I agree with Chomsky in almost nothing. When it comes to innate structures and so on, I'm very skeptical.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I remember thinking when I was in college that a lot of these known Chomsky-like, verbose, high-lefty thinkers made absolutely no sense, but I thought that was my problem.
I have a kind of innate sense of structure, which also makes me a good mimic.
We have to accept that we are just machines. That's certainly what modern molecular biology says about us.
It is astonishing that human brains, which evolved to cope with the everyday world, have been able to grasp the counterintuitive mysteries of the cosmos and the quantum.
It really is a nice theory. The only defect I think it has is probably common to all philosophical theories. It's wrong.
The moment I saw the model and heard about the complementing base pairs I realized that it was the key to understanding all the problems in biology we had found intractable - it was the birth of molecular biology.
I was taught that the human brain was the crowning glory of evolution so far, but I think it's a very poor scheme for survival.
Genetics is crude, but neuroscience goes directly to work on the brain, and the mind follows.
The adage that fact is stranger than fiction seems to be especially true for the workings of the brain.
I respond well to what I read of Immanuel Kant's idea that the world as we see it is absolutely a function of the way our brain works. In the modern parlance, it's an evolved machine that we carry with us.