Shadowing Practice: Noam Chomsky: Language, Cognition, and Deep Learning | Lex Fridman Podcast #53 - Learn English Speaking with Video

Choose a practice mode

Each mode opens a full-screen practice room.

415 sentences

If sentences are too short or too long, click Edit to adjust them.

The following is a conversation with Noam Chomsky.

He's truly one of the great minds of our time

and is one of the most cited scholars in the history of our civilization.

He has spent over 60 years at MIT and recently also joined the University of Arizona where we met for this conversation.

But it was at MIT about four and a half years ago when I first met Noam.

My first few days there, I remember getting into an elevator at Stata Center, pressing the button for whatever floor,

looking up and realizing it was just me and Noam Chomsky riding the elevator.

Just me and one of the seminal figures of linguistics, cognitive science, philosophy, and political thought in the past century, if not ever.

I tell that silly story

because I think life is made up of funny little defining moments

that you never forget for reasons that may be too poetic to try and explain.

That was one of mine.

Noam has been an inspiration to me and millions of others.

It was truly an honor for me to sit down with him in Arizona.

I traveled there just for this conversation.

And in a rare, heartbreaking moment, after everything was set up and tested,

the camera was moved and accidentally the recording button was pressed, stopping the recording.

So I have good audio of both of us, but no video of Noam.

Just the video of me and my sleep -deprived but excited face

that I get to keep as a reminder of my failures.

Most people just listen to this audio version for the podcast as opposed to watching it on YouTube.

But still, it's heartbreaking for me.

I hope you understand and still enjoy this conversation as much as I did.

The depth of intellect that Noam showed and his willingness to truly listen to me.

A silly -looking Russian in a suit.

it was humbling and something I'm deeply grateful for.

As some of you know, this podcast is a side project for me,

where my main journey and dream is to build AI systems that do some good for the world.

This latter effort takes up most of my time, but for the moment has been mostly private.

But the former, the podcast, is something I put my heart and soul into, and I hope you feel that, even when they screw things up.

I recently started doing ads at the end of the introduction.

I'll do one or two minutes after introducing the episode

and never any ads in the middle that break the flow of the conversation.

I hope that works for you.

It doesn't hurt the listening experience.

This is the Artificial Intelligence Podcast.

If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, give it five stars on Apple Podcasts,

support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter at Lex Friedman, spelled F -R -I -D -M -A -N.

This show is presented by Cash App, the number one finance app in the App Store.

I personally use

Cash App to send money to friends, but you can also use it to buy, sell, and deposit

Bitcoin in just seconds.

Cash App also has a new investing feature.

You can buy fractions of a stock, say $1 worth, no matter what the stock price is.

Brokerage services are provided by Cash App Investing, a subsidiary of Square, a member of SIPC.

I'm excited to be working with Cash App to support one of my favorite organizations called The First,

best known for their first robotics and Lego competitions.

They educate and inspire hundreds of thousands of students in over 110 countries and have a perfect rating on Charity Navigator,

which means the donated money is used to maximum effectiveness this.

When you get

Cash App from the App Store, Google Play, and use code LexPodcast, you'll get $10.

And Cash App will also donate $10 to FIRST,

which again is an organization that I've personally seen inspire girls and boys to dream of engineering a better world.

And now, here's my conversation with Noam Chomsky.

I apologize for the absurd philosophical question, but if an alien species or to visit

Earth, do you think we would be able to find a common language or protocol of communication with them?

There are arguments to the effect that we could.

In fact, one of them was Marv Minsky's.

Back about 20 or 30 years ago, he performed a brief experiment with a student of his,

Dan Bob Rowe they essentially ran the simplest possible Turing machines just free to see what would happen.

And most of them crashed, either got into an infinite loop or stopped.

The few that persisted essentially gave something like arithmetic.

And his conclusion from that was that if some alien species developed higher intelligence,

they would at least have arithmetic.

They would at least have what the simplest computer would do.

And in fact, he didn't know that at the time,

but the core principles of natural language are based on operations

which yield something like arithmetic in the limiting case and the minimal case.

So it's conceivable

that a mode of communication could be established based on the core properties of human language and the core properties of arithmetic,

which maybe are universally shared.

So it's conceivable.

What is the structure of that language,

of language as an internal system inside our mind versus an external system as it's expressed?

It's not an alternative.

It's two different concepts of language.

Different.

