There was an excellent talk by Chomsky on the ghost in the machine of consciousness. In this talk, Chomsky delved deep into the complex and mysterious concept of consciousness. He explored the various theories and ideas surrounding it, presenting his own unique perspectives and insights. The video link provided, https://youtu.be/D5in5EdjhD0, offers a valuable opportunity for those interested in this topic to listen to Chomsky's thoughts and engage with the material. Whether you are a scholar, a student, or simply someone with a curious mind, this talk is sure to stimulate your thinking and expand your understanding of the ghost in the machine of consciousness.

Unlike functionalists who assert that language has evolved to fulfill the function of communication, Chomsky associates language with the cognitive faculty itself. To Chomsky, thought is not about communication but about conceptualizing and systematizing knowledge. Humans achieve this through a cognitive system known as language. According to Chomsky, language is the cognitive system unique to the human mind.

Finding its roots in Descartes, yet rejecting his substance dualism, Chomsky explains how language is universal to all humans as it is the defining feature of our nature: res cogitas. In a debate with Foucault, who is skeptical of the idea of a human nature transcending historical context, Chomsky clarifies that he believes in a universal human nature, which in principle can be understood as several systems, but currently is most comprehensively and scientifically understood as a linguistic system.

The scope of linguistics according to Chomsky includes several points on universal grammar. Generative grammar aims to understand language in terms of syntactic categories, not function or relational arbitrations. The rules of natural languages are not universal; rather, it is the conditions governing the rules that are universal. Language is generated by innate grammar. Chomsky does not use the term "the innateness hypothesis" as he believes nobody has ever disagreed that there is something innate, and the term is thus misleading. UG can be understood as Plato's innateness hypothesis (from the dialogue Meno) purged of preexistence, similar to Leibniz and Cudworth, but this is not the complete picture of UG.

There are certain truths entirely contained within the universal grammar, such as the entailment in "I persuaded him to..." that "he (now) intends to...". However, truth values are rarely determined within the syntax of grammar itself; most sentences are determined by the facts of the world and are not known a priori. Semantics is not universal, at least there is no theory yet advocating such a view, meaning that grammar is primary to semantic meaning. This has implications for the structure of thoughts: they are determined by the universal grammar with reference only to the facts of the world, meaning all semantic content is created with reference to the world.

The factor determining semantic content is called deep structure, which lies above the level of universal grammar but on the level of the mind, not production. Surface structure is the physical manifestation of that content in phonology. The main function of the deep structure is to embed the theme into sentences. Surface structure contains the cues for understanding utterances, but this does not mean that language primarily serves the function of communication. Rather, there is a logic to the surface structure that lends itself to interpretation by comparing it to other formal or informal schemas. Logic is an abstraction of the surface structure, not a feature of deep structure.

Furthermore, elements on the level of surface structure are not always visible, meaning they can be realized in the structure without being physically realized. There is no proof to suggest that language is a global phenomenon in the brain. Beliefs and attitudes are intertwined with language in the real world, but they are not part of language itself. In natural languages, facts enter into the structure of sentences. Between agents and actions, there are often purpose, instrument, intention, etc., which are facts entering the language and these relations are not part of universal grammar.

In sum, UG is not grammar. Grammar qua grammar is stipulated in the deep and surface structures of language. UG is the theory of what lies behind grammar. Logic, if there are such things as innate logical rules as many philosophers suggest, and not just apparent rules abstracted from cognitive practice, is situated at the level of deep structure: it is the basic rule of thought, but it is not the condition for the existence of these rules. UG is the theory of these conditions.

Challenges to the Generative theory of language come from various perspectives. From Structuralism, the fact that language is not a code seems counterintuitive as the element of phonemes and the fact that only perceptible changes in pronunciation can enact changes in meaning seem to point to this, although this is a minor intervention. The code view is common to both behaviorists and Saussureans. From Cognitive linguists, the view of language as a global intervention argues that there is little evidence to suppose that language is different from other cognitive events, thus there is little reason to stipulate the existence of a language faculty in the brain separate from the rest of brain activity. From Functionalism, the social aspect of the development of language in infants seems to indicate that language is acquired specifically for the sake of communication. In this view, language is part of a larger system of communication also involving non-linguistic practices. The communication view of language is not the same as the language as code view. In the functionalist view, there are considerations of body, local relevance, and dialogic creativity, so language as communication will be better understood as coordinating intentionalities rather than as code.

If only the order of the two essays were the other way around.

The first one is a transcript from an interview that makes references to the second.

After I finished reading them both, I truly wished that I had read them in chronological order, instead of the order in which they were presented.

It would have provided a more logical flow and a better understanding of the context.

