Posts by lonegardener

coastalwalker said:You can't set a rule saying a maximum of XX% can join a party. 😍 You could have a handful of people making up maybe 60% who handle the actual organizing—half-nihilists, half-activists 🤣, while everyone else could be 95% nihilists, and it would still comfortably be labeled a "nihilist party." 😍 At the end of the day, the inert mass of any party is just a headcount, whether you call them nihilists, bystanders, or just plain old status-quo enthusiasts.

Fair enough, that logic holds up, but you were originally suggesting that I should be the one to start it. 😬

So, go ahead and find someone willing to found a "nihilist" party. Who knows? Maybe one day I’ll feel like joining them—purely by accident, of course.🤷 🤣

coastalwalker said:Where did you get that "maximum XX%" idea from?🤔 Out of thin air? Let's say it's 95%. We'd still call that black—meaning a true nihilist—even though the whole concept of a "true" anything is absurd since everyone's a little bit fake.😍

Look, I even admitted right there that I was "just throwing numbers out there" to make a point. 😬

What I'm getting at is this: anyone who spends that much energy obsessing over something that requires actual conscious effort, planning, and organization—like starting a political party—is clearly disqualified from being considered a true "nihilist." It's like saying the gray color around this text box is too light to be called "black."

I might call something else "black," even if it isn't perfectly pitch black. I don't see why that's confusing. 🤷

Edward Flores4 said:Exactly. Look, our brains evolved to navigate the complexities of human behavior, and "morality" is basically one of the primary tools we developed for that exact purpose. Our minds have specialized over eons for social interaction and living together in a group. It makes total sense that we’d hit a wall when trying to wrap our heads around stuff like the fundamental nature of matter—where the answers live down in the "quantum realm," a place so wildly different from our everyday experience that our brains just aren't wired to process it intuitively.

It's honestly a little sad if that doesn't click for you 🤷

You're a real straight shooter, aren't you? 🤣

Not really. I guess I'm just more well-read on the subject than you are, clearly. ☕

That's only "obvious" to self-righteous types like you and Sam Harris, who seem to think being "informed" is the same thing as having a moral compass. You act as if morality is just a matter of raw data—as if all a person needs is to be "educated" on what right and wrong are, and once they've been "taught," they'll suddenly get it. hihihihi.

Sam Harris actually dreams that we’ll stumble upon some specific center in the brain responsible for "morality"—and then we can just use science to "prove" what’s objectively right or wrong. 😵 Man, what a mess. 😵

Edward Flores4 said:Exactly. Look, our brains evolved to navigate the complexities of human behavior, and "morality" is basically one of the primary tools we developed for that exact purpose. Our minds have specialized over eons for social interaction and living together in a group. It makes total sense that we’d hit a wall when trying to wrap our heads around stuff like the fundamental nature of matter—where the answers live down in the "quantum realm," a place so wildly different from our everyday experience that our brains just aren't wired to process it intuitively.

It's honestly a little sad if that doesn't click for you 🤷

You're a real straight shooter, aren't you? 🤣

Not really. I guess I'm just more well-read on the subject than you are, clearly. ☕

jok, you’re honestly just kidding yourself if you think being "informed" on this topic is enough. The truth is, nobody actually understands how the brain works, which means we have zero clue how moral judgments actually function. Even Chomsky pointed this out—he noted that we don't even grasp the behavior of insects, yet we act so incredibly arrogant, as if we have human behavior all figured out. You probably glossed over that little detail during your three or four very "attentive" listens to that lecture. 😬

Being informed about something that's way beyond your actual capacity to understand doesn't really amount to much. Honestly, it just turns people into mindless nerds. (And a few overzealous sheriffs, too. LOL.)

"Quote:"

coastalwalker said:There’s no such thing as a pure nihilist. A pure nihilist is a dead one. Every living nihilist cares about at least something—claiming otherwise is just theater. They perform for themselves, and if they catch an audience, even better.

By the way, I don't follow your logic on how the "world parasitizes on inertia." 🤔

It's simple. If every single person on this planet actually focused on mastering their own specific talent, I have a feeling the world would just blow itself apart. 🤔 You don't see it that way?

I'm with you on that. 😍 There’s no such thing as a true, 100% nihilist.

Honestly, it doesn’t matter how you look at it. If you view it as a continuum—sort of like a spectrum of gray tones where you might start calling a specific shade "black" even though true black is just an idealized concept—then you could argue something similar applies to nihilism.

For instance, someone might be 90% of a nihilist—though hitting that full 100% mark is basically impossible. 😬If you were actually trying to establish a "Nihilist Party," you’d probably cap the membership at maybe 60% nihilists—though I'm just throwing numbers out there. It might not even make sense, though. It’s like calling a color "black" when it’s really just a very dark charcoal. You could technically get away with it, but does it really make sense to call an obviously grayish shade "black"? Not really, does it? 🤣

Therefore, calling a political party "nihilistic" is a total contradiction in terms. Q.E.D. ☕ 🤣

"Quote:"

I can't quite wrap my head around what you mean by that. Could you clarify? kaže: I have this feeling that if every single person on this planet actually went out and pursued their true calling—doing exactly what they were meant to be best at—the world would just spontaneously combust. 🤔 Don't you have it?

I don't have anything. 🤷 Honestly, we aren't even close to being at a level of technological advancement where we can start fantasizing about a scenario like that. If you lean too hard into those ideas, you run the risk of thinking like the ancient Greeks. It sounds lovely to just stroll around philosophizing while slaves handle all the grueling physical labor, doesn't it? But let's be real—do you actually believe anyone would find "self-fulfillment" working as a sanitation worker? And more importantly, who exactly is going to clean up our cities if there isn't anyone willing to do the dirty work?

If some kind of artificial intelligence actually stepped up and relieved people of those soul-crushing, undignified jobs, then maybe we could finally start fantasizing about a global renaissance and true self-actualization.

coastalwalker said:Not really. A nihilist has zero skin in the game. They know everyone else is just as paralyzed by nothingness, which actually gives them an unexpected cushion of support. It’s easy to lean on. The whole world basically feeds off that collective inertia. Nobody would blink if you formed a political party out of it.

🤷 Everyone who is breathing... is obviously living—in some capacity. Even I can claim to be "living." 😬 🤣

Meh.

If a nihilist actually went out and started a political party, they'd be proving they actually care about something—which means they aren't a pure nihilist anymore. 🤣 Not to mention, building a party requires actual planning and effort, which is the exact opposite of being inert. 🤣

On another note, I'm not quite following your logic on how "the world feeds off that inertia." 🤔

coastalwalker said:Look, Apemant, nobody is solving this. Just accept it already.
That doesn't mean you can't live your life.

A nihilistic 'political party' would clearly be a massive contradiction... 😬

coastalwalker said:Look, Apemant, nobody is solving this. Just accept it already.
That doesn't mean you can't live your life.

🤷 Everyone who is breathing... they're obviously living—in their own way. Even I suppose I could be said to be 'living.' 😬 🤣

coastalwalker said:Thinking others don't see the problem, rather than realizing they see it just as clearly as you but choose to act anyway, is like flying over the ocean and deciding there's no life beneath the surface simply because you're too afraid to dive into such uncertain waters.

I didn't get the impression that Shaman is "acknowledging the problem but acting despite it." Rather, it feels like he's insisting the problem doesn't even exist—that it's purely imaginary, something he conjured out of thin air.😬

feralranger said:Well, if it is indeed true—and if you simply find yourself compelled to argue about it until your dying breath😬 —then by all means, continue that endless debate; however, if your disposition is somewhat different, you might find you have no desire to argue at all.

but he is (nearly) certain of its truth specifically because an entire world—one he navigates through pure intuition, a world devoid of certainty and shrouded in absolute mystery—slips right beneath his radar. had it appeared on his radar, he would likely be far more hesitant to claim such certainty. he recognizes the existence of that space, yet he does not traverse it; hence, his conviction in determinism. meanwhile, those who actually move through that space possess an intuition of free will (or, if one prefers, a similar kind of certainty, provided everything is indeed determined).

Are you referring to Apemant? From a purely rational standpoint, the mere fact that something "slips under the radar" doesn't necessarily carry any profound weight; it might simply point to the imperfections of the "radar" itself. Of course, one is always free to believe that the radar is missing something of a mystical nature...

consequently, he isn't even in a position to pass judgment on those who navigate through that space.