It's a simple fact that there's something about you, a trait of yours, part of the organism,

you, that determines that you're talking English and not Tagalog, let's say.

So there is an inner system.

It determines the sound and meaning of the infinite number of expressions of your language.

it's localized it's not on your foot obviously it's in your brain

if you look more closely it's in specific configurations of your brain

and that's essentially like the internal structure of your laptop whatever programs

it has are in there now one of the things

you can do with language it's a marginal thing in fact is use it to externalize what's in your head

Actually, most of your use of language is thought, internal thought.

But you can do what you and I are now doing.

We can externalize it.

Well, the set of things that we're externalizing are an external system.

They're noises in the atmosphere.

And you can call that language in some other sense of the word.

But it's not a set of alternatives.

These are just different concepts.

So how deep do the roots of language go in our brain?

our mind?

Is it yet another feature like vision, or is it something more fundamental from which everything else springs in the human mind?

Well, in a way, it's like vision.

There's something about our genetic endowment that determines that we have a mammalian rather than an insect visual system.

100

And there's something in our genetic endowment that determines that we have a human language faculty.

101

No other organism has anything remotely similar.

102

So, in that sense, it's internal.

103

Now, there is a long tradition, which I think is valid going back centuries to the early scientific revolution,

104

at least, that holds that language is sort of the core of human cognitive nature.

105

It's the source.

106

It's the mode for constructing thoughts and expressing them

107

that is what forms thought and it's got fundamental creative capacities it's free independent unbounded

108

and so on and undoubtedly I think the basis for creative capacities and the other

109

remarkable human capacities that lead to the unique achievements and not so great achievements of the species.

110

The capacity to think and reason, do you think that's deeply linked with language?

111

Do you think the way we, the internal language system is essentially the mechanism by which we also reason internally?

112

It is undoubtedly the mechanism by which we reason.

113

There may also be other – there are undoubtedly other faculties involved in reasoning.

114

We have a kind of scientific faculty.

115

Nobody knows what it is.

116

But whatever it is that enables us to pursue certain lines of endeavor

117

and inquiry and to decide what makes sense and doesn't make sense

118

and to achieve a certain degree of understanding of the world.

119

That uses language but goes beyond it.

120

just as using our capacity for arithmetic is not the same as having the capacity.

121

The idea of capacity, our biology, evolution, you've talked about it defining essentially our capacity, our limit, and our scope.

122

Can you try to define what limit and scope are?

123

And the bigger question, do you think it's.. possible to find the limit of human cognition?

124

Well, that's an interesting question.

125

It's commonly believed, most scientists believe, that human intelligence can answer any question in principle.

126

I think that's a very strange belief.

127

If we're biological organisms, which are not angels,

128

then our capacities ought to have scope and limits which are interrelated.

129

Can you define those two terms?

130

Well, let's take a concrete example.

131

Your genetic endowment determines that you can have a male individual system, arms and legs and so on,

132

and therefore become a rich, complex organism.

133

But if you look at that same genetic endowment, it prevents you from developing in other directions.

134

There's no kind of experience which would yield the embryo to develop an insect visual system

135

or to develop wings instead of arms.

136

So the very endowment that confers richness and complexity also sets bounds on what can be attained.

137

Now, I assume that our cognitive capacities are part of the organic world.

138

Therefore, they should have the same properties.

139

If they had no built -in capacity to develop a rich and complex structure, we would have understand nothing.

140

Just as if your genetic endowment did not compel you to develop arms and legs,

141

you would just be some kind of random amoeboid creature with no structure at all.

142

So I think it's plausible to assume that there are limits, and I think we even have some evidence as to what they are.

143

For example, there's a classic moment in the history of science at the time of Newton.

144

From Galileo to Newton, modern science developed on a fundamental assumption, which Newton also accepted.

145

Namely, that the world, the entire universe, is a mechanical object.

146

And by mechanical, they meant something like the kinds of artifacts that were being developed by skilled artisans all over Europe,

147

gears, levers, and so on.

148

And their belief was, well, the world is just a more complex variant of this.

149

Newton, to his astonishment and distress, proved that there are no machines,

150

that there's interaction without contact.

151

His contemporaries like Leibniz and Huygens just dismissed this as returning to the mysticism of the neo -scholastics.

152

Newton agreed.

153

As you said, it is totally absurd.

154

No person of any scientific intelligence could ever accept this for a moment.