The references in the interview transcript to the second essay would have made more sense if I had read the second one first.

As it was, I had to constantly refer back and forth, trying to piece together the connections.

This made the reading experience a bit more cumbersome than it could have been.

Perhaps in the future, the editors or authors should consider presenting such related pieces in a more intuitive order to enhance the reader's comprehension and enjoyment.

When I first picked up Reflections on Language, our library's copy was in an abominable condition. The pages were tattered, the binding was falling apart, and it was overall a mess.

Thankfully, we were able to obtain a new copy to replace it. This was a great relief as I was eager to explore the content within.

Since I've previously read Language and Responsibility, I've decided that for now, I'll only be reading the latter half of this volume. I'm curious to see how the ideas presented in the second half of Reflections on Language compare and contrast with those in Language and Responsibility.

I'm looking forward to delving into the text and uncovering new insights and perspectives on the fascinating subject of language.

Incredible!!!

This is truly an amazing and astonishing thing.

It leaves us in awe and wonder.

The magnitude of it is simply mind-boggling.

We can't help but be astounded by its sheer incredibility.

It seems almost too good to be true.

Every aspect of it is filled with wonder and amazement.

It has the power to captivate our attention and hold us spellbound.

We are left speechless in the face of such an incredible phenomenon.

It is a moment that will surely be etched in our memories forever.

The incredibility of it all is something that we will talk about for a long time to come.

I made up my mind that it was high time I delved into some Chomsky, and I hunted down this particular book, which was presented as a non-technical exploration of language.

The book, in essence, consists of two main parts, with the second part further divided into two within itself, and this structure does pose some challenges. That is, it's debatable whether it was a wise decision to compile all of this into a single volume. As I read through it, I found myself increasingly irritated. On one hand, Chomsky seemed to repeat himself ad nauseam, and on the other hand, he didn't delve deep enough into certain aspects. Of course, this is understandable considering that I was essentially reading three distinct works, not just one, and all of them were written at a relatively superficial level.

The first part, which is an interview, was rather engaging. It was fascinating to listen to Chomsky discuss a wide array of topics, ranging from politics to linguistics. It was also great to witness the acuity of his mind and how he skillfully resisted the interviewers' attempts to draw connections where none existed, such as between his ground-breaking work in linguistics and his political activism. The interview also provided a wonderful insight into how Chomsky developed his ideas. It was truly captivating to see how he retrospectively analyzed the past in the context of the generative grammar he formulated, observing how he discovered elements of his theory both in his own early works and in the writings of early philosophers.

The second part, however, left me with a sense of defensiveness and a bullyish tone. It's difficult to fathom what the intellectual atmosphere was like in the 1970s when he penned this. I gather that he was under constant attack, but I'm not entirely sure. It's also frustrating not to know how the advancements in neurology and cognitive science have influenced the theories he expounded upon. I will surely seek out his later writings to gain a better understanding of this.

In any case, I found Chomsky's approach to intellectual debate rather obnoxious, stubborn, and unkind. For instance, he repeatedly resorts to imagining a character he names "S", a scientist unburdened by our intellectual history and prejudices. This "character" is, of course, none other than Chomsky himself, and his point is simply to assert that he is above intellectual history and a true scientist, while those who oppose him are prejudiced and foolish. It's also evident from much of the book that he and his "opponents" have been engaged in a back-and-forth through several publications, merely restating their positions and hurling insults at each other. This is not what I consider to be good reading material.

Nevertheless, I'm awarding this book three stars because I did manage to finish it, and there were indeed sections that were quite interesting.

This book was truly a laborious task to complete, even for an individual who has pursued the study of Language at the Masters level.

Chomsky often delves deep into theorems that are completely incomprehensible. Many of these theorems are not only utterly baffling but also ultimately make the text demotivating.

Admittedly, there are certain snippets of insight and thought-provoking analysis within the book. However, when considering the overall experience, I found the book to be impenetrable.

It was a struggle to wade through the complex and convoluted ideas presented, and I often found myself getting lost in the jargon and technicalities.

Despite the occasional glimmers of brilliance, the book as a whole failed to engage me and left me feeling frustrated and disappointed.

Perhaps with more in-depth study and a greater understanding of the subject matter, I might be able to appreciate the book more fully. But for now, it remains a difficult and challenging read.

I found very little substance here, if any exists to be found at all.

I have read books on linguistics before, so for a book called "On Language", a linguistics discussion is what I came for and tried to find. To be honest, I picked this up in the first place because it was recommended to our book club by someone else, and I picked the previous choice, so I was obligated to read this one.