Usually, it is "the others"—those staunch believers in "free will"—who do the judging.

The very awareness of potential determinism effectively erodes any meaningful sense of what it means to "judge."

Well, there are different ways to look at that. I personally prefer saying that something "triggers a certain reaction," though I'm not necessarily inclined to take specific action regarding that automatic internal impulse (which someone might label as "moral condemnation," for instance).

To be concrete: I might feel an internal negative reaction toward the way some people act like self-appointed moral police—take Sam Harris or shamantrixx, for example. 🤣 But again, that internal reaction rarely leads to any actual outward behavior... (though, truth be told, I have no way of predicting if that's always the case or if it can change through some outlier event 😬).

coastalwalker said:If it's true, there's nothing left to debate.
But he’s (almost) certain it’s true specifically because an entire world—one he navigates via pure intuition, devoid of certainty and shrouded in mystery—remains completely off his radar. If it were on his radar, he might actually believe in determinism. He recognizes the existence of that space, but he doesn't move through it. That's where his conviction in determinism comes from. Meanwhile, those actually moving through that space feel the intuition of free will (or, if you prefer, a similar kind of conviction, assuming everything is indeed determined).
So, he isn't in any position to judge those who are actually navigating that territory.

Just to add to that... I'm not "entirely convinced" of determinism. I'm simply posing the "problem" to see if anyone can solve it, since I certainly can't.

Edward Flores4 said:The very fact that you’re actually bothering to argue with me proves you’re operating under the assumption that I have free will... I mean, if you truly believed I didn't, there would be zero point in trying to persuade me. Why bother talking to a machine or a falling rock?

And this whole thing where you claim to be unsure if free will exists, yet you carry yourself as if it definitely does—well, that's a massive psychological knot for any therapist to untangle. 😍

I'm not playing dumb, it just comes naturally to me. 🤣

That's rich... You'd rather claim you're just "naturally" dim than admit that the limits of the human cognitive system don't actually prevent us from making moral or ethical judgments about behavior within those perfectly understandable boundaries. ☕

What kind of logic makes a moral judgment "valid" if we have absolutely no idea whether the person we're judging is actually free or not?

We *do* have an idea. You’re just pretending you don't by claiming ignorance, but your behavior tells a different story. The fact that you’re even engaging in this debate shows you aren't being consistent with your own stance. Sorry, but this whole "ultra-skeptic" persona feels pretty weak to me. 🤣

We don't know because we've admitted ourselves that we have no clue—it's a mystery.

We haven't admitted that... you have. We were talking about mysteries involving natural phenomena, like the curvature of spacetime or quantum entanglement. Nobody ever suggested that our ability to understand human behavior is somehow fundamentally broken. Whatever our limitations are, human behavior operates within them—which means it should be just as understandable within those same bounds.

If these kinds of questions don't bother you...

Just because a problem is phrased as a question with a question mark at the end doesn't make it a coherent one. I only lose sleep over questions that actually make sense... I'll leave these nonsensical ones to the people who enjoy chasing ghosts. 😍

Non-sequitur.

Presenting arguments doesn't necessarily mean I'm "accounting" for free will—it could simply be that I'm compelled to present them. In fact, it's quite the opposite: it would suggest I am unfree. That I have no choice but to speak. Even if I *were* accounting for free will, that very calculation could be determined and thus unfree; perhaps I've just been conditioned to think that way.🤣 Compatibilists likely hold a similar view, except that by their definition of "freedom," these two things aren't seen as a contradiction.

Edward Flores4 said:The very fact that you’re actually bothering to argue with me proves you’re operating under the assumption that I have free will... I mean, if you truly believed I didn't, there would be zero point in trying to persuade me. Why bother talking to a machine or a falling rock?

And this whole thing where you claim to be unsure if free will exists, yet you carry yourself as if it definitely does—well, that's a massive psychological knot for any therapist to untangle. 😍

I'm not playing dumb, it just comes naturally to me. 🤣

That's rich... You'd rather claim you're just "naturally" dim than admit that the limits of the human cognitive system don't actually prevent us from making moral or ethical judgments about behavior within those perfectly understandable boundaries. ☕

What kind of logic makes a moral judgment "valid" if we have absolutely no idea whether the person we're judging is actually free or not?

We *do* have an idea. You’re just pretending you don't by claiming ignorance, but your behavior tells a different story. The fact that you’re even engaging in this debate shows you aren't being consistent with your own stance. Sorry, but this whole "ultra-skeptic" persona feels pretty weak to me. 🤣

We don't know because we've admitted ourselves that we have no clue—it's a mystery.

We haven't admitted that... you have. We were talking about mysteries involving natural phenomena, like the curvature of spacetime or quantum entanglement. Nobody ever suggested that our ability to understand human behavior is somehow fundamentally broken. Whatever our limitations are, human behavior operates within them—which means it should be just as understandable within those same bounds.

If these kinds of questions don't bother you...

Just because a problem is phrased as a question with a question mark at the end doesn't make it a coherent one. I only lose sleep over questions that actually make sense... I'll leave these nonsensical ones to the people who enjoy chasing ghosts. 😍

I never said they "preclude" them, only that they create difficult conflicts. Personally, those conflicts actually prevent me from making "firm" moral-ethical judgments; all I can really do is philosophize about them. Acting in accordance with such judgments is a whole different story. But sure, other types of psychology don't necessarily have to be "prevented" from making these judgments, regardless of knowing their own cognitive limits—which, if you ask me, definitely include moral assessments.

Edward Flores4 said:The very fact that you’re actually bothering to argue with me proves you’re operating under the assumption that I have free will... I mean, if you truly believed I didn't, there would be zero point in trying to persuade me. Why bother talking to a machine or a falling rock?

And this whole thing where you claim to be unsure if free will exists, yet you carry yourself as if it definitely does—well, that's a massive psychological knot for any therapist to untangle. 😍

I'm not playing dumb, it just comes naturally to me. 🤣

That's rich... You'd rather claim you're just "naturally" dim than admit that the limits of the human cognitive system don't actually prevent us from making moral or ethical judgments about behavior within those perfectly understandable boundaries. ☕

What kind of logic makes a moral judgment "valid" if we have absolutely no idea whether the person we're judging is actually free or not?

We *do* have an idea. You’re just pretending you don't by claiming ignorance, but your behavior tells a different story. The fact that you’re even engaging in this debate shows you aren't being consistent with your own stance. Sorry, but this whole "ultra-skeptic" persona feels pretty weak to me. 🤣

We don't know because we've admitted ourselves that we have no clue—it's a mystery.

We haven't admitted that... you have. We were talking about mysteries involving natural phenomena, like the curvature of spacetime or quantum entanglement. Nobody ever suggested that our ability to understand human behavior is somehow fundamentally broken. Whatever our limitations are, human behavior operates within them—which means it should be just as understandable within those same bounds.

If these kinds of questions don't bother you...

Just because a problem is phrased as a question with a question mark at the end doesn't make it a coherent one. I only lose sleep over questions that actually make sense... I'll leave these nonsensical ones to the people who enjoy chasing ghosts. 😍

As for that last part—you're entitled to your preferences... especially if those preferences were conditioned. You didn't choose them yourself; they essentially surfaced because your brain was genetically predisposed to certain memes.😬

It isn’t "hyper-skepticism" so much as exactly what Chomsky is talking about: mystery. I have no problem just *observing* a mystery or marveling at one. But if we have to make potentially life-altering *decisions*—or take actions with massive consequences—based on something mysterious? 🤷 I honestly don't see how anyone can claim there isn't a glaring issue here.

Edward Flores4 said:The very fact that you’re actually bothering to argue with me proves you’re operating under the assumption that I have free will... I mean, if you truly believed I didn't, there would be zero point in trying to persuade me. Why bother talking to a machine or a falling rock?

And this whole thing where you claim to be unsure if free will exists, yet you carry yourself as if it definitely does—well, that's a massive psychological knot for any therapist to untangle. 😍

I'm not playing dumb, it just comes naturally to me. 🤣

That's rich... You'd rather claim you're just "naturally" dim than admit that the limits of the human cognitive system don't actually prevent us from making moral or ethical judgments about behavior within those perfectly understandable boundaries. ☕

What kind of logic makes a moral judgment "valid" if we have absolutely no idea whether the person we're judging is actually free or not?