155

In fact, he spent the rest of his life trying to get around it somehow, as did many other scientists.

156

That was the very criterion of intelligibility for, say, Galileo or Newton.

157

Theory did not produce an intelligible world unless you could duplicate it in a machine.

158

He said, you can't.

159

There are no machines, any.

160

Finally, after a long struggle, it took a long time, scientists just accepted this as common sense.

161

But that's a significant moment.

162

That means they abandoned the search for an intelligible world.

163

And the great philosophers of the time understood that very well.

164

So, for example, David Hume, in his encomium to Newton, wrote that who was the greatest thinker ever and

165

so on he said that he unveiled the secret many of the secrets of nature

166

but by showing the imperfections of the mechanical philosophy mechanical science he left us with he showed

167

that there are mysteries which ever will remain

168

and science just changed its its goals it abandoned the mysteries it can't solve it we'll put it side.

169

We only look for intelligible theories.

170

Newton's theories were intelligible.

171

It's just what they described wasn't.

172

Well, Locke said the same thing.

173

I think they're basically right.

174

And if so, that showed something about the limits of human cognition.

175

We cannot attain the goal of understanding the world, of finding an intelligible world.

176

This mechanical philosophy, Galileo to Newton,

177

there's a good case that can be made that that's our instinctive conception of how things work.

178

So if, say, infants are tested with things, if this moves and then this moves,

179

they kind of invent something that must be invisible that's in between them that's making them move and so on.

180

Yeah, we like physical contact.

181

Something about our brain seeks...

182

Makes us want a world like that, just like it wants a world that has regular geometric figures.

183

So, for example, Descartes pointed this out,

184

that if you have an infant who's never seen a triangle before and you draw a triangle,

185

the infant will see a distorted triangle, not whatever crazy figure it actually is,

186

three lines not coming quite together, one of them a little bit curved and so on.

187

We just impose a conception of the world in terms of perfect geometric objects.

188

It's now been shown that it goes way beyond that, that if you show on a tachistoscope, let's say, a couple of lights shining,

189

you do it three or four times in a row, what people actually see is a rigid object in motion, not whatever's there.

190

We all know that from a television set, basically.

191

So that gives us hints of potential limits to our cognition.

192

I think it does, but it's a very contested view.

193

If you do a poll among scientists, it's impossible.

194

We can understand anything.

195

Let me ask and give me a chance with this.

196

So I just spent a day at a company called Neuralink.

197

And what they do is try to design what's called the brain -machine, brain -computer interface.

198

So they try to do thousands of readings in the brain, be able to read what the neurons are firing,

199

and then stimulate back, so two -way.

200

Do you think their dream is to expand the capacity of the brain to attain information,

201

sort of increase the bandwidth of which we can search Google kind of thing?

202

Do you think our cognitive capacity might be expanded,

203

our linguistic capacity, our ability to reason might be expanded by adding a machine into the picture?

204

It can be expanded in a certain sense, but a sense that was known thousands of years ago.

205

A book expands your cognitive capacity.

206

Okay, so this could expand it too.

207

But it's not a fundamental expansion.

208

It's not totally new things could be understood.

209

Well, nothing that goes beyond our native cognitive capacities, just like you can't turn the visual system into an insect system.

210

Well, I mean, the thought is perhaps you can't directly, but you can map.

211

You could, but we already know that without this experiment.

212

You could map what a bee sees and present it in a form so that we could follow it.

213

In fact, every bee scientist does that.

214

But you don't think there's something greater than bees that we can map and then all of a sudden discover something,

215

be able to understand a quantum world, quantum mechanics, be able to start to be able to make sense.

216

Students at MIT study and understand quantum mechanics.

217

But they always reduce it to the infant, the physical.

218

I mean, they don't really understand it.

219

Oh, you don't, there's things.

220

That may be another area where there's just a limit to understanding.

221

We understand the theories, but the world that it describes doesn't make any sense.

222

So, you know, the experiment, Schrodinger's cat, for example, can understand the theory, but as Schrodinger pointed out, it's an unintelligible world.

223

One of the reasons why Einstein was always very skeptical about quantum theory.

224

He described himself as a classical realist in one's intelligibility.

225

He has something in common with infants in that way.

226

So, back to linguistics, if you could humor me, what are the most beautiful or fascinating aspects of language

227

or ideas in linguistics or cognitive science that you've seen in a lifetime of studying language and studying the human mind?

