Chomsky and the Mind Body Problem

The full Chomsky video:

My Patreon:

My channel about books:

My Twitter:

My tumblr:

For those who want to see my pretentious, minimalist poster designs, here is my society6 store:

[dannyduchamp]

Best, most concise explaination of the whole physical/non-physical thing I've ever seen. I would go so far as to say if you're interested in the question, this video contains everything you need to know about it.

[alicegull]

How many fields has Chomsky mastered?! He's such a Renaissance scholar!

[sithispadomay]

This video puts finally puts in words ideas that had been playing around in my head. Thank you. :)

[MrAudienceMember]

This is a rabbit hole worthy of exploration.

[seedpicker]

Nice summary!  Thanks a lot for doing this.

[williambarnes]

There are three types of entity in physics. The material - the massive particles of substance. The energetic - the massless particles that mediate the forces. The information - the list of orientations, properties, velocities, positions, and bonds between these elements.

Information is not a non-physical thing. It is subject to physics. The laws of physics decide what interactions will have what changes to a particle's position, orientation, or type, when it will emit energy, what direction it will emit that energy in, and what other particles the particle is bonded to.

The brain and its activity is a very complicated set of these interactions playing out over time.

Your mind is a verb, not a noun.

"Let's get physical" can also mean "I'm going to send you some e-mails."

[stiegmusic]

Chomsky's good, I like Chomsky.

coughcoughanarchismcoughcough

[Valosken]

I agree.
Also, I'm developing a real love for Chomsky recently. I appreciated him anyway because of his linguistic theory/theories, but his more philosophical side seems good to me as well.

[yourfutureself]

I think that there are some pretty intuitive and obvious explanations: something is physical if it occupies space and/or if it occupies more than two dimensions. You treat this as if it's completely undefineable.

[Tesla_Death_Ray]

Correct me if im mistaken, but this issue was resolved in 1981 by Olivia Newton John.

[kellyorrichardweddle]

It seems that physical is better defined than whatever 'non-physical' might be.

[SciPunk]

Thanks MM... and that goes double for "natural" and "supernatural".

[GurrenPrime]

I kinda get the feeling that "physical" means "can be measured in a meaningful way." Though I'm not a philosopher, so my idea might be too basic. 

[nialv]

+TMM You might be interested in Barbara Montero's paper "What is the Physical?", which is available on her website, I think.

[nichiyou]

Is there any difference between materialism and physicalism?

[aderek]

For the purposes of this question I have always thought that non-physical was just another way of saying magic.

[ziliath]

Physical means Mechanistic interaction through cause and effect.

like one cog turning another because they are in tactile proximity.
the tides are mechanistic because 1 cog is the mass of the moon, the second cog is the gravitational field produced by the moon, the third cog is the oceans..being warped by the gravitational field.

is that not a good enough definition?

[GainingUnderstanding]

TheMessianicManic I remember linking you this video from Chomsky awhile ago! :D I remember you making another video about objections to dualism and you were asking a (seemingly rhetorical) question about what exactly a non-physical substance is and I responded in a comment asking you what exactly a physical substance is? Though I never got an answer from you regarding this link or the question (probably because you already have a million comments coming your way), until now! I always suspected you were a physicalist but I see that my suspicions were wrong. I'm glad to see an atheist around here that is actually questioning the dogma of physicalism :D

[guillatra]

Interesting. I think we form our understanding of physics and psychology based on natural kinds. Physical things are similar to my hands, mental things are similar to my thoughts. So, yes this raises a problem for defining the interaction problem, because the definition of the terms is in process.