We *do* have an idea. You’re just pretending you don't by claiming ignorance, but your behavior tells a different story. The fact that you’re even engaging in this debate shows you aren't being consistent with your own stance. Sorry, but this whole "ultra-skeptic" persona feels pretty weak to me. 🤣

We don't know because we've admitted ourselves that we have no clue—it's a mystery.

We haven't admitted that... you have. We were talking about mysteries involving natural phenomena, like the curvature of spacetime or quantum entanglement. Nobody ever suggested that our ability to understand human behavior is somehow fundamentally broken. Whatever our limitations are, human behavior operates within them—which means it should be just as understandable within those same bounds.

If these kinds of questions don't bother you...

Just because a problem is phrased as a question with a question mark at the end doesn't make it a coherent one. I only lose sleep over questions that actually make sense... I'll leave these nonsensical ones to the people who enjoy chasing ghosts. 😍

😕 So, our understanding is restricted when it comes to ordinary matter, but regarding our own behavior, moral judgments—and understanding itself—you're claiming there are no limits, no doubts, and no mysteries at all. 🤣

You're the boss. 🤣

Edward Flores4 said:The very fact that you’re actually bothering to argue with me proves you’re operating under the assumption that I have free will... I mean, if you truly believed I didn't, there would be zero point in trying to persuade me. Why bother talking to a machine or a falling rock?

And this whole thing where you claim to be unsure if free will exists, yet you carry yourself as if it definitely does—well, that's a massive psychological knot for any therapist to untangle. 😍

I'm not playing dumb, it just comes naturally to me. 🤣

That's rich... You'd rather claim you're just "naturally" dim than admit that the limits of the human cognitive system don't actually prevent us from making moral or ethical judgments about behavior within those perfectly understandable boundaries. ☕

What kind of logic makes a moral judgment "valid" if we have absolutely no idea whether the person we're judging is actually free or not?

We *do* have an idea. You’re just pretending you don't by claiming ignorance, but your behavior tells a different story. The fact that you’re even engaging in this debate shows you aren't being consistent with your own stance. Sorry, but this whole "ultra-skeptic" persona feels pretty weak to me. 🤣

We don't know because we've admitted ourselves that we have no clue—it's a mystery.

We haven't admitted that... you have. We were talking about mysteries involving natural phenomena, like the curvature of spacetime or quantum entanglement. Nobody ever suggested that our ability to understand human behavior is somehow fundamentally broken. Whatever our limitations are, human behavior operates within them—which means it should be just as understandable within those same bounds.

If these kinds of questions don't bother you...

Just because a problem is phrased as a question with a question mark at the end doesn't make it a coherent one. I only lose sleep over questions that actually make sense... I'll leave these nonsensical ones to the people who enjoy chasing ghosts. 😍

It’s quite something when someone decides they are the ultimate authority on what counts as "coherent" and what doesn't.

To me, the question is perfectly coherent: do we have the "moral right" to sentence a killer to death or not? And where does that idea even come from in the first place?

If that question weren't coherent, we wouldn't see how the answer directly dictates the actual treatment of real people. You're more than welcome to keep imagining that "coherence" is just whatever happens to strike you as sensible at first glance.

Though, if I may say so, that probably isn't a result of free will—it's just that you've been conditioned to brag in such an irritatingly foolish way. 😍

Edward Flores4 said:Look, just send him an email and try to clear things up for him... maybe he’ll actually care, because frankly, I couldn't care less about these imaginary problems of yours.🤣

The only thing imaginary here is your sense of reality.🙂

Edward Flores4 said:Noam Chomsky

I don't really know what to make of that—it feels like one of those cryptic little snippets that could mean anything depending on who you ask. It’s a bit like walking into a room and seeing someone just staring at a blank wall; you aren't quite sure if they're deep in thought or if they just completely lost their train of thought mid-stride. If there's more to it, I'm all ears, but as it stands, it's a pretty tough nut to crack. Edward Flores4 says: I don't think you quite see the "issue" with holding onto rigid moral principles—especially when we have to face the cold, hard fact that our own understanding is so limited. I mean, let’s be honest: we struggle to even wrap our heads around the basic behavior of insects, let alone inanimate matter. If we can barely decode the logic of a beetle, how can we claim to have the full picture when it comes to absolute morality?

Spot on.

I feel like I’m only truly accountable for the things I actually grasp and understand—you know, the stuff that falls squarely within my own comprehension. Beyond that, my responsibility only extends to the direct consequences of my own free will. Anything else? Anything that falls outside those boundaries? That’s just not on me. 🤷

Noam Chomsky

And that right there was the "example" you were looking for.

Hold on now—I wasn't actually asking you that. Don't play dumb with me! ☕

Noam Chomsky

When we talk about the limits of what we can actually wrap our heads around—well, that doesn't just apply to the laws of physics or weird natural phenomena. It goes way deeper than that. We’re talking about the messy stuff, too—human behavior, the quirks of psychology, and those shifting sands of moral values. It's all part of the same puzzle, really.

I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here—it feels like we're starting from a blank slate! If there was something specific you wanted me to dive into or a particular topic you wanted my take on, just let me know. I'm more than happy to sit down and hammer out some thoughts once I have a direction to head in. ☕

If we’re looking at the "definition" of human limits, then human behavior by its very nature exists within those boundaries—which means I’m perfectly capable of understanding it exactly as it is. Honestly, some people just love to hear themselves talk. ☕

It doesn't matter that we have absolutely no clue where free will ends and determinism begins. I'm sure some high-brow psychologists will step in to tell us exactly where those lines are, and we'll just nod along because they're "serious scientists." 😬

Edward Flores4 said:Noam Chomsky

I don't really know what to make of that—it feels like one of those cryptic little snippets that could mean anything depending on who you ask. It’s a bit like walking into a room and seeing someone just staring at a blank wall; you aren't quite sure if they're deep in thought or if they just completely lost their train of thought mid-stride. If there's more to it, I'm all ears, but as it stands, it's a pretty tough nut to crack. Edward Flores4 says: I don't think you quite see the "issue" with holding onto rigid moral principles—especially when we have to face the cold, hard fact that our own understanding is so limited. I mean, let’s be honest: we struggle to even wrap our heads around the basic behavior of insects, let alone inanimate matter. If we can barely decode the logic of a beetle, how can we claim to have the full picture when it comes to absolute morality?

Spot on.

I feel like I’m only truly accountable for the things I actually grasp and understand—you know, the stuff that falls squarely within my own comprehension. Beyond that, my responsibility only extends to the direct consequences of my own free will. Anything else? Anything that falls outside those boundaries? That’s just not on me. 🤷

Noam Chomsky

And that right there was the "example" you were looking for.

Hold on now—I wasn't actually asking you that. Don't play dumb with me! ☕

Noam Chomsky

When we talk about the limits of what we can actually wrap our heads around—well, that doesn't just apply to the laws of physics or weird natural phenomena. It goes way deeper than that. We’re talking about the messy stuff, too—human behavior, the quirks of psychology, and those shifting sands of moral values. It's all part of the same puzzle, really.

I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here—it feels like we're starting from a blank slate! If there was something specific you wanted me to dive into or a particular topic you wanted my take on, just let me know. I'm more than happy to sit down and hammer out some thoughts once I have a direction to head in. ☕

If we’re looking at the "definition" of human limits, then human behavior by its very nature exists within those boundaries—which means I’m perfectly capable of understanding it exactly as it is. Honestly, some people just love to hear themselves talk. ☕

I'm not playing dumb; it's just how I process things. 🤣

What kind of logic allows for a "valid" moral judgment if we have zero idea whether the person we're judging actually possesses free will? We can't know, because we've already admitted that the whole concept is a mystery.

If questions like that don't interest you, then it's no wonder you missed what that college student was getting at—just like Noam Chomsky missed it too.