228

Well, I think the deepest property of language.

229

and puzzling property that's been discovered is what is sometimes called structure dependence.

230

We now understand it pretty well, but it was puzzling for a long time.

231

I'll give you a concrete example.

232

So suppose you say the guy who fixed the car carefully packed his tools.

233

It's ambiguous.

234

He could fix the car carefully or carefully pack his tools.

235

Suppose you put, carefully in front, carefully the guy who fixed the car packed his tools.

236

Then it's carefully packed, not carefully fixed, and in fact you do that even if it makes no sense.

237

So suppose you say, carefully the guy who fixed the car is tall.

238

You have to interpret it as carefully he's tall, even though that doesn't make any sense.

239

And notice that that's a very puzzling fact because you're relating carefully not to the linearly closest verb,

240

but to the linearly more remote verb.

241

A linear approach of closeness is an easy computation.

242

But here you're doing a much more, what looks like a more complex computation.

243

You're doing something that's taking you essentially to the more remote thing.

244

if you look at the actual structure of the sentence where the phrases are

245

and so on turns out you're picking out the structurally closest thing

246

but the linearly more remote thing but notice that what's linear is 100 % of what you hear you never hear structure,

247

you can't so what you're doing is and instantly this is universal all constructions, all languages

248

and what we're compelled to do is carry out what looks like the more complex computation on material

249

that we never hear and we ignore 100 % of what we hear and the simplest computation.

250

By now there's even a neural basis for this that's somewhat understood

251

and there's good theories by now that explain why it's true.

252

That's a deep insight into the surprising nature of language with many consequences.

253

Let me ask you about a field of machine learning, deep learning.

254

There's been a lot of progress in neural network -based machine learning in the recent decade.

255

Of course, neural network research goes back many decades.

256

What do you think are the limits of deep learning, of neural network -based machine learning?

257

Well, to give a real answer to that, you'd have to understand the exact processes that are taking place.

258

And those are pretty opaque.

259

So it's pretty hard to prove a theorem about what can be done and what can't be done.

260

But I think it's reasonably clear.

261

I mean, putting technicalities aside,

262

what deep learning is doing is taking huge numbers of examples and finding some patterns.

263

Okay.

264

That could be interesting.

265

In some areas it is.

266

But we have to ask here a certain question.

267

Is it engineering or is it science?

268

Engineering in the sense of just trying to build something that's useful,

269

or science in the sense that it's trying to understand something about elements of the world.

270

So it takes a Google parser.

271

We can ask that question.

272

Is it useful?

273

Yeah, it's pretty useful.

274

You know, I use a Google translator.

275

So on engineering grounds, it's kind of worth having, like a bulldozer.

276

Does it tell you anything about human language?

277

Zero.

278

Nothing.

279

And in fact, it's very striking.

280

From the very beginning, it's just totally remote from science.

281

So what is a Google parser doing?

282

It's taking an enormous text, let's say the Wall Street Journal corpus,

283

and asking, how close can we come to getting the right description of every sentence in the corpus?

284

Well, every sentence in the corpus is essentially an experiment.

285

Each sentence that you produce is an experiment, which says, am I a grammatical sentence?

286

The answer is usually yes.

287

So, most of the stuff in the corpus is grammatical sentences.

288

But now, ask yourself, is there any science which takes random experiments, which are carried out for no reason whatsoever,

289

and tries to find out something from them?

290

Like if you're, say, a chemistry PhD student student, you want to get a thesis,

291

can you say, well, I'm just going to mix a lot of things together,

292

no purpose, and maybe I'll find something that you'd be laughed out of the department.

293

Science tries to find critical experiments, ones that answer some theoretical question, doesn't care about coverage of millions of experiments.

294

So it just begins by being very remote from science and it continues like that.

295

So, the usual question that's asked about, say, a Google parser is how well does it do,

296

or some parser, how well does it do on a corpus?

297

But there's another question that's never asked.

298

How well does it do on something that violates all the rules of language?

299

So, for example, take the structure dependence case that I mentioned.

300

Suppose there was a language in which you used linear proximity as the mode of interpretation.

301

These deep learning had worked very easily on that.

302

In fact, much more easily than an actual language.

303

Is that a success?

304

No, that's a failure.

305

From a scientific point of view, it's a failure.

306

It shows that we're not discovering the nature of the system at all

307

because it does just as well or even better on things that violate the structure of the system.

