Why are there only two comments on this post (now 3)? Is it because everyone prefers to listen? Or because nobody made it through the entire transcript? Or is it because Tyler's interviews are so oversupplied? Or is it that Tyler's fan base prefers internet writing and this was not internety enough? Regardless of the answers, thanks Aashish.
I only read the Chomsky section, it’s unfortunate that in a philosophical publication no one felt the need to provide any substantiation or argument for all the claimed refutations of Chomsky. Cowen suggests that there might be an argument presented in his linked Cowen interview with Chomsky but alas Cowen never addresses the argument Chomsky presents about impossible languages. People seem to think that Chomsky said something to the effect that you can’t create human like text output without using generative grammar which isn’t something he’s actually said, or cares about (he’s studying what human beings do). As an aside Chomsky has said he didn’t write the NYT piece (he effectively put his name on a friend’s article so it would get published).
I would go on and debunk the other “refutations” of Chomsky but there are no arguments given to refute.
If someone claims to have refuted the leading academic in a field but refuses to explain how anywhere I think it’s safe to ignore the claim as vapid posturing.
Your characterization is goofy. There's no "refusal". It's just obvious to both the interviewer and the interviewee that it's not necessary for this type of conversation. If anything, there's more discussion and specifics than would be normal in such an interview.
You're clearly invested in Chomsky, though, so you find such a thing offensive and probably fantasize about derailing the conversation and challenging him, forcing him to go point by point like it's debate club or something.
What I find offensive is pseudo-intellectual nonsense spouting that you would expect in the pre-enlightenment (“everyone knows Galileo has been falsified, is he right about anything?”)
You keep implying that there is some argument behind it all, just not presented here. There isn’t.
I never used the word "argument." I never made such a claim. What I keep repeating is that you're guilty of a category mistake. You're like the guy who hears the classic joke, "I just flew in from Albuquerque and boy are my arms tired," and says, "Well, actually, a human can't fly using their arms."
I know you want the last word, so go for it. But really you should just go outside.
Tyler is so brilliant and so worth reading and then…we run into his views on Thiel, a person who obviously is as close to evil as one dare call another, and the question arises as to whether the Cowen project is a road to dumb dumb, as Hayek didn’t quite put it. The answer for me is: just skip the Thiel worship on the grounds that the most brilliant among us have a strain of wrongness, like a red thread in a white robe.
1. Peter is "obviously" as close to evil as Putin? Elaborate. - 2. Worship? Thiel is said to be intelligent, well read and a talented investor. Which seems a) obviously (!) true b) not worshipping. Tyler does not "worship" any of those he invites to CwT, but sure, he respects them. Incl. Chomsky. He neither invited me nor you. For good reasons.
Why are there only two comments on this post (now 3)? Is it because everyone prefers to listen? Or because nobody made it through the entire transcript? Or is it because Tyler's interviews are so oversupplied? Or is it that Tyler's fan base prefers internet writing and this was not internety enough? Regardless of the answers, thanks Aashish.
In my case because I want to listen.
Really enjoyable read and fantastic questions/interviewing! Novel, well prepared/researched, so good! Very much appreciated.
I only read the Chomsky section, it’s unfortunate that in a philosophical publication no one felt the need to provide any substantiation or argument for all the claimed refutations of Chomsky. Cowen suggests that there might be an argument presented in his linked Cowen interview with Chomsky but alas Cowen never addresses the argument Chomsky presents about impossible languages. People seem to think that Chomsky said something to the effect that you can’t create human like text output without using generative grammar which isn’t something he’s actually said, or cares about (he’s studying what human beings do). As an aside Chomsky has said he didn’t write the NYT piece (he effectively put his name on a friend’s article so it would get published).
I would go on and debunk the other “refutations” of Chomsky but there are no arguments given to refute.
It's an interview on a meandering set of subjects not a philosophy paper.
If someone claims to have refuted the leading academic in a field but refuses to explain how anywhere I think it’s safe to ignore the claim as vapid posturing.
Your characterization is goofy. There's no "refusal". It's just obvious to both the interviewer and the interviewee that it's not necessary for this type of conversation. If anything, there's more discussion and specifics than would be normal in such an interview.
You're clearly invested in Chomsky, though, so you find such a thing offensive and probably fantasize about derailing the conversation and challenging him, forcing him to go point by point like it's debate club or something.
Touch grass, as the kids would say.
What I find offensive is pseudo-intellectual nonsense spouting that you would expect in the pre-enlightenment (“everyone knows Galileo has been falsified, is he right about anything?”)
You keep implying that there is some argument behind it all, just not presented here. There isn’t.
I never used the word "argument." I never made such a claim. What I keep repeating is that you're guilty of a category mistake. You're like the guy who hears the classic joke, "I just flew in from Albuquerque and boy are my arms tired," and says, "Well, actually, a human can't fly using their arms."
I know you want the last word, so go for it. But really you should just go outside.
Thank you for graciously offering me the last word. I think I’ll just let your baffling comment speak for itself, whatever it was meant to say.
Tyler is so brilliant and so worth reading and then…we run into his views on Thiel, a person who obviously is as close to evil as one dare call another, and the question arises as to whether the Cowen project is a road to dumb dumb, as Hayek didn’t quite put it. The answer for me is: just skip the Thiel worship on the grounds that the most brilliant among us have a strain of wrongness, like a red thread in a white robe.
Why is Peter Thiel "evil"?
1. Peter is "obviously" as close to evil as Putin? Elaborate. - 2. Worship? Thiel is said to be intelligent, well read and a talented investor. Which seems a) obviously (!) true b) not worshipping. Tyler does not "worship" any of those he invites to CwT, but sure, he respects them. Incl. Chomsky. He neither invited me nor you. For good reasons.