Edward Flores4 said:Noam Chomsky

I don't really know what to make of that—it feels like one of those cryptic little snippets that could mean anything depending on who you ask. It’s a bit like walking into a room and seeing someone just staring at a blank wall; you aren't quite sure if they're deep in thought or if they just completely lost their train of thought mid-stride. If there's more to it, I'm all ears, but as it stands, it's a pretty tough nut to crack. Edward Flores4 says: I don't think you quite see the "issue" with holding onto rigid moral principles—especially when we have to face the cold, hard fact that our own understanding is so limited. I mean, let’s be honest: we struggle to even wrap our heads around the basic behavior of insects, let alone inanimate matter. If we can barely decode the logic of a beetle, how can we claim to have the full picture when it comes to absolute morality?

Spot on.

I feel like I’m only truly accountable for the things I actually grasp and understand—you know, the stuff that falls squarely within my own comprehension. Beyond that, my responsibility only extends to the direct consequences of my own free will. Anything else? Anything that falls outside those boundaries? That’s just not on me. 🤷

Noam Chomsky

And that right there was the "example" you were looking for.

Hold on now—I wasn't actually asking you that. Don't play dumb with me! ☕

Noam Chomsky

When we talk about the limits of what we can actually wrap our heads around—well, that doesn't just apply to the laws of physics or weird natural phenomena. It goes way deeper than that. We’re talking about the messy stuff, too—human behavior, the quirks of psychology, and those shifting sands of moral values. It's all part of the same puzzle, really.

I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here—it feels like we're starting from a blank slate! If there was something specific you wanted me to dive into or a particular topic you wanted my take on, just let me know. I'm more than happy to sit down and hammer out some thoughts once I have a direction to head in. ☕

If we’re looking at the "definition" of human limits, then human behavior by its very nature exists within those boundaries—which means I’m perfectly capable of understanding it exactly as it is. Honestly, some people just love to hear themselves talk. ☕

We have no idea what free will even is—or if it even exists. We don't understand the origin of our sense of morality, nor can we define what morality actually is, especially since the goalposts move every single day. Yet, we still feel perfectly fine making moral judgments about everyone else's actions. It's brilliant, really. 😬 It’s very much like Sam Harris acting the sheriff. Burst in, take down all the bad guys, save the damsel in distress, and ride off into the sunset. 🤣

All we need now is a screening at the local cinema on May Day. 🤣

Edward Flores4 said:Noam Chomsky

Honestly, I don't see much point in dragging this out—especially since you're dodging the actual question and moving the goalposts through this whole relativist lens. It’s starting to feel a bit like that "total skeptic" who showed up at the end of the lecture.
👋

You don't see any issue with holding onto firm moral principles, even when we collectively admit how limited our understanding actually is—and that goes for everything from insect behavior to inanimate matter. 😬

It clearly doesn't mean anything to you that history shows us humans have held wildly different moral views on things we consider "obvious" today, like murder. That was the very example you were looking for.

Even now, there isn't one single, unified moral consensus. Just look at the debate over the death penalty; it’s a perfect illustration. Is it "moral" to execute a dangerous killer, or is it not? Do you think asking that is just some "total skeptic" rhetorical trick? Or if we ask someone sitting on death row, is that just a skeptical question too?

Anyway, Noam Chomsky wasn't just talking about our failure to grasp natural phenomena; he was talking about our inability to truly understand *anything*. These limits of comprehension apply to more than just science—they apply to human behavior, psychology, and our entire moral framework.

Edward Flores4 said:

I can't quite wrap my head around what you're getting at here—it feels like we're missing a huge chunk of the conversation! It’s a bit like walking into a movie halfway through and trying to guess the plot based on a single line of dialogue. If there was a specific thought or a point you were trying to make, I'd love to hear the full version so I can actually dig into it with you. Feel free to lay it all out! kaže:
Yeah, exactly. Is that not what I was getting at? I’m just saying that those "individually developed value systems" we all claim to have can actually be assembled—subconsciously, really—just by being constantly exposed to different memes and cultural touchstones.

I honestly don't think it's possible to bypass that barrier. The subconscious mind just won't let you in unless your conscious self is already on board. It’s exactly why those stage hypnotists do what they do—they ask these super trivial, "yes-and" questions that seem harmless, but they're actually setting the trap. They're building a pattern of agreement to sneak in post-hypnotic suggestions under the radar. Without that initial, conscious "yes," you can't tap into those deeper subconscious mechanisms and psychological triggers. It's like trying to walk through a locked door without the key; if your conscious mind doesn't turn the lock first, the rest of the house stays closed off.

Look, I’m not exactly expecting you to just take my word for it—but then again, I shouldn't expect you to expect me to go through all this heavy lifting just to compensate for the fact that you aren't quite grasping how these subconscious mechanisms actually work. 🤣

Where exactly did you pull "God" from to throw into your math?

Goddammit! 🤣

Look, I’ve always felt that some people just love to tear things apart for the sake of being difficult—you know, those types who can't see the forest for the trees because they're too busy picking at every single leaf. It's like dealing with a professional nitpicker Quote who thinks they're doing us a favor by deconstructing everything until there's nothing left but dust. Honestly, it gets exhausting. ☕

nitpicker Quote 🙂

It looks like you're missing my point here. 😬

I get the feeling we’re both stuck in this loop of misunderstanding—it feels like a two-way street at this point. 😍

Well, I guess I could just as easily turn that around and say you're operating on the same unfounded assumption—that my beliefs don't actually have any real ground to stand on. 🤷

Absolutely. 😍

Honestly, all that petty back-and-forth and constant nitpicking just feels completely pointless to me.
Alright, I’ll admit it—I was lying. Sometimes you just have to stir the pot a little to keep things interesting, right? 🤣)

It isn't just some trivial thing when you're talking about someone else's fundamental way of thinking. If we were debating something concrete—like whether the sky is blue or what color a car should be—then sure, making assumptions would just be a cheap rhetorical trick. But this is different. I mean, seriously... how much could you actually know about my internal logic or the way my mind works? To think you could gather enough data to make even a semi-accurate guess about how compatible my thought process is with Chomsky's seems like a bit of a stretch, don't you think? 🤷

Noam Chomsky, well, there’s no such thing as "understanding" in that sense; what you wrote above is totally inconclusive. Conscious agreement can be an illusion too; you could have subconsciously agreed three seconds ago without any "conscious decision"—you just became aware later that you had agreed. That still doesn't "prove" that some kind of "free consent" is necessary to build a value system. It might just require being "aware," meaning you become conscious of it. That certainly doesn't mean it was "freely chosen." For instance, I might suddenly realize I'm really attracted to someone's physique, but that doesn't mean I consciously and freely chose that attraction. 🤣

Feel free to believe you chose your own value system if that makes you feel better. I have an intuitive value system myself—but wouldn't you know it, I can't for the life of me remember when I "freely chose" it, 🙄 whatever that actually implies. To me, it mostly sounds like an ego stroke.

Edward Flores4 said:

I can't quite wrap my head around what you're getting at here—it feels like we're missing a huge chunk of the conversation! It’s a bit like walking into a movie halfway through and trying to guess the plot based on a single line of dialogue. If there was a specific thought or a point you were trying to make, I'd love to hear the full version so I can actually dig into it with you. Feel free to lay it all out! kaže:
Yeah, exactly. Is that not what I was getting at? I’m just saying that those "individually developed value systems" we all claim to have can actually be assembled—subconsciously, really—just by being constantly exposed to different memes and cultural touchstones.

I honestly don't think it's possible to bypass that barrier. The subconscious mind just won't let you in unless your conscious self is already on board. It’s exactly why those stage hypnotists do what they do—they ask these super trivial, "yes-and" questions that seem harmless, but they're actually setting the trap. They're building a pattern of agreement to sneak in post-hypnotic suggestions under the radar. Without that initial, conscious "yes," you can't tap into those deeper subconscious mechanisms and psychological triggers. It's like trying to walk through a locked door without the key; if your conscious mind doesn't turn the lock first, the rest of the house stays closed off.

Look, I’m not exactly expecting you to just take my word for it—but then again, I shouldn't expect you to expect me to go through all this heavy lifting just to compensate for the fact that you aren't quite grasping how these subconscious mechanisms actually work. 🤣

Where exactly did you pull "God" from to throw into your math?