308

And it goes on from there.

309

It's not an argument against doing it.

310

It is useful to have devices like this.

311

So yes, neural networks are kind of approximators that look, there's echoes of the behavioral debates, right?

312

Behavioralism.

313

More than echoes.

314

Many of the people in deep learning say they vindicated.

315

Terry Sanyoski, for example, in his recent book says

316

This vindicates Skinnerian behaviors and it doesn't have anything to do with it.

317

Yes, but I think there's something actually fundamentally different when the data set is huge.

318

But your point is extremely well taken.

319

But do you think we can learn,

320

approximate that interesting complex structure of language with neural networks that will somehow help us understand the science?

321

It's possible.

322

I mean, you find patterns that you hadn't noticed, let's say, could be.

323

In fact, it's very much like a kind of linguistics that's done, what's called corpus linguistics.

324

When you, suppose you have some language where all the speakers have died out, but you have records.

325

So you just look at the records and see what you can figure out from that.

326

It's much better to have actual speakers where you can do critical experiments.

327

But if they're all dead, you can't do them.

328

So you have to try to see what you can find out from just looking at the data that's around.

329

You can learn things.

330

Actually, paleoanthropology is very much like that.

331

You can't do a critical experiment on what happened two million years ago.

332

So you're kind of forced just to take what data's around and see what you can figure out from it.

333

Okay, it's a serious study.

334

So let me venture into another whole body of work and philosophical question.

335

You've said that evil in society arises from institutions, not inherently from our nature.

336

Do you think most human beings are good, they have good intent, or do most have the capacity for intentional evil that depends on their upbringing,

337

depends on their environment, on the context?

338

I wouldn't say that they don't arise from our nature.

339

Anything we do arises from our nature.

340

And the fact that we have certain institutions, not others, is one mode in which human nature has expressed itself.

341

But as far as we know, human nature could yield many different kinds of institutions.

342

The particular ones that have developed have to do with historical contingency, who conquered whom and that sort of thing.

343

They're not rooted in our nature in the sense that they're essential to our nature.

344

So it's commonly argued that these days that something like market systems is just part of our nature.

345

But we know from a huge amount of evidence that that's not true.

346

There's all kinds of other structures.

347

It's a particular fact of a moment of modern history.

348

Others have argued that the roots of classical liberalism actually argue that what's called sometimes an instinct for freedom,

349

an instinct to be free of domination by illegitimate authority is the core of our nature.

350

That would be the opposite of this.

351

And we don't know, we just know that human nature can accommodate both kinds.

352

If you look back at your life,

353

Is there a moment in your intellectual life or life in general that jumps from memory that brought you happiness,

354

that you would love to relive again?

355

Sure.

356

Falling in love, having children.

357

What about, so you have put forward into the world a lot of incredible ideas in linguistics,

358

in cognitive science in terms of ideas that just excites you when they first came to you,

359

that you would love to relive those moments?

360

Well, I mean, when you make a discovery about something that's exciting,

361

like, say, even the observation of structure dependence and on from that, the explanation for it.

362

But the major things just seem like common sense.

363

So if you go back to take your question about external and internal language, you go back to, say,

364

the 1950s, almost entirely language is regarded as an external object, something outside the mind.

365

It just seemed obvious that that can't be true.

366

Like I said, there's something about you that determines you're talking English, not Swahili or something.

367

But that's not really a discovery.

368

That's just an observation that's transparent.

369

You might say it's kind of like the 17th century, the beginnings of modern science, 17th century.

370

They came from being willing to be puzzled about things that seemed obvious.

371

So it seems obvious that a heavy ball of lead will fall faster than a light ball of lead.

372

But Galileo was not impressed by the fact that it seemed obvious, so he wanted to know if it's true.

373

He carried out experiments, actually thought experiments, never actually carried them out, which showed that it can't be true.

374

And out of things like that,

375

observations of that kind, why does a ball fall to the ground instead of rising, let's say?

376

It seems obvious until you start thinking about it because why does steam rise, let's say.

377

I think the beginnings of modern linguistics, roughly in the 50s, are kind of like that,

378

just being willing to be puzzled about phenomena that looked, from some point of view, obvious.

379

For example, a kind of doctrine, almost official doctrine of structural linguistics in the 50s was

380

that languages can differ from one another in arbitrary ways and each one has to be studied

381

on its own without any presuppositions.

