ฝึกพูดภาษาอังกฤษด้วยเทคนิค Shadowing จากวิดีโอ: Noam Chomsky - Mysterianism, Language, and Human Understanding
เลือกโหมดฝึก
แต่ละโหมดจะเปิดห้องฝึกแบบเต็มจอ
444 ประโยค
หากประโยคสั้นหรือยาวเกินไป กดที่ Edit เพื่อปรับแก้
1
There is a concept called the new Mysterianism.
2
It was coined by philosopher Owen Flanagan,
3
who defined it as a postmodern position designed to drive a railroad spike through the heart of scientism by holding
4
that consciousness may never be completely explained.
5
And the term has been extended to broader questions about the scope and nature of explanations accessible to human intelligence.
6
I'll use the term in the broader sense, which seems to be the more significant one.
7
Actually, I'm cited as one of the culprits responsible for this strange postmodern heresy,
8
which I happily accept, though I would prefer a different term for it, namely truism.
9
That's what I thought 40 years ago in proposing a distinction between problems which fall within our cognitive capacities,
10
maybe very hard, but in principle fall within them, and mysteries which do not fall within them at all.
11
I was borrowing terms from Charles Sanders Peirce's account of what he called abduction,
12
the concept in his words that the human mind is a biological system that provides the mind with certain admissible hypotheses,
13
which are the foundations of human knowledge and of science.
14
And then, as a matter of simple logic, these must exclude others that are inaccessible to us altogether,
15
or perhaps too remote on some accessibility hierarchy to be accessible in fact,
16
though they might be for a differently structured mind.
17
Peirce's abduction is sometimes interpreted in the philosophical literature as inference to the best explanation,
18
but that's not quite accurate.
19
Crucially, Peirce insisted on what he called the limits of admissible hypotheses,
20
which he took to be quite narrow for quite good reasons, to be a prerequisite for, in his words, imagining correct theories.
21
Now Peirce was concerned with the growth of scientific knowledge, but the same logic holds for acquisition of common sense understanding.
22
All of this does seem to me close to truism,
23
if not necessarily for the reasons that have led many distinguished figures over the centuries to somewhat similar conclusions.
24
The reason it's truism is that if we are biological organisms,
25
not angels, then our cognitive faculties are similar to those that are called physical capacities,
26
and they should be studied much as other systems of the body are.
27
These truisms, and that's what they are, are commonly rejected in the study of mental faculties, the language in particular.
28
That seems to me one instance of a curious tendency to treat mental aspects of the human organism differently from
29
so -called physical aspects.
30
It's a kind of methodological dualism, which is much more pernicious than Cartesian metaphysical dualism.
31
The latter was a respectable scientific hypothesis,
32
proven wrong, as respectable scientific hypotheses regularly are proven wrong
33
when Newton demonstrated a few years later that one of the two substances that Descartes had postulated doesn't exist namely body
34
Newton demonstrated that there are no machines
35
that undermine what was called the mechanical philosophy mechanical science which was the foundations of early modern science from Galileo on.
36
And by doing so, by eliminating the concept of body, physical, mechanical, and so on,
37
Newton also eliminated the mind -body problem, at least in its Cartesian form.
38
Mythological dualism, in contrast, has absolutely nothing to recommend it.
39
And if that's true, I think it is, then And Mysterianism is indeed just a variety of truism, along with what's called internalism.
40
This is contrary to views widely held, as philosophers among you will know.
41
Well, as David Hume put the matter not long after,
42
I'll quote him, we must keep to the Newtonian philosophy with a modest skepticism to a certain degree
43
and with a fair confession of ignorance in subjects
44
that exceed all human capacity and for Hume that includes virtually everything beyond appearances.
45
We must, he said, refrain from disquisitions concerning their real nature and operations.
46
It is the imagination, a kind of magical faculty in the soul,
47
which is inexplicable by the utmost efforts of human understanding.
48
Can't possibly comprehend it.
49
And it's that mystical system,
50
magical system, that leads us to believe that we experience external continuing objects,
51
so -called physical or so -called mind and self.
52
Well, all of this is thoroughgoing Mysterianism.
53
That would include the quandaries
54
that were considered to be the hard problems in the early days of modern science
55
and philosophy in the 17th and 18th century.
56
The most troublesome of the hard problems in that era had to do with the nature of motion, of attraction and repulsion.