Goddammit! 🤣

Look, I’ve always felt that some people just love to tear things apart for the sake of being difficult—you know, those types who can't see the forest for the trees because they're too busy picking at every single leaf. It's like dealing with a professional nitpicker Quote who thinks they're doing us a favor by deconstructing everything until there's nothing left but dust. Honestly, it gets exhausting. ☕

nitpicker Quote 🙂

It looks like you're missing my point here. 😬

I get the feeling we’re both stuck in this loop of misunderstanding—it feels like a two-way street at this point. 😍

Well, I guess I could just as easily turn that around and say you're operating on the same unfounded assumption—that my beliefs don't actually have any real ground to stand on. 🤷

Absolutely. 😍

Honestly, all that petty back-and-forth and constant nitpicking just feels completely pointless to me.
Alright, I’ll admit it—I was lying. Sometimes you just have to stir the pot a little to keep things interesting, right? 🤣)

It isn't just some trivial thing when you're talking about someone else's fundamental way of thinking. If we were debating something concrete—like whether the sky is blue or what color a car should be—then sure, making assumptions would just be a cheap rhetorical trick. But this is different. I mean, seriously... how much could you actually know about my internal logic or the way my mind works? To think you could gather enough data to make even a semi-accurate guess about how compatible my thought process is with Chomsky's seems like a bit of a stretch, don't you think? 🤷

Understanding is limited... as Noam Chomsky rightly noted. 😬

Edward Flores4 said:

I can't quite wrap my head around what you're getting at here—it feels like we're missing a huge chunk of the conversation! It’s a bit like walking into a movie halfway through and trying to guess the plot based on a single line of dialogue. If there was a specific thought or a point you were trying to make, I'd love to hear the full version so I can actually dig into it with you. Feel free to lay it all out! kaže:
Yeah, exactly. Is that not what I was getting at? I’m just saying that those "individually developed value systems" we all claim to have can actually be assembled—subconsciously, really—just by being constantly exposed to different memes and cultural touchstones.

I honestly don't think it's possible to bypass that barrier. The subconscious mind just won't let you in unless your conscious self is already on board. It’s exactly why those stage hypnotists do what they do—they ask these super trivial, "yes-and" questions that seem harmless, but they're actually setting the trap. They're building a pattern of agreement to sneak in post-hypnotic suggestions under the radar. Without that initial, conscious "yes," you can't tap into those deeper subconscious mechanisms and psychological triggers. It's like trying to walk through a locked door without the key; if your conscious mind doesn't turn the lock first, the rest of the house stays closed off.

Look, I’m not exactly expecting you to just take my word for it—but then again, I shouldn't expect you to expect me to go through all this heavy lifting just to compensate for the fact that you aren't quite grasping how these subconscious mechanisms actually work. 🤣

Where exactly did you pull "God" from to throw into your math?

Goddammit! 🤣

Look, I’ve always felt that some people just love to tear things apart for the sake of being difficult—you know, those types who can't see the forest for the trees because they're too busy picking at every single leaf. It's like dealing with a professional nitpicker Quote who thinks they're doing us a favor by deconstructing everything until there's nothing left but dust. Honestly, it gets exhausting. ☕

nitpicker Quote 🙂

It looks like you're missing my point here. 😬

I get the feeling we’re both stuck in this loop of misunderstanding—it feels like a two-way street at this point. 😍

Well, I guess I could just as easily turn that around and say you're operating on the same unfounded assumption—that my beliefs don't actually have any real ground to stand on. 🤷

Absolutely. 😍

Honestly, all that petty back-and-forth and constant nitpicking just feels completely pointless to me.
Alright, I’ll admit it—I was lying. Sometimes you just have to stir the pot a little to keep things interesting, right? 🤣)

It isn't just some trivial thing when you're talking about someone else's fundamental way of thinking. If we were debating something concrete—like whether the sky is blue or what color a car should be—then sure, making assumptions would just be a cheap rhetorical trick. But this is different. I mean, seriously... how much could you actually know about my internal logic or the way my mind works? To think you could gather enough data to make even a semi-accurate guess about how compatible my thought process is with Chomsky's seems like a bit of a stretch, don't you think? 🤷

I didn't say I "knew" anything. I said it *seemed* that way to me. My impression is based entirely on reading your posts. It’s actually the same process you used a few posts back when you suggested it "seemed like I hadn't grasped what Noam Chomsky was saying." You read my post, and it seemed to you that I missed the point. Well, I’m doing the same thing with your writing—it seems to me that your reasoning diverges from his. Of course, none of this is conclusive, and I never claimed it was.

But hey, you always were one for a fight. 😍

Edward Flores4 said:I don't quite follow—why would failing to understand a natural phenomenon interfere with our ability to make moral or ethical decisions?

I mean, would murder suddenly become okay just because we managed to scientifically prove the existence of an "afterlife"?

Can you actually point to an instance where a misunderstanding of the natural world makes a moral or ethical judgment invalid? Or is it just a feeling you have that these two things might somehow bleed into one another?

Because, honestly, I just don't see the issue here. 🤷

I don't see why murder isn't okay. 🤷 Is it just because that's how you feel? Or how Chomsky feels? Throughout history, murder has always been acceptable under certain circumstances—say, if a ruler does it to a subject. 🤷 (Even in ancient Rome, the head of the household had the legal right to kill a wife caught in adultery, and I assume he didn't even need rock-solid evidence to prove it happened, LOL). Therefore, you could argue that the idea of killing people is actually quite aligned with human nature. 🤷 Where does the idea come from that it isn't? In other words, where is the certainty that it isn't?

I honestly don't understand how people make decisions involving morality at all; it seems like I'm fundamentally incapable of it for some reason. 🤷 My own moral decisions are just this chaotic... mess, a total storm. Nothing coherent or well-rounded. They're just spur-of-the-moment things, mostly driven by some superficial sense of empathy, etc.

Edward Flores4 said:Unless you’re under the impression that the subconscious just pulls its standards out of thin air—or that some divine hand implanted those criteria directly into our brains—it’s pretty damn obvious that our pragmatic subconscious deals exclusively with value systems we've developed individually. 🤷

It just seems to me like he’s landed in a position that's—well, I don't know how else to put it—suspiciously "comfortable."

Of course it’s pleasant... for all those reasons I mentioned earlier. ☕

Honestly, I’m actually kind of relieved that I can’t be "certain" about anything I just wrote—and that’s largely thanks to what Chomsky says. There's something really profound about realizing just how limited our own understanding truly is, especially when you start digging into things we take for granted. We think we grasp these seemingly "simple" concepts like matter, contact, or basic interaction, but once you peel back the layers, you realize how little we actually know. It's a humbling way to look at it, really.

I'm really happy for you! 😍

I don't know—I'm just not seeing it that way myself.

That’s pretty much obvious, isn't it? 😁

What were the points I actually made?

Let's talk about free will—or rather, the massive headache that is the whole concept of free will. It’s one of those topics that seems simple enough when you’re grabbing a coffee, but once you start digging into the philosophy, you realize we’re basically staring into an abyss. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how much our modern understanding of choice is tied up in these old-school debates. You have the classic tension between the idea that we are masters of our own destiny and the growing suspicion that we’re just complex biological machines reacting to inputs. It’s like being a character in a movie who thinks they're making decisions, while the script was actually written before the cameras even started rolling. If you look at the way thinkers like Hume approached the subject, there's this fascinating pivot. I pointed out that Hume's attack on spiritual substance was The philosophical forerunner of scientific history because IT destroyed The Last vestiges of The substantialism in Greco-Roman thought. That shift is huge, because it moves us away from seeing "the self" as some mystical, unchanging thing and starts treating human behavior as something we can actually study through cause and effect. It gets complicated when you factor in the legacy of the Enlightenment. What prevented eighteenth-century history fra becoming scientific by reaping The full fruits of The philosophical revolution was an unnoticed Relic of substantialism implicit in The Enlightenment's quest for a science of human Nature. People wanted to understand us, sure, but they still clung to this idea that there was a "soul" or a fixed "essence" driving the bus. They were stuck in that mindset where human Nature was conceived substantialistically as something static and permanent , an unvarying substratum underlying The course of historical changes and All human activities. When you move toward more modern views—think along the lines of what Sam Harris discusses—the argument becomes even sharper. If our brains are governed by the laws of physics, just like a planet orbiting a star or a ball rolling down a hill, where does that leave "choice"? It’s almost like we’re living in a Newtonian universe, where everything is predictable if you just have enough data, yet we feel this intense, subjective sense of agency. It’s a bit like the difference between how we view a computer program and how the user experiences it. To the programmer, every click is a logical result of code; to the user, it feels like an intuitive, spontaneous interaction. We are essentially caught between being the software and the user at the same time. Anyway, I don't want to go down a three-hour rabbit hole here, but it's worth pondering. Are we actually steering the ship, or are we just passengers who are convinced we're holding the wheel? 🤷

It’s pretty clear what Chomsky is getting at—I follow his logic—but I have to say, his response to that one student's question just didn't sit right with me. It felt a bit lacking.