382

In fact, there were similar views among biologists about the nature of organisms,

383

that each one is, they're so different when you look at them that almost anything, you could be almost anything.

384

Well, in both domains, it's been learned

385

that that's very far from true they're very narrow constraints on what could be an organism

386

or what could be a language

387

but these are you know that's just the nature of inquiry science in general yeah inquiry

388

so one of the peculiar things about us human beings is our mortality ernest becker explored

389

it in general do you ponder the value of mortality do you think about your own mortality

390

I used to when I was about 12 years old.

391

I wondered.

392

I didn't care much about my own mortality, but I was worried about the fact that if my consciousness disappeared,

393

would the entire universe disappear?

394

That was frightening.

395

Did you ever find an answer to that question?

396

No. Nobody's ever found an answer, but I stopped being bothered by it.

397

It's kind of like

398

Woody Allen in one of his films, you may recall.

399

He goes to a shrink when he's a child, and the shrink asks him, what's your problem?

400

He says, I just learned that the universe is expanding.

401

I can't handle that.

402

And then another absurd question is, what do you think is the meaning of our existence here,

403

our life on earth, our brief little moment in time?

404

That's something we answer by our own activities.

405

There's no general answer.

406

We determine what the meaning of it is.

407

The action determined in meaning meaning in the sense of significance not meaning in the sense

408

that chair means this you know but the significance of your life is something you create

409

no thank you so much for talking today it was a huge honor thank you

410

so much thanks for listening to this conversation with no chomsky

411

and thank you to our presenting sponsor cash app download it use code lex podcast you'll get ten dollars

412

and ten dollars will go to first a stem education non -profit

413

that inspires hundreds of thousands of young minds to learn and to dream of engineering our future.

414

If you enjoy this podcast, subscribe on YouTube, give us five stars on Apple Podcasts, support on Patreon, or connect with me on Twitter.

415

Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

Download App

Everything you need to speak fluently

AI PronunciationScore every sentence

IPA PracticeMaster every sound

VocabularyBuild your word bank

Vocab GameLearn while playing

Scan QR

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

FOR YOU

Recommend Video

232 sentences

Russel Brand Shares The SECRET For Finding HAPPINESS & PURPOSE IN LIFE | Jay Shetty

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

39 sentences

You Will Only Like Half of This Video

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

201 sentences

Cleo Abram Answers The Web's Most Searched Questions | WIRED

Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students

1164 sentences

Trevor Noah Makes My Brain Hurt | A Bit of Optimism Podcast

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

Vocabulary and speaking notes for this lesson

This speaking lesson is built on the video “Noam Chomsky: Language, Cognition, and Deep Learning”. This video has 259 sentences and 4949 words to shadow. The speech runs for 35:37. The speaker talks at a steady 139 words per minute, a comfortable pace for shadowing. 83% of the words are among the 3,000 most common in English; the rest is worth studying before you start.

Key vocabulary in this video

15 words from the video worth learning, with pronunciation and meaning:

Word	Pronunciation	Meaning
experiment noun	/ɪkˈspɛɹ.ə.mənt/	A test under controlled conditions made to either demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy or likelihood of…
carefully adverb	/ˈkɛɹf(ə)li/	With care; attentively, circumspectly.
cognitive adjective	/ˈkɑɡ.nɪ.tɪv/	Relating to the part of mental functions that deals with logic, as opposed to affective which deals with emotions.
essentially adverb	/ɪˈsɛnʃəli/	In essence: by nature.
podcast noun	/ˈpɑdˌkæst/	A program, especially an audio program, produced on a regular basis, delivered over the Internet in a compressed digital format and designed for playback on…
expand verb	/ɪkˈspænd/	To change (something) from a smaller form or size to a larger one; to spread out or lay open.
neural adjective	/ˈnʊɹəl/	Of, or relating to the nerves, neurons or the nervous system.
corpus noun	/ˈkɔɹpəs/	A collection of written or spoken texts.
organism noun	/ˈɔɹ.ɡəˌnɪz.əm/	A discrete and complete living thing, such as animal, plant, fungus or microorganism.
endowment noun	/ɛnˈdaʊmənt/	Something with which a person or thing is endowed.
remote adjective	/ɹəˈməʊt̞/	At a distance; disconnected.
genetic adjective	/d͡ʒəˈnɛt.ɪk/	Relating to genetics or genes.
mechanical adjective	/məˈkænəkəl/	Related to mechanics (the branch of physics that deals with forces acting on matter).
puzzle noun	/ˈpʌzəl/	The state of feeling confused or mystified because one cannot understand a complicated matter, a problem, etc.; bewilderment, confusion; (countable) often in…
fundamental adjective	/ˌfʌn.dəˈmɛn.təl/	Related to a foundation, base, or basis; serving as a foundation.