57
Problems, incidentally, that were never solved, but were rather abandoned and so understood by the more perceptive observers,
58
like John Locke and David Hume, recognized to be permanent mysteries, at least mysteries for humans,
59
some other structured intelligence might see things differently
60
that was incidentally well understood at the time forgotten now but well understood in those days
61
so luck wrote that his words we remain in incurable ignorance of what we desire to know
62
about matter and its effects and no science of bodies
63
that provides true explanations is within our reach nevertheless he says
64
he was convinced by the judicious Mr. Newton's incomparable book Principia
65
that it's too bold a presumption to limit God's power in this point by my narrow conceptions
66
so though gravitation of matter to matter is Locke wrote inconceivable to me as it was to Newton And nevertheless,
67
as Newton demonstrated, we must recognize that it is within God's power to put into bodies powers
68
and ways of operations above what can be derived from our idea of body
69
or can be explained by what we can know of matter.
70
and thanks to newton's work we know that he has done
71
so given the mysterian truisms what is inconceivable to us is no criterion for what can exist
72
and newton agreed in his constant search for some way to avoid what he called the absurd conclusion
73
that objects interact at a distance
74
He speculated that God, who is everywhere,
75
might be the immaterial agent implementing gravitational interactions, but he could go no further,
76
since in his famous phrase, he would not feign hypotheses beyond what could be experimentally established.
77
So he left it as a mystery.
78
And Newton agreed with his most eminent critic, Leibniz, that interaction without contact is inconceivable,
79
although he did not agree that divine intervention, his only explanation, would leave such attraction as,
80
in his words, an unaccountable and unreasonable occult property.
81
It's referring back to debates about neo -scholasticism.
82
Well, accordingly, the goals of scientific inquiry were implicitly restricted from the intelligibility of nature,
83
which was, in fact, the criterion for true understanding in early modern science.
84
Galilean science and its successors abandoned that and moved to something much narrower.
85
intelligibility of theories about the world it's quite a different concept
86
that seems to me a step of considerable significance in the history of human thought
87
and inquiry much more so than is is generally recognized.
88
It's been kind of assimilated into the.
89
scientific common sense of the subsequent period without recognition of how
90
much of early modern science was simply abandoned as beyond our capacities.
91
This bears directly on the scope of Mysterianism in the broad sense.
92
John Locke went on to conclude that just as God had added to matter such inconceivable properties as gravitational attraction,
93
he might also have super -added to matter a capacity of thought.
94
If we replace God by nature, that opens the way to inquiry,
95
a path that was in fact pursued extensively in the years that followed, right through the 18th century,
96
leading to the conclusion that thought is simply a property of certain forms of organized matter.
97
Darwin restated the fairly common 18th century understanding by saying that there is no need to regard thought,
98
a secretion of the brain, as more wonderful than gravity, a property of matter.
99
inconceivable to us
100
but that's a fact about our cognitive limitations not about the
101
nature of the world some of the early modern understanding of these matters newton through darwin through darwin
102
some of it has been rediscovered in very recent years sometimes with a sense of wonderment
103
For example, Francis Crick formulated what he called his astonishing hypothesis
104
that our mental
105
and emotional states are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.
106
In the philosophical literature, this rediscovery has sometimes been described as a radical new idea in the study of mind.
107
I'm quoting, as Paul Churchland puts it,
108
quoting John Searle, the new idea is the bold assertion that mental phenomena are entirely natural and caused by the neurophysiological properties,
109
activities of the brain.
110
These proposals restate, in virtually the same words, the formulations of centuries ago,
111
which have been forgotten, after the traditional mind -body problem became unformulable,
112
with the disappearance of the only coherent notion of body, or physical, or material, and so on.
113
For example, Joseph Priestley's conclusion into the 18th century that properties termed mental reduced to the organical structure of the brain,
114
a concept stated in different words by Locke, Darwin, and many others,
115
almost inescapable it would seem after the collapse of the mechanical philosophy which provided the foundations for early modern science.
116
the last decade of the 20th century was designated as the decade of the brain
117
there's a collection of essays reviewing the results published by the american academy of arts
118
and sciences and it contains an introduction by a distinguished neuroscientist vernon mountcastle
119
He formulates the guiding theme as, in his words, the thesis of the new biology, that things mental, indeed minds,
120
are emergent properties of brains, though these emergences are produced by principles that we do not yet understand,
121
once again reiterating 18th century observations in virtually the same words.
122
The phrase we do not yet understand, however, should strike a note of caution.
123
We might remember Bertrand Russell's observation in 1927,
124
the year is important, that chemical laws cannot at present be reduced to physical laws.
125
That was a fact, and it was a fact that led many eminent scientists,
126
including Nobel laureates, to regard chemistry as not really a science but just a mode of computation that,
127
for some reason, could predict experimental results, but not real science.
128
Because it couldn't be reduced to physics.
129
As soon was discovered, Russell's observation, though correct, was understated.