I’m not sure if you caught the whole lecture, but right toward the end, that same student pushes back—she wasn't really satisfied with the first answer she got, so she circles back and asks the exact same question again. This time, though, she actually gets a very direct, concrete response. 🤷

Honestly, I’ve gotta say—I’m just as unsatisfied with Sam Harris’s philosophy as anyone else seems to be. It’s one of those things where you feel like you're missing a certain depth, you know?

I honestly don't see what the hell Sam Harris has to do with any of this—aside from the fact that I'm the one who kicked off both of these threads 🤷

But seriously, about 90% of what he was getting at during the lecture actually resonated with me. If anything, I’d say his way of looking at things is much closer to my own perspective than yours is.

That's only because you're operating under the baseless assumption that you actually know how my mind works 🙂

Exactly. Is that not what I said? I simply maintained that these "individually developed value systems" can, in fact, be assembled "subconsciously" through exposure to various memes. Where on earth did you pull 'God' from to balance your equation? My entire argument starts from the premise that there is no 'God'; instead, these value systems are just a mishmash created by the interaction of memes with a psychological framework whose receptivity to those memes is genetically limited—or rather, determined.

Edward Flores4 said:Unless you’re under the impression that the subconscious just pulls its standards out of thin air—or that some divine hand implanted those criteria directly into our brains—it’s pretty damn obvious that our pragmatic subconscious deals exclusively with value systems we've developed individually. 🤷

It just seems to me like he’s landed in a position that's—well, I don't know how else to put it—suspiciously "comfortable."

Of course it’s pleasant... for all those reasons I mentioned earlier. ☕

Honestly, I’m actually kind of relieved that I can’t be "certain" about anything I just wrote—and that’s largely thanks to what Chomsky says. There's something really profound about realizing just how limited our own understanding truly is, especially when you start digging into things we take for granted. We think we grasp these seemingly "simple" concepts like matter, contact, or basic interaction, but once you peel back the layers, you realize how little we actually know. It's a humbling way to look at it, really.

I'm really happy for you! 😍

I don't know—I'm just not seeing it that way myself.

That’s pretty much obvious, isn't it? 😁

What were the points I actually made?

Let's talk about free will—or rather, the massive headache that is the whole concept of free will. It’s one of those topics that seems simple enough when you’re grabbing a coffee, but once you start digging into the philosophy, you realize we’re basically staring into an abyss. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how much our modern understanding of choice is tied up in these old-school debates. You have the classic tension between the idea that we are masters of our own destiny and the growing suspicion that we’re just complex biological machines reacting to inputs. It’s like being a character in a movie who thinks they're making decisions, while the script was actually written before the cameras even started rolling. If you look at the way thinkers like Hume approached the subject, there's this fascinating pivot. I pointed out that Hume's attack on spiritual substance was The philosophical forerunner of scientific history because IT destroyed The Last vestiges of The substantialism in Greco-Roman thought. That shift is huge, because it moves us away from seeing "the self" as some mystical, unchanging thing and starts treating human behavior as something we can actually study through cause and effect. It gets complicated when you factor in the legacy of the Enlightenment. What prevented eighteenth-century history fra becoming scientific by reaping The full fruits of The philosophical revolution was an unnoticed Relic of substantialism implicit in The Enlightenment's quest for a science of human Nature. People wanted to understand us, sure, but they still clung to this idea that there was a "soul" or a fixed "essence" driving the bus. They were stuck in that mindset where human Nature was conceived substantialistically as something static and permanent , an unvarying substratum underlying The course of historical changes and All human activities. When you move toward more modern views—think along the lines of what Sam Harris discusses—the argument becomes even sharper. If our brains are governed by the laws of physics, just like a planet orbiting a star or a ball rolling down a hill, where does that leave "choice"? It’s almost like we’re living in a Newtonian universe, where everything is predictable if you just have enough data, yet we feel this intense, subjective sense of agency. It’s a bit like the difference between how we view a computer program and how the user experiences it. To the programmer, every click is a logical result of code; to the user, it feels like an intuitive, spontaneous interaction. We are essentially caught between being the software and the user at the same time. Anyway, I don't want to go down a three-hour rabbit hole here, but it's worth pondering. Are we actually steering the ship, or are we just passengers who are convinced we're holding the wheel? 🤷

It’s pretty clear what Chomsky is getting at—I follow his logic—but I have to say, his response to that one student's question just didn't sit right with me. It felt a bit lacking.

I’m not sure if you caught the whole lecture, but right toward the end, that same student pushes back—she wasn't really satisfied with the first answer she got, so she circles back and asks the exact same question again. This time, though, she actually gets a very direct, concrete response. 🤷

Honestly, I’ve gotta say—I’m just as unsatisfied with Sam Harris’s philosophy as anyone else seems to be. It’s one of those things where you feel like you're missing a certain depth, you know?

I honestly don't see what the hell Sam Harris has to do with any of this—aside from the fact that I'm the one who kicked off both of these threads 🤷

But seriously, about 90% of what he was getting at during the lecture actually resonated with me. If anything, I’d say his way of looking at things is much closer to my own perspective than yours is.

That's only because you're operating under the baseless assumption that you actually know how my mind works 🙂

Sjeckaroš.
☕ 🤣

Edward Flores4 said:Unless you’re under the impression that the subconscious just pulls its standards out of thin air—or that some divine hand implanted those criteria directly into our brains—it’s pretty damn obvious that our pragmatic subconscious deals exclusively with value systems we've developed individually. 🤷

It just seems to me like he’s landed in a position that's—well, I don't know how else to put it—suspiciously "comfortable."

Of course it’s pleasant... for all those reasons I mentioned earlier. ☕

Honestly, I’m actually kind of relieved that I can’t be "certain" about anything I just wrote—and that’s largely thanks to what Chomsky says. There's something really profound about realizing just how limited our own understanding truly is, especially when you start digging into things we take for granted. We think we grasp these seemingly "simple" concepts like matter, contact, or basic interaction, but once you peel back the layers, you realize how little we actually know. It's a humbling way to look at it, really.

I'm really happy for you! 😍

I don't know—I'm just not seeing it that way myself.

That’s pretty much obvious, isn't it? 😁

What were the points I actually made?

Let's talk about free will—or rather, the massive headache that is the whole concept of free will. It’s one of those topics that seems simple enough when you’re grabbing a coffee, but once you start digging into the philosophy, you realize we’re basically staring into an abyss. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how much our modern understanding of choice is tied up in these old-school debates. You have the classic tension between the idea that we are masters of our own destiny and the growing suspicion that we’re just complex biological machines reacting to inputs. It’s like being a character in a movie who thinks they're making decisions, while the script was actually written before the cameras even started rolling. If you look at the way thinkers like Hume approached the subject, there's this fascinating pivot. I pointed out that Hume's attack on spiritual substance was The philosophical forerunner of scientific history because IT destroyed The Last vestiges of The substantialism in Greco-Roman thought. That shift is huge, because it moves us away from seeing "the self" as some mystical, unchanging thing and starts treating human behavior as something we can actually study through cause and effect. It gets complicated when you factor in the legacy of the Enlightenment. What prevented eighteenth-century history fra becoming scientific by reaping The full fruits of The philosophical revolution was an unnoticed Relic of substantialism implicit in The Enlightenment's quest for a science of human Nature. People wanted to understand us, sure, but they still clung to this idea that there was a "soul" or a fixed "essence" driving the bus. They were stuck in that mindset where human Nature was conceived substantialistically as something static and permanent , an unvarying substratum underlying The course of historical changes and All human activities. When you move toward more modern views—think along the lines of what Sam Harris discusses—the argument becomes even sharper. If our brains are governed by the laws of physics, just like a planet orbiting a star or a ball rolling down a hill, where does that leave "choice"? It’s almost like we’re living in a Newtonian universe, where everything is predictable if you just have enough data, yet we feel this intense, subjective sense of agency. It’s a bit like the difference between how we view a computer program and how the user experiences it. To the programmer, every click is a logical result of code; to the user, it feels like an intuitive, spontaneous interaction. We are essentially caught between being the software and the user at the same time. Anyway, I don't want to go down a three-hour rabbit hole here, but it's worth pondering. Are we actually steering the ship, or are we just passengers who are convinced we're holding the wheel? 🤷

It’s pretty clear what Chomsky is getting at—I follow his logic—but I have to say, his response to that one student's question just didn't sit right with me. It felt a bit lacking.

