Krippenstein rule following paradox, answered by Chomsky

Subscribe if you want more conversations on Theories of Everything, Consciousness, Free Will, God, and the mathematics / physics of each.

[die_schlechtere_Milch]

seems like someone didn't like footnote 77 on p. 97

[Dystisis]

Uh... Only problem with this is that human beings form sentences themselves and are responsible for doing so, and can go wrong in doing so. Chomsky is completely off the deep end here. Language is not some natural phenomenon (like sight) occurring irrespective of what we do and what standards we lay down for how to do it. The rules of language are genuine rules that people can choose to follow. Sure, individuals must follow the rules in order to produce understandable sentences, but it does not follow that (on the public level) the rules are natural phenomena.

In fact, language consists in language-games, and only relative to the language-games do we say it consists of rules. It does not, ultimately, consist of rules.

[aussiekevin]

Unfortunately Chomsky has completely misunderstood the paradox. It doesn't matter if the rule is subconscious and embedded in our biology or whatever; it's still not clear how it determines in a non-circular way the results of addition problems we have never performed. Chomsky doesn't explain that bit, I suspect because he can't.