130
Chemical laws were indeed not reducible to physical laws, as physics.. was then understood
131
and remained irreducible and still are although after physics underwent radical changes with the quantum theoretic revolution
132
which was just taking place at
133
that time the new physics entirely different physics was unified with
134
a virtually unchanged chemistry chemistry was never reduced to physics it was irreducible to physics physics changed
135
and unified within unchanged chemistry
136
and there may be lessons here I think there are for neuroscience
137
and philosophy of mind
138
so contemporary neuroscience is nowhere near as well established as physics
139
was a century ago in fact what are there are what
140
seemed to me quite cogent critiques of its foundational assumptions recently
141
an important book by galliston king to find cognitive neuroscientists the common slogan
142
that study of mind is neuroscience at an abstract level
143
it might prove to be just as misleading as comparable statements about chemistry 90 years ago
144
It doesn't sound too long ago to me.
145
It was when I was a child that chemistry and physics were finally unified,
146
with Linus Pauling's discovery of a quantum theoretic basis for the chemical bond.
147
Well, returning to the impact of Newton's discoveries, his greatest achievement, David Hume wrote,
148
was to draw the veil from some of the mysteries of nature,
149
while also restoring nature's ultimate secrets to that obscurity in which they ever did and ever will remain.
150
We may add, for humans at least, other forms of intelligence might view the world quite differently.
151
All of this is a dedicated mysteriatism for very substantial reasons,
152
including the leading figures of our intellectual, scientific, philosophical tradition.
153
Well, as regards consciousness, it entered modern philosophy, philosophical discourse, at about the same time.
154
There's a recent comprehensive scholarly study of this range of topics by Udo Thiel, a kind of gold standard in the field.
155
he points out
156
that the first English philosopher to make extensive use of the
157
noun consciousness with a philosophical meaning was Ralph Cudworth in the 1670s,
158
though it was not until 50 years later that consciousness became an object of inquiry in its own right.
159
And subsequently, consciousness was identified with thought, as in fact it already had been by Descartes.
160
And for some, like Wilhelm von Humboldt, a great linguist, thought was further identified with language,
161
which provides the language of thought, modern phrase, but same idea,
162
ideas that can be partially reconstructed in contemporary terms.
163
Well, in the modern period, identification of thought with consciousness reappears in various ways.
164
For example, in Quine's thesis that rule -following reduces either to fitting,
165
as the planets fit Kepler's laws, or guiding by conscious thought.
166
Only two kinds.
167
John Searle's connection principle holds that operations of the mind must be somehow accessible to conscious experience,
168
such an idea that's almost impossible to formulate coherently.
169
But whether taken to be empirical claims or terminological stipulations,
170
these doctrines rule out much of what has been discovered about rule following in language or perception,
171
other domains of cognitive science.
172
that includes the basic rules of language which do not have that property or what
173
donald hoffman cognitive scientist his study of what he calls visual intelligence what he calls the rigidity rule
174
that's the rule that image projections are interpreted as projections of rigid motions in three dimensions,
175
even with highly impoverished stimuli, obviously by mechanisms that are totally inaccessible to consciousness.
176
rule following beyond the most superficial level
177
there is all of which is ruled out by contemporary philosophical doctrine which tells us something about the doctrine I think
178
there's reason to believe that what reaches consciousness even potentially may well be just a scattered reflection of inaccessible mental processes
179
which interact intimately with fragments that reach consciousness.
180
There are now famous experiments, which some of you may know about, the Libet experiment on decision making.
181
They provide some independent evidence about this matter,
182
though what they show is that milliseconds before a conscious decision to do something,
183
say pick this up, there's already activity in the relevant parts of the motor cortex.
184
That's been interpreted as having some bearing on freedom of will, but I think that's just an error.
185
It just says that whatever decisions and choices are made are beyond accessibility to consciousness.