I’m not sure if you caught the whole lecture, but right toward the end, that same student pushes back—she wasn't really satisfied with the first answer she got, so she circles back and asks the exact same question again. This time, though, she actually gets a very direct, concrete response. 🤷

Honestly, I’ve gotta say—I’m just as unsatisfied with Sam Harris’s philosophy as anyone else seems to be. It’s one of those things where you feel like you're missing a certain depth, you know?

I honestly don't see what the hell Sam Harris has to do with any of this—aside from the fact that I'm the one who kicked off both of these threads 🤷

But seriously, about 90% of what he was getting at during the lecture actually resonated with me. If anything, I’d say his way of looking at things is much closer to my own perspective than yours is.

That's only because you're operating under the baseless assumption that you actually know how my mind works 🙂

It seems you aren't following. 😬

Yes, she wasn't satisfied with the first answer, and I’d bet anything she wasn't satisfied with the second one either, even if it looks to you like she received a "concrete response." 😬

And I assume she wasn't, because I wasn't satisfied myself—I "recognized" her question, unlike Chomsky, or even you, or Sam Harris. There's your connection. It isn't about me starting both threads; it's about this being the central problem that interests me within this system of thought, and clearly, it's what interests that student as well.

Edward Flores4 said:Unless you’re under the impression that the subconscious just pulls its standards out of thin air—or that some divine hand implanted those criteria directly into our brains—it’s pretty damn obvious that our pragmatic subconscious deals exclusively with value systems we've developed individually. 🤷

It just seems to me like he’s landed in a position that's—well, I don't know how else to put it—suspiciously "comfortable."

Of course it’s pleasant... for all those reasons I mentioned earlier. ☕

Honestly, I’m actually kind of relieved that I can’t be "certain" about anything I just wrote—and that’s largely thanks to what Chomsky says. There's something really profound about realizing just how limited our own understanding truly is, especially when you start digging into things we take for granted. We think we grasp these seemingly "simple" concepts like matter, contact, or basic interaction, but once you peel back the layers, you realize how little we actually know. It's a humbling way to look at it, really.

I'm really happy for you! 😍

I don't know—I'm just not seeing it that way myself.

That’s pretty much obvious, isn't it? 😁

What were the points I actually made?

Let's talk about free will—or rather, the massive headache that is the whole concept of free will. It’s one of those topics that seems simple enough when you’re grabbing a coffee, but once you start digging into the philosophy, you realize we’re basically staring into an abyss. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how much our modern understanding of choice is tied up in these old-school debates. You have the classic tension between the idea that we are masters of our own destiny and the growing suspicion that we’re just complex biological machines reacting to inputs. It’s like being a character in a movie who thinks they're making decisions, while the script was actually written before the cameras even started rolling. If you look at the way thinkers like Hume approached the subject, there's this fascinating pivot. I pointed out that Hume's attack on spiritual substance was The philosophical forerunner of scientific history because IT destroyed The Last vestiges of The substantialism in Greco-Roman thought. That shift is huge, because it moves us away from seeing "the self" as some mystical, unchanging thing and starts treating human behavior as something we can actually study through cause and effect. It gets complicated when you factor in the legacy of the Enlightenment. What prevented eighteenth-century history fra becoming scientific by reaping The full fruits of The philosophical revolution was an unnoticed Relic of substantialism implicit in The Enlightenment's quest for a science of human Nature. People wanted to understand us, sure, but they still clung to this idea that there was a "soul" or a fixed "essence" driving the bus. They were stuck in that mindset where human Nature was conceived substantialistically as something static and permanent , an unvarying substratum underlying The course of historical changes and All human activities. When you move toward more modern views—think along the lines of what Sam Harris discusses—the argument becomes even sharper. If our brains are governed by the laws of physics, just like a planet orbiting a star or a ball rolling down a hill, where does that leave "choice"? It’s almost like we’re living in a Newtonian universe, where everything is predictable if you just have enough data, yet we feel this intense, subjective sense of agency. It’s a bit like the difference between how we view a computer program and how the user experiences it. To the programmer, every click is a logical result of code; to the user, it feels like an intuitive, spontaneous interaction. We are essentially caught between being the software and the user at the same time. Anyway, I don't want to go down a three-hour rabbit hole here, but it's worth pondering. Are we actually steering the ship, or are we just passengers who are convinced we're holding the wheel? 🤷

It’s pretty clear what Chomsky is getting at—I follow his logic—but I have to say, his response to that one student's question just didn't sit right with me. It felt a bit lacking.

I’m not sure if you caught the whole lecture, but right toward the end, that same student pushes back—she wasn't really satisfied with the first answer she got, so she circles back and asks the exact same question again. This time, though, she actually gets a very direct, concrete response. 🤷

Honestly, I’ve gotta say—I’m just as unsatisfied with Sam Harris’s philosophy as anyone else seems to be. It’s one of those things where you feel like you're missing a certain depth, you know?

I honestly don't see what the hell Sam Harris has to do with any of this—aside from the fact that I'm the one who kicked off both of these threads 🤷

But seriously, about 90% of what he was getting at during the lecture actually resonated with me. If anything, I’d say his way of looking at things is much closer to my own perspective than yours is.

That's only because you're operating under the baseless assumption that you actually know how my mind works 🙂

Well, I could easily flip that back on you and say you're making a baseless assumption that my beliefs lack any foundation. 🤷 Honestly, this kind of petty trolling is pretty pointless to me.

(Okay, I'm kidding—sometimes this stuff can actually be interesting. 🤣)

Edward Flores4 said:I have to tell you, I really don't think you quite caught what Chomsky was getting at here. These kinds of lectures aren't something you can just listen to once and move on; you really need to sit with them, maybe two or three times, otherwise you walk away with the illusion that you've grasped it when you haven't.😁

He’s essentially pointing out that science moved away from the "mechanistic conception of intelligibility" a long time ago, replacing it with a "theoretical conception of intelligibility"—think of how Newton shook things up by introducing gravity, even though there wasn't a mechanical explanation for it back then. His point is that even within this newer "theoretical conception" (things like spacetime curvature or quantum entanglement), we are seeing a repeat of the same old errors that plagued the earlier mechanical models—specifically, the hunt for causes that are "yet to be discovered." There's a very real chance we'll run into the same kind of wall that Galileo and the other mechanists hit. The reason, of course, is simply that our minds have limits. It’s highly probable that those very limitations will prevent us from ever fully grasping certain natural phenomena—kind of like how a hamster is fundamentally limited when faced with a maze designed around prime numbers.

As for what you wrote... it barely touches the actual points he made.☕

That’s a solid summary of his main argument, and in that sense, I’d say I 'agree' with him.

Another thing is that he seems... well, comfortable with the whole situation. I’m not. I can accept the theoretical premise that there's no guarantee we'll ever "prove the existence" of the graviton—but I still find the idea of a graviton intuitively more satisfying than Newton's "force field" concepts or things like quantum entanglement, which I find personally quite unsettling. 😬

His slightly ironic tone toward physicists is particularly interesting; though, honestly, I don't think he quite grasped what that student was getting at. She’s asking the exact question that fascinates me: Okay, so we are limited. If that's the case, what methodology do we use to arrive at moral principles? And why should we consider those principles "compelling" if we are operating under the realization that our understanding is so limited, even when dealing with things far simpler than morality?