Phrasal verbs you will hear

Word	Pronunciation	Meaning
carry out verb	/ˈkæ.ɹi aʊt/	To hold while moving it out.
go back verb		To return to a place or state after having been there at a previous time.
go back to verb		To stem from; to originate in.
die out verb		To become extinct.
find out verb		To discover, as by asking or investigating.
get around verb		To move to the other side of (something, such as an obstruction) by deviating from a direct course or following a curved path.
look up verb	/ˌlʊk ˈʌp/	To have better prospects.
pick out verb		To remove by picking.

Sentences worth repeating

Short, complete lines from the video that you can reuse in everyday conversation:

Do you think that's deeply linked with language?
We can ask that question, is it useful?
Does it tell you anything about human language?
In general do you ponder the value of mortality?
Do you think about your own mortality?

Grammar in this video

The structures the speaker uses most, with the exact words from the video:

Structure	In the video
Present perfect have/has + past participle — a past action that still matters now	has spent · has been · I've personally seen
Passive voice be + past participle — the focus is on what happens, not who does it	is made · was set · was moved
Relative clauses who / which + clause — extra information about a person or thing	organisms, which are · limits which are · guy who fixed

Pronunciation to watch

The speaker uses 64 contractions and reduced forms, such as can't, you're, doesn't. Say them the short way, as you hear them.

The “sh” and “zh” sounds: essentially /ɪˈsɛnʃəli/, observation /ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃn̩/, conception /kənˈsɛpʃən/, explanation /ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/, evolution /ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(ə)n/
Long words — get the stress right: experiment /ɪkˈspɛɹ.ə.mənt/, essentially /ɪˈsɛnʃəli/, organism /ˈɔɹ.ɡəˌnɪz.əm/, mechanical /məˈkænəkəl/, fundamental /ˌfʌn.dəˈmɛn.təl/

How to practise with this video

Listen to the whole video once without speaking and note the words you do not know.
Shadow it sentence by sentence at normal speed, repeating each one until your rhythm matches the speaker.
Record yourself and compare with the original, paying attention to words like experiment, carefully, cognitive.

What is the Shadowing Technique?

Shadowing is a science-backed language learning technique originally developed for professional interpreter training and popularized by polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. The method is simple but powerful: you listen to native English audio and immediately repeat it out loud — like a shadow following the speaker with just a 1–2 second delay. Unlike passive listening or grammar drills, shadowing forces your brain and mouth muscles to simultaneously process and reproduce real speech patterns. Research shows it significantly improves pronunciation accuracy, intonation, rhythm, connected speech, listening comprehension, and speaking fluency — making it one of the most effective methods for IELTS Speaking preparation and real-world English communication.

Shadowing technique: read the full step-by-step guide →

Shadowing Practice: Noam Chomsky: Language, Cognition, and Deep Learning | Lex Fridman Podcast #53 - Learn English Speaking with Video

Choose a practice mode

Download App

Seinfeld's Genius Advice for Success in the AI Age

Fluent Forever

The ‘Self’ You Can’t Find with Sam Harris

Jack Dorsey’s New Dessa AI Voice Sounds Scary Human

How to Speak so That People Want to Listen - Julian Treasure

What AI Can Never Replace w/ Megan Kobzej | Cloud English Podcast Episode 91

Some brains are built for philosophy. Is yours?

My Joe Rogan Appearance: What I Learned (ft. Young Jamie & Viktor Hovland)

Russel Brand Shares The SECRET For Finding HAPPINESS & PURPOSE IN LIFE | Jay Shetty

You Will Only Like Half of This Video

Cleo Abram Answers The Web's Most Searched Questions | WIRED

Trevor Noah Makes My Brain Hurt | A Bit of Optimism Podcast

Vocabulary and speaking notes for this lesson

Key vocabulary in this video

Phrasal verbs you will hear

Sentences worth repeating

Grammar in this video

Pronunciation to watch

How to practise with this video

What is the Shadowing Technique?