186
If this is correct, as it seems to be, then the recent focus on conscious awareness
187
or accessibility to conscious may be an error
188
it may in fact seriously impede the development of a science of mind
189
now these are topics of considerable interest no time to pursue them here well instead of
190
that let's return to mysterianism in the broad sense not restricted to consciousness taking
191
it to be truism as i think it is well
192
we can consider various kinds of mysteries as some of them are quite far -reaching such as those
193
i mentioned probably permanent mysteries for humans return to these
194
but before doing that it's worth considering mysteries of a kind
195
that are narrower the cases that might fall within our cognitive capacities
196
and where there might in principle be relevant in period empirical evidence though it's impossible for us to obtain
197
it it's an interesting category of mysteries or even narrower cases where
198
ethical considerations bar experiments that might answer questions that we can sensibly pose
199
so for example a lot is known about the neurology of
200
the human visual system thanks to invasive of experiments with cats
201
and monkeys but we can't learn anything about language
202
that way there is simply nothing homologous known in the animal world
203
and relevant human experiments
204
which you can think of are barred possibly some barriers might erode with new technology but that's
205
so far just a hope well among these mysteries at least
206
now maybe forever is the question of the origins of the atomic concepts for thought and language roughly words but not quite
207
these are quite different in human thought
208
and language from anything that's found in systems of animal communication
209
there seems to be a total discontinuity the latter animal systems
210
appear to be linked directly to entities in the extra mental
211
world can be identified without any consideration of the symbolic system itself
212
so let's take a vervet monkey has five signals five calls one of them is associated with fluttering of leaves
213
we interpret that to mean
214
a predator is coming i don't know what the monkeys do another might be associated with a detectable hormonal change
215
which we interpret as meaning i'm hungry that appears to be quite general
216
and across all known animal systems and totally different from human language
217
Where even the simplest elements, simplest words, lack this property,
218
contrary to a conventional referentialist doctrine,
219
which holds that there is a direct relation between words and extramental entities that's illustrated in the titles of standard works,
220
like Quine's Word and Object, or Roger Brown's Word and Things, and an extensive literature.
221
Furthermore, the associations for animal symbol systems are of a kind quite different from anything in human language.
222
One of the leading specialists on the topic, Laura Ann Petito, who directed the famous NIMH project,
223
she writes that chimps, unlike humans,
224
use labels in a way that seems to rely heavily on some global notion of association.
225
So a chimp will use the same label, we take it to be apple, to refer to the action of eating apples,
226
the location where apples are kept, events and locations of objects other than apples that happen to be stored with an apple,
227
say the knife that was used to cut it, and so on and so forth all simultaneously
228
and without apparent recognition of the relevant differences or the advantages of being able to distinguish among them.
229
In contrast, even in the first words of a young human baby, she's intensively studied human babies,
230
these are used in a concept -constrained way.
231
But the usage of chimps, even after years of training and of communication with humans,
232
never displays this sensitivity to differences among natural kinds.
233
So surprisingly, she concludes, chimps do not really have names for things at all.
234
They only have a hodgepodge of loose associations.
235
Human language is radically different except in one respect.
236
It also doesn't have names for things, though for different reasons.
237
The atomic concepts of human language and thought, kind of word -like elements,
238
do not pick out entities of the extra -mental world,
239
entities that, say, a physicist could discover without investigating the human mind.
240
So there apparently is no notion of reference or denotation for human language,
241
Though, of course, there are actions of referring and denoting something quite different.
242
One can posit a circumstance -dependent relation of something like reference derived from acts of referring.
243
So, for example, the name Jones refers to the person Jones,
244
and the notion of person is far from an innocent notion
245
that can do so insofar as we refer to him by using the name in some particular circumstances.
246
But the act of referring is the only really functioning notion, contrary to widespread belief.
247
this much incidentally was already clear to aristotle he concluded
248
that quoting him we can define a house as stones bricks and timbers in terms of the material constitution
249
but also as a receptacle to to shelter chattels
250
and living beings in terms of function and design
251
and Aristotle says we must combine both parts of the definition integrating matter
252
and form since the essence of the house involves the purpose and end of the material
253
Constitution hence a house is not a mind independent object and
254
that becomes still clearer
255
when we investigate the meaning of the word furthers no time to go into it
256
but you find that very quickly and we discover
257
that the concept house has much more complex properties universally across languages that's an observation
258
that generalizes to every word you can think of inquiry reveals that even the simplest words
259
have quite intricate meanings notice
260
that aristotle was defining the entity house not the word house for him it's a matter of metaphysics
261
and in fact i've been quoting from his metaphysics
262
the entity is a combination of matter
263
and form in the 17th century there was a kind of a cognitive revolution
264
and this general point of view shifted towards seeking what were called innate cognoscative processes,
265
it's a good word, that enter into our understanding of experience and that reshape experience to conform to our modes of cognition.
266
Summarizing these many years of discussions of...
267
such topics, quite rich discussion.
268
And for his own independent reasons, Hume concluded that the identity that we ascribe to minds,
269
vegetables, animal bodies, and other entities is only a fictitious one established by the
270
imagination upon like objects and not a particular nature belonging to this form, something mind independent.
271
Recent studies of acquisition have shown that even the most elementary words,
272
meaning bearing elements, are acquired from very restricted evidence,
273
and often very rapidly during the early years of life, even under severe sensory constraints.