The biggest frustration was that there was no structure or argument thread throughout at all. This is a collection of interviews Chomsky did and essays he wrote about various topics he found interesting. So while one of his stances might be that one cannot speak about language without speaking about politics at the same time, he does not embody his perspective here at all. While sometimes he talks about some grammar and sentence structure specifics found in the English language, most of the time he rambles on about sociopolitical topics that occurred during his time. Chomsky has a lot of opinions about different things, but fails to back up his claims adequately or to connect his thoughts together into a cohesive argument.

Chomsky's "On Language" also just seems so narrow-minded and outdated. Most of his references are to political swings occurring in the '60s and this book was first published in the '70s. It hasn't aged well, and I am at a loss to see how Chomsky's body of work is still relevant to today at all. He may have been an important member of the intelligentsia in his day, but I expected more from a seemingly respected linguist.

Furthermore, the scope of these discussions was just so limited. All of Chomsky's references are based in recent (for the time of first publication) American events, but the United States is not the only country that speaks English, and English is not even the most-spoken language in the world. Mandarin Chinese is currently the most-spoken language in the world at 1.1 billion speakers, with only 983 million English speakers. For a book titled "On Language", I expected a more intelligent perspective.

I would NOT recommend this to ANYONE. Not worth the time or money. Search elsewhere, anywhere else, for better discussion on language, society, and politics.

Overall, this book was a disappointment. It lacked the depth and coherence that I had hoped for in a linguistics-related work. The disjointed nature of the content and the narrow focus on American events and the English language made it feel incomplete and outdated. I had high expectations for a book by a well-known linguist like Chomsky, but unfortunately, it did not meet those expectations. I would suggest looking for other books that offer a more comprehensive and up-to-date exploration of language, society, and politics. There are many excellent works out there that can provide a more fulfilling reading experience.

Beats me. This book is just too highbrow for me. I tried to read it, but I had to put it down halfway through. The language is so complex and the ideas are so abstract that I can't seem to wrap my head around them. I feel like I'm missing something important, but no matter how hard I try, I just can't understand. Maybe I'm not smart enough or maybe I just don't have the right background knowledge. Either way, it's a bit of a disappointment. I was really looking forward to reading this book, but now I'm not sure if I should bother trying to finish it. I might just move on to something else that's a bit more accessible.

Reading this is like eagerly waiting for the next big present under the Christmas tree.

It has the power to gauge your excitement, sometimes paragraph by paragraph. There are politically thrilling results that remain from a dialectic which you may now not be so certain you understand.

It was an easy means to engage friends who are not overly inclined towards linguistics. "How many challenge codes can I make?" This embodies the structural and post-structuralist ideas.

But here's the thing: they only stay as ideas, and I found myself wondering why I had placed so much weight on this one person.

It can be intellectual, yet it can also be a demon. Deconstruct it, and you'll receive a reward: the reward of extracting the soul from everyone you come to know because of geopolitics, that's the reason.

The eyes of your friends will sparkle with recognition. Proust would likely have something to say "about" that, but you won't know where you're headed, as it's all an exercise in restraint anyway, isn't it?

What do I like about Noam Chomsky and this book in particular? Rule-breaking in order to gain the wisdom of the crowds. If you require a vivid reminder of why intellectualism fails, this book will assist you in finding your way.

I'm interacting with an AI that doesn't know what it desires, so then why did On Language land in my lap while concealing two sheets of paper, a given exchange between a student and "the" aspirational logistics of medicine? Yeesh, at least the gamma knows that a neologism by any other name would be a step out of society, and I don't like it. Now it has fact!

That's settled. I am not a linguist. ;) However, this doesn't stop me from having an in-depth understanding and appreciation of language-related matters. Still, another insightful read has come my way. I truly love Chomsky and his works. His ideas and theories have always fascinated me and opened up new perspectives on the nature of language. Whether it's his views on universal grammar or his critiques of mainstream linguistics, there is always something thought-provoking to explore. Reading his works is like embarking on a journey of discovery, where I constantly find myself challenged and inspired. I look forward to delving deeper into his ideas and continuing to learn from his remarkable contributions to the field of linguistics.

I truly wish that I could have a deeper understanding of what is written within the pages of this book.

My aunt, who happens to be a highly respected linguistics professor, kindly sent this book to me.

However, I must admit that I have a greater preference for his books that focus on politics and the media.

Those particular topics have always intrigued me and captured my attention more than the subject matter of this current book.

Nonetheless, I am determined to give this book a fair chance and try to gain some valuable insights from it.

Perhaps as I continue to read, I will discover new perspectives and ideas that will expand my knowledge and understanding in unexpected ways.

Only time will tell if this book will manage to win me over and become a favorite among my collection.