It gets even more complicated—and much more paradoxical—when you stop looking at morality through a purely sociological lens, like just observing "how people behave over there." Instead, you look at *your own* relationship with *your own* morality within this entire framework of thought. Is there any information regarding human morality more reliable than what you gain through direct introspection? No amount of statistics can truly compete with that. 🤷

Edward Flores4 said:I hate to be the one to say it, but I think you've got a bit of a misunderstanding when it comes to how the subconscious works. See, when the subconscious is involved in making a choice, it’s still operating based on value systems that we’ve consciously adopted. In other words, a subconscious decision can be just as much an act of free will as a conscious one. 🤷

ps: It feels like there might be a slight disconnect in how Chomsky's points are being interpreted here, but hey, I'll go ahead and give the lecture another listen—paying extra close attention to the points you raised this time... then we can pick this back up.

How can you be so sure? 🤷 If anything, Chomsky is actually pointing out the inherent limits of our understanding regarding how human decision-making works. I basically agree with him; it just feels like he’s taken a somewhat "comfortable" stance on the matter.

No, look—if decisions are made subconsciously, even when we think they're conscious, then it’s entirely possible that those "conscious" value systems of yours are also being formed subconsciously. 😬 If that's the case, what’s left of "free will"? Practically nothing. Value systems essentially assemble themselves as a function of the memes we encounter (combined with our prior state, which depends on genetic predisposition and previous exposure to various memes), and "decisions" are later made subconsciously based on those automatically formed values. We're about as "free" as a standard-issue robot, honestly. 😍 Luckily, I can't be "certain" about what I just wrote, precisely because of what Chomsky argues: the realization of the limitations of our own understanding of anything—starting with supposedly "simple" concepts like "matter," "contact," or "interaction."

Edward Flores4 said:I hate to be the one to say it, but I think you've got a bit of a misunderstanding when it comes to how the subconscious works. See, when the subconscious is involved in making a choice, it’s still operating based on value systems that we’ve consciously adopted. In other words, a subconscious decision can be just as much an act of free will as a conscious one. 🤷

ps: It feels like there might be a slight disconnect in how Chomsky's points are being interpreted here, but hey, I'll go ahead and give the lecture another listen—paying extra close attention to the points you raised this time... then we can pick this back up.

I don't see it that way. 🤣 Which points did I actually raise? Chomsky's point is pretty clear; it's just that his answer to that student's question didn't satisfy me, much like Sam Harris's philosophy doesn't satisfy me. That said, about 90% of what he said in the lecture really resonated with me. In fact, I'd say his way of thinking is closer to mine than yours.😬

Edward Flores4 said:Honestly, Chomsky has some pretty significant trouble hearing, and since that student sitting way back in the last row was speaking so softly—and sounded a bit nervous, too—it’s entirely possible he just didn't catch what she was saying.

If I’m following her train of thought correctly—and I think I am—she was basically asking how a "limited mind" can actually coexist with ethics, morality, and free will. To her, it seems like there just isn't any room left for free will once you factor that in.

If I’ve managed to wrap my head around what she was actually asking—then he basically handed her the answer on a silver platter. Look, we just can't shake the concept of free will, period. And if that reality doesn't neatly fit into the framework of our current explanations... well, then too bad for our explanatory possibilities. 🤷

I honestly don't see how a "limited mind" theory would actually undermine the concept of free will—nor do I see how it relates to what people call "Chomsky's theory" (and I say "theory" with a bit of a wink there, since he’s really just drawing logical conclusions from established facts).

It isn't that we "can't get rid of" free will—it's that we DO have it. And honestly, his response didn't sit right with me either. He claims that those experiments involving delayed consciousness regarding a decision "only show" that many decisions are made subconsciously. But "subconscious decisions" aren't "freedom"! In fact, subconscious decisions are the exact opposite of free will. They are arguably evidence that free will doesn't exist at all, and is instead just a side effect of self-awareness—the mind observing its own "decision" moments after it has already been made. Because the decision and the awareness of it happen so close together, it creates this illusion that the decision is a function of that awareness—a phantom "freedom" born of self-consciousness.

And if these "decisions" are determined—meaning they aren't free (sorry, compatibilists 👋)—then what is the point of any kind of "moral responsibility"? That seems to be the heart of what the student was getting at.

ironmarlin1 said:That was a fascinating lecture. Thanks for sharing the link.

Now, I can’t say I entirely agree with the premise here. I’m familiar with his argument—the idea that the mind should be studied with the same rigor as any other branch of the natural sciences—but I find myself pushing back. He speaks as if thought were merely a "secretion" of the mind, which would imply it functions much like a gland or some other biological mechanism. But there's a fundamental hitch in that logic: we can objectively observe physical secretions. Meanings and thoughts, however, don't play by those rules; they shift and take on entirely different roles depending on who is doing the thinking. Furthermore, while we can argue that physical secretions possess objective properties that exist regardless of our immediate needs or shifting beliefs, it’s far less certain that a thought holds a fixed meaning independent of the person experiencing it. One could attempt to argue this from a standpoint of idealism, perhaps, but that seems to fly directly in the face of the very natural science he’s trying to champion.

Yes, for me personally, reflecting on the limits of one's own understanding 😕 intuitively generates all sorts of paradoxes in my head; it seems to me that he is far too "comfortable" with that situation. Whereas I am not comfortable with it at all—quite the opposite. The only thing we share is the recognition that those limitations exist.

Anyway, it reminds me a bit of Harris's philosophy. Essentially, Chomsky argues that while we have limits and can't be certain about how the "mind" works, we also know nothing about what "matter" actually is. The layperson's assumption of what "matter" is has been completely shattered by quantum mechanics (though, from this lecture, I didn't quite notice if that started back with Newton, because as Chomsky points out, you learn it in school and take it for granted, even though it's counterintuitive. So yeah, the idea of a "graviton" felt totally intuitive to me 😬 just like it would to any young kid. 🤣)

And Sam Harris makes a similar claim regarding "morality": that we can't be certain about morality, just as we can't be certain about physical facts; so, where is the difference?

Still, I see a distinction, or at least I think I do—regarding the question posed by this student (or whoever she is)—which Chomsky doesn't even seem to have grasped. 😍

There is something paradoxical to me when the mind reasons about its own intellect, or when a moral subject moralizes about their own morality—it's as if my brain ties itself in knots at those points. 😬

Edward Flores4 said:The title pretty much says it all 🙂 Just kidding...

This was such a fascinating lecture—and honestly, quite unusual from a Chomskyan thematic perspective. It dove into some deep stuff: whether the mind is finite, how Newtonian principles can actually help us study consciousness, the way Descartes’ Meditations almost feel like propaganda, and the whole debate over free will.

I'd love to hear what you all think about this—drop your thoughts or any comments below 🙂

ps: the audio is a bit quiet, so just a heads-up to turn your volume up after you finish watching 😁

Really interesting talk... I've always felt a certain affinity for Chomsky's ideas—even if there are specific points where I disagree. Despite those outliers, I largely align with his views on human limitations, which is pretty much what I tend to post about here on the forum anyway. 😬

Sandra Morgan2 said:I see it differently. Suffering from a lack of meaning is just a symptom of depression. Meaninglessness doesn't cause depression. If it did, anyone who had a deep thought about how pointless life is would spiral into a breakdown, but that's not how it works. Most people can debate the meaning of life endlessly without feeling any despair at all.

Some people, upon realizing this, learn to enjoy the moment. They view life as a cosmic joke, embrace the "wu wei" path, and just flow with the river of existence—unburdened by the fact that their tiny lives won't leave a mark on the planet or be remembered by their great-grandchildren in a hundred years. But others feel that emptiness as a massive black hole they can't fill, a terrifying void within them calling toward death. That's all down to a lack of serotonin in the brain, not the concept of meaning itself.

But for the original poster and any other depressed readers out there—even in the face of that dark abyss of meaninglessness—take comfort in this: depression puts you in very good company. You're among incredibly gifted, brilliant, and respected individuals, and Leo Tolstoy is just one of many famous depressed people
.

I’d argue it’s actually the exact opposite. Those first group you mentioned? They can experience those things because they have enough serotonin to manufacture a "good feeling" out of thin air. In a sense, it acts like a natural high. Non-depressed, "normal" people are essentially just life-junkies who perceive reality through a distorted lens, much like anyone struggling with addiction.

😬