274
it's difficult to see how one can avoid the conclusion that these intricate structures
275
depend on innate cognoscative powers of the kinds
276
that were in fact explored in quite interesting ways during the first cognitive revolution of the 17th century
277
and intricacies mount very rapidly when you go beyond the simplest
278
elements like words reinforcing the conclusion
279
that innate properties of the mind play a critical role in their acquisition
280
and use of course well beyond accessibility to consciousness well if
281
if these conclusions do indeed generalize this seems to be the case it would follow
282
that natural language has no semantics in the technical sense a technical sense means relations between
283
symbols
284
and things outside the system reference denotation rather natural language has
285
syntax some kind of symbol manipulation internal to the mind and pragmatics modes of use of language the field of formal semantics,
286
which includes model theoretic semantics, falls under syntax in this categorization.
287
It's a form of symbol manipulation.
288
It's motivated by external world considerations,
289
not just as phonology, the study of sound systems is motivated by external events,
290
but it relates to the world only in quite complex ways
291
in the context of theories of action well these conclusions pose
292
very serious problems for any any potential theory of the origin of language as i mentioned
293
it seems to be the case
294
that animal communication systems are based on a one -to -one relation between mind brain processes
295
and an aspect of the environment to which these processes adapt the animals behavior
296
and quoting from a standard review if so then the gap between human language
297
and animal communication is as dramatic in this domain as it is in every other domain the domain of language structure
298
acquisition and use so there is a problem about a radical discontinuity between humans
299
and anything in the animal world and no time to go into it here
300
but that discontinuity appears to have emerged very recently
301
and probably within the last hundred thousand years
302
which is nothing in evolutionary time well let's turn briefly to the objects to which a speaker refers
303
so we have to ask what qualifies actually quine was much concerned with this topic
304
he observed
305
that in some cases a noun phrase may not be i'm
306
quoting a compelling candidate for a thinghood quoting daniel dennett discussing the issues recently then it observes paris
307
and london plainly exist but do the miles that separate them also exist
308
and quine's answer then it writes is
309
that a noun phrase of this kind like miles is defective
310
and its putative reference need not be taken seriously from an ontological point of view
311
and there do seem to be distinctions among candidates for things would think
312
but questions arise very quickly so it takes say the word thing
313
That should be a compelling candidate for thinghood, you might imagine.
314
But what are the identity conditions for things?
315
How many of them are there?
316
How can we find out?
317
Well, suppose, for example, that we see some branches strewn on the ground.
318
If they fell from a tree after a storm, they're not a thing.
319
But if they were placed there carefully by an artist as a work of conceptual art,
320
maybe given a name then the construction is a thing might win an award an art exhibit
321
and a little thought will show
322
that complex factors enter into determining whether some part of the world constitutes a thing that includes human intention and design
323
ristotelian form which are not properties that can be detected by study of the mind independent world.
324
And if thing doesn't qualify for thinghood, what does?
325
Answer, I suspect, nothing.
326
What about Dennett's examples, Paris and London, which he says are prototypical examples of real things.
327
Well, we can refer to them.
328
So if I were to say I visited London the year before it was destroyed by a great fire
329
and then rebuilt with entirely different materials and design 50 miles up the Thames
330
and we're intend to revisit it next year London I'm referring to London
331
but evidently the extra mental world doesn't doesn't contain an entity with properties like
332
that an entity that a physicist could in principle discover.
333
We can, however, refer to London,
334
either by using the name London or by a pronoun linked to it or by some more complex phrase,
335
maybe my favorite city or something else.
336
What this means is that in my internal language, whatever stored up here.
337
There is an internal entity, London, not necessarily matching yours exactly,
338
constituted of elements that provide perspectives for referring to aspects of the world.
339
Something that is familiar to phonologists, it's similar to the way that the features of the internal phonetic element, say, ta,
340
provide means for me to pronounce and interpret certain events in the world
341
but it doesn't pick out an entity in the world
342
and these terms classical paradoxes become impossible to formulate
343
that's from Plutarch's ship of Theseus to Saul Kripke's current puzzles all of
344
which are stated in terms of referentialist assumptions and become unstatable if you reject those assumptions.
345
With the rise of corpuscular theories in the 17th century,
346
the focus of investigation into topics like these shifted from individuation,
347
so what makes an individual distinct from others, to the prior question of identity,
348
what makes an individual the same through time despite changes
349
so for a corpuscularian like all the great scientists of the
350
17th century an individual is just what it is quote robert boyle it's a distinct portion of matter
351
which a number of corpuscles make up a study of identity through time,
352
led pretty soon to a cognitive treatment of the issue, as Thiel puts it in his standard work,
353
as substantial forms are denied and no principle of identity could be discovered in the things themselves,
354
it is recognized that their identity must depend on what we regard as their essential constituents,
355
that is, on our criteria for judging, on our concepts of things this subjectivist revolution as teal calls
356
it was carried forward particularly by lock for whom existence is preserved under the same denomination
357
that is in terms of our internal abstract ideas
358
which we employ to think about the world david hume interprets
359
our tendency to assign identity through time as a kind of a natural instinct
360
which construct like an animal instinct which construct constructs experience to conform to the modes of cognition,
361
Kantian terms, and in ways that sharply differ from anything in the animal world.
