3548.609,
"text": " There are certain reasons to believe that it can have the same roots as the language ability. The simplest language would have a single lexical element and the simplest rule of internal spelling, which gives the following function and the basics of adding. Hence, it is not difficult to move on to adding. So, any reprogramming of the brain that gave a recurrent calculation, most clearly unique for people, could provide a basis for both language and arithmetic."
},
{
"end_time": 3598.302,
"index": 136,
"start_time": 3577.517,
"text": " If it comes to math in general, it's a different matter. There is a famous comment by Kroners that God created natural numbers, and man created the rest, which translates as arithmetic is born, but human creativity, whatever it is, has created the theory of multiplicity and so on. And the second question is, how far does the grammar go?"
},
{
"end_time": 3610.384,
"index": 137,
"start_time": 3599.241,
"text": " People talk about the grammar of narration and stories or the grammar of video games, such as common paths and patterns rooted in players who are unaware and widely used in almost every video game."
},
{
"end_time": 3641.152,
"index": 138,
"start_time": 3611.169,
"text": " Is it the generalization of grammar, which has only a fleeting similarity to the linguistic concept of grammar? Or is there any common neurological, and even psychological basis between these types of foreign words of grammar? There is no clear answer. We can expand the terms for broader applications, such as foreign words of the language of the stars. This is not arbitrary, but there are no clear rules. The term grammar without such metaphorical extensions is too imprecise to use it in language learning."
},
{
"end_time": 3670.862,
"index": 139,
"start_time": 3641.852,
"text": " I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that in two minutes I have a meeting that I have to go to. Thank you, thank you, professor. The podcast is over. If you want to support such conversations, consider going to patreon.com Kert Aimung Aleja."
},
{
"end_time": 3680.759,
"index": 140,
"start_time": 3672.295,
"text": " This is Kurt Jungle. This is support from patrons and sponsors, who allow me to do this for a full time. Each dollar helps a lot. Thank you!"
}
]
}No transcript available.