362
And this instinct, Hume writes,
363
is developed by the imagination which creates concepts that bind the succession of related objects together,
364
leading us to imagine something unknown and mysterious connecting the parts.
365
so ascription of identity is a construction of the imagination
366
and the factors
367
that enter into constructing these fictions become a topic of cognitive science although at this point hume would have demurred
368
if the imagination is as he thought quoting him a kind of magical faculty
369
which is inexplicable by the utmost efforts of human understanding.
370
These early modern forms of Mysterianism are fundamental.
371
They lead to a fundamental kind of the sort that I mentioned briefly earlier.
372
For Locke and for Hume,
373
it follows simply from epistemological considerations that the limits of our understanding are extremely narrow, even in principle.
374
However, Locke and Hume also took quite seriously the new science -based mysterianism that arose from Newton's demolition of the mechanical philosophy,
375
which, as I said, had provided the very criterion of intelligibility for the scientific revolution of the 17th century.
376
which was based on the conception of the world as an elaborate machine it's commonly believed
377
that newton presented a conception of the world as a machine that's exactly the opposite
378
newton showed that nothing is a machine and whatever the world is it's not a machine
379
galileo had insisted that theories are intelligible only under a very restrictive
380
As he put it, if we can duplicate their posits by means of appropriate artificial devices.
381
That was a concept that was maintained by Descartes,
382
Leibniz, Huygens, Newton, all the great figures of the scientific revolution.
383
accordingly newton's discoveries left the world unintelligible when his theological
384
assumptions are dismissed and the solution
385
that was kind of tacitly reached as i mentioned earlier was
386
simply to lower the goals of science abandoning the search for
387
intelligibility of the world in favor of something much weaker the search for theories
388
that are intelligible to us whether or not what they posit is intelligible
389
so it was quite natural for Bertrand Russell a century ago
390
to dismiss the very idea of an intelligible world as absurd
391
there is we'll never get an understanding of the world that's no longer a reasonable goal for scientific inquiry well
392
while the list of Mysterians as long and distinguished as these examples illustrate,
393
their stance seems to contrast with the exuberant contemporary thesis
394
that the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment provided humans with limitless explanatory power as illustrated by the rapid development of modern science.
395
This was recently articulated by physicist David Deutsch who wrote that the great achievements of the Enlightenment and modern science,
396
early modern science, was to direct inquiry to the quest of good explanations so that potential progress is unbounded.
397
Philosopher of Physics David Albert expounds his thesis with the introduction of
398
that particular habit of concocting and evaluating new hypotheses there's a sense
399
that we can do anything the capacities of a community
400
that has mastered this method to survive and to learn
401
and to remake the world according to its inclinations are in the long run literally boundless
402
I can't discern any argument here that addresses the range of the mysterious concerns and conclusions of the
403
classical literature which i think are quite sound however the basic there are basic assumptions here
404
that trace back to purse again he purse did offer an argument
405
it's related to albert's observation about mastering the method to survive a person was writing right after darwin proposed
406
that the what he called the abductive instinct
407
that allows us to choose among a limited range of admissible hypotheses he argues
408
that developed through natural selection variants
409
that yielded truths about the world yielded a selectional advantage
410
and were retained through darwinian descent with modifications with others
411
while others fell away that belief however is totally unsustainable there's nothing in natural selection
412
that equipped humans to develop quantum theory or anything else for
413
that matter on the contrary the theory of evolution leads to the opposite conclusion.
414
It places humans firmly within the natural world, takes them to be biological organisms,
415
which, like others, necessarily have scope and limits, including the cognitive domain.
416
So those who accept modern biology should be thoroughgoing mysterians.
417
Well, dropping the untenable recourse to natural selection, we're left with a serious
418
and challenging scientific inquiry to determine try to determine the innate
419
components of our cognitive nature in language perception concept formation theory construction artistic creation
420
or other domains of life and a further task is to try to determine the scope
421
and limits of human understanding while recognizing
422
that some differently structured intelligence might regard human mysteries as simple problems and wonder
423
that we cannot find the answers just as we observe the inability of rats to run prime number mazes simply
424
because they lack the concept by the very nature of their cognitive capacities
425
and far from bewailing the existence of mysteries for humans we should be extremely grateful for it
426
if there are no limits to abduction then our cognitive capacities would also have no scope just as
427
if the genetic endowment imposed no constraints on growth and development in
428
that case an organism can only become some shapeless amoeboid creature reflecting accidents of an unanalyzed environment.
429
The conditions that prevent a human embryo from becoming an insect also play the decisive role in determining
430
that it can become a human and the same holds in the cognitive domain.
431
It's a simple logical point.
432
Incidentally, classical aesthetic theory recognized the same relation between scope and limits,
433
recognized that without rules, there can be no creative activity, even when the creative activity challenges,
434
tries to revise prevailing rules.
435
Honesty should lead us to concede i think
436
that we understand little more about creativity than the spanish physician philosopher juan harte did in the 16th century
437
when he distinguished the kind of intelligence
438
humans share with animals from the higher grade that humans alone possess
439
and is illustrated in the normal creative use of language
440
and proceeding beyond that from the still higher grade illustrated in true artistic
441
and scientific creativity nor do we know whether these are questions
442
that fall within the scope of human understanding
443
or whether they are among what Hume took to be nature's ultimate secrets consigned to
444
that obscurity in which they ever did and ever will remain.
ดาวน์โหลดแอป
ทุกอย่างที่ต้องใช้เพื่อพูดได้คล่อง
AI ให้คะแนนการออกเสียงให้คะแนนทุกประโยค
ฝึก IPAเชี่ยวชาญทุกเสียง
คำศัพท์สร้างคลังคำของคุณ
เกมคำศัพท์เล่นไปเรียนไป
FOR YOU
วิดีโอแนะนำ
C220
689 ประโยค
Noam Chomsky on Philosophy of Mind
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C1370 ประโยค
Are We Living Inside an Alien Control System?
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C1117 ประโยค
La rebeldía, según Albert Camus
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
40 ประโยค
Put Thought in its Right Place
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
654 ประโยค
Stuart & Cliffe Knechtle | Do Agnostics Just Want To Have Control? | Give Me an Answer
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
73 ประโยค
Schemas, Assimilation and Accomodation: Jean Piaget's Epistemological Concepts
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C11
65 ประโยค
Espacio y tiempo, una cuestión de lengua. Lera Boroditsky, psicóloga e investigadora
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
23 ประโยค
3-D Brain Scans | Pathways 2
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C27
598 ประโยค
Husserl: Phenomenology and the Life World
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C11
202 ประโยค
What is Marxism? (And Why The Outrage is Wrong)
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
143 ประโยค
Start With Dostoevsky
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C111
52 ประโยค
Supernatural thinking: Your brain’s anti-anxiety mode | Clay Routledge
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
คำศัพท์และข้อสังเกตด้านการพูดสำหรับบทเรียนนี้
บทเรียนฝึกพูดนี้ใช้วิดีโอ “Noam Chomsky - Mysterianism, Language, and Human Understanding” เป็นสื่อ วิดีโอนี้มี 444 ประโยค และ 5732 คำ สำหรับฝึกพูดตาม ช่วงที่มีเสียงพูดยาว 49:38 ผู้พูดพูดด้วยความเร็วสม่ำเสมอ ประมาณ 115 คำต่อนาที เหมาะกับการฝึกพูดตาม มีเพียง 77% ของคำที่อยู่ใน 3,000 คำที่ใช้บ่อยที่สุดในภาษาอังกฤษ คำศัพท์จึงค่อนข้างยาก
คำศัพท์สำคัญในวิดีโอนี้
คำที่ควรเรียนรู้ 15 คำจากวิดีโอ พร้อมคำอ่านและความหมาย:
| คำศัพท์ | คำอ่าน | ความหมาย |
|---|---|---|
| consciousness คำนาม | /ˈkɑnʃəsnəs/ | สติ, ความรู้สึกตัว |
| mystery คำนาม | /ˈmɪs.t(ə.)ɹi/ | ความลี้ลับ, รหัสยภาวะ |
| physics คำนาม | /ˈfɪz.ɪks/ | ฟิสิกส์ |
| newton คำนาม | /ˈn(j)uːtən/ | นิวตัน |
| hypothesis คำนาม | /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/ | สมมุติฐาน |
| topic คำนาม | /ˈtɑpɪk/ | หัวข้อ, กระทู้ |
| scope คำนาม | /skəʊp/ | ขอบข่าย |
| narrow คำคุณศัพท์ | /ˈnæɹəʊ/ | แคบ |
| chemistry คำนาม | /ˈkɛm.ɪ.stɹi/ | เคมี |
| principle คำนาม | /ˈpɹɪn.sɪ.pəl/ | หลัก, คติ |
| phrase คำนาม | /ˈfɹeɪ̯z/ | วลี, ประโยค |
| interpret คำกริยา | /ɪnˈtɜː.pɹɪt/ | ตีความ |
| explanation คำนาม | /ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/ | การอธิบาย |
| imagination คำนาม | /ɪˌmæd͡ʒəˈneɪʃən/ | จินตนาการ |
| experiment คำนาม | /ɪkˈspɛɹ.ə.mənt/ | การทดลอง |
ไวยากรณ์ในวิดีโอนี้
โครงสร้างที่ผู้พูดใช้บ่อยที่สุด พร้อมคำพูดจริงจากวิดีโอ:
| โครงสร้าง | ในวิดีโอ |
|---|---|
| Present perfect have/has + กริยาช่อง 3 — เหตุการณ์ในอดีตที่ยังเกี่ยวข้องกับปัจจุบัน | has been extended · have led · has done |
| Passive voice be + กริยาช่อง 3 — เน้นสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้น ไม่ใช่ผู้กระทำ | was coined · has been extended · is sometimes interpreted |
| Relative clauses who / which + อนุประโยค — ข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมเกี่ยวกับคนหรือสิ่งของ | dualism, which is · science which was · form which are |
การออกเสียงที่ควรระวัง
ผู้พูดใช้รูปย่อและรูปลดเสียง 24 ครั้ง เช่น doesn't, I'm, can't ให้พูดแบบสั้นตามที่ได้ยิน
- เสียง “th”: hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, thesis /ˈθisɪs/, nevertheless /ˌnɛvɚðəˈlɛs/, theoretic /ˌθiːəˈɹɛtɪk/, thoroughgoing /ˈθʌɹəˌɡoʊɪŋ/
- เสียง “sh” และ “zh”: consciousness /ˈkɑnʃəsnəs/, conclusion /kənˈkluːʒən/, notion /ˈnoʊʃən/, explanation /ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/, imagination /ɪˌmæd͡ʒəˈneɪʃən/
- คำยาว — ลงเสียงหนักให้ถูกพยางค์: entity /ˈɛn.tə.ti/ [-tʰi], inquiry /ɪnˈkwaɪ(ə)ɹi/, hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, philosophical /ˌfɪl.əˈsɑ.fɪ.kl̩/, explanation /ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/
เสียงที่คนไทยมักออกเสียงยาก:
- เสียงท้ายคำ — ออกเสียงให้ครบ ไม่เปลี่ยนเป็นตัวสะกดแบบไทย: cognitive /ˈkɑɡ.nɪ.tɪv/, consciousness /ˈkɑnʃəsnəs/, physics /ˈfɪz.ɪks/, hypothesis /haɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/, principle /ˈpɹɪn.sɪ.pəl/
- /v/ — ไม่ใช่ /w/ ให้ฟันบนแตะริมฝีปากล่าง: cognitive /ˈkɑɡ.nɪ.tɪv/, virtually /ˈvɚ.t͡ʃə.wə.li/, observation /ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃn̩/, discovery /dɪˈskʌv.ɹi/, discover /dɪˈskʌvə/
- /z/ — เสียงก้อง ไม่ใช่ /s/: physics /ˈfɪz.ɪks/, phrase /ˈfɹeɪ̯z/, acquisition /ˌæk.wɪˈzɪʃ.ən/, observation /ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃn̩/, organism /ˈɔɹ.ɡəˌnɪz.əm/
วิธีฝึกกับวิดีโอนี้
- ฟังวิดีโอให้จบหนึ่งรอบโดยยังไม่ต้องพูด แล้วจดคำที่ยังไม่รู้จัก
- พูดตามทีละประโยคด้วยความเร็วปกติ ทำซ้ำแต่ละประโยคจนจังหวะของคุณตรงกับผู้พูด
- อัดเสียงตัวเองแล้วเทียบกับต้นฉบับ โดยสังเกตคำอย่าง consciousness, mystery, physics เป็นพิเศษ
เทคนิค Shadowing คืออะไร?
Shadowing เป็นเทคนิคการเรียนรู้ภาษาที่ได้รับการรับรองทางวิทยาศาสตร์ พัฒนาขึ้นสำหรับการฝึกนักแปลมืออาชีพ วิธีการนี้เรียบง่ายแต่ทรงพลัง: คุณฟังเสียงภาษาอังกฤษจากเจ้าของภาษาและพูดตามทันที — เหมือนเงาที่ตามผู้พูดด้วยช่วงเวลาห่าง 1-2 วินาที การวิจัยแสดงว่าเทคนิคนี้ปรับปรุงความแม่นยำในการออกเสียง ทำนองเสียง จังหวะ การเชื่อมเสียง การฟังเข้าใจ และความคล่องแคล่วในการพูดได้อย่างมีนัยสำคัญ