Posts by Edward Flores4

It’s like watching someone spin their wheels just to keep from stalling out—just going through the motions to make the hours pass by without actually getting anywhere. 😍

Quincy:

Discrimination—it’s one of those heavy, complicated topics that seems to bubble up in every corner of our society, doesn't it? It isn't just some abstract concept you read about in a sociology textbook; it’s something that plays out in real-time, affecting how people move through their lives, from applying for a job at a major firm like Google to simply trying to rent an apartment in a city like Chicago. When we talk about it, I think we often get caught up in the legal definitions—the stuff you see in civil rights legislation or court rulings—but there’s a much more granular, human side to it. It’s the subtle stuff, too. It’s not always a blatant, shouted slur in the street; more often than not, it’s that quiet, systemic bias—the kind of "unconscious" hesitation a hiring manager might feel, or the way certain neighborhoods end up being overlooked by big banks when it comes to mortgage approvals. It’s like a slow leak in a tire; you might not notice it immediately, but eventually, you realize you aren't going as far or as fast as you should have been able to. I've always felt that addressing it requires more than just passing a law or checking a box for diversity training. Sure, those things matter—they provide the framework—but true change feels much more personal. It’s about how we interact with one another in our daily lives, in our local communities, and in our workplaces. It’s about recognizing that everyone carries these invisible baggage sets of assumptions, and the work lies in unpacking them. It’s a long, sometimes messy process of unlearning, but if we want a society that actually lives up to its promises, it’s a conversation we can't afford to skip. Back in the 1640s, we first started seeing the term "making distinctions" pop up—it comes from that Latin root *discriminatio*, which basically just means the act of telling things apart. It’s interesting how language shifts, though; while it started out as a neutral way to describe discernment, by 1866, the American English usage took a much darker turn toward prejudice and racial bias. It’s one of those classic examples of how a word can evolve from a simple tool for clarity into something used to divide people.

And here’s a quote that I think is worth chewing on for a minute: It honestly gets under my skin whenever I hear people throw around the word "discrimination" when they’re actually talking about racism. It’s a bit of a linguistic mess, isn't it? If you really look at what the word means—the actual capacity to tell things apart and make distinctions—then the racist is actually failing at the very thing they claim to be doing. By taking an entire group of people and lazily grouping them all together under one label, they aren't being discerning at all. They're just being blunt. As Christopher Hitchens once pointed out, the ability to truly discriminate is actually a vital skill; by assuming every single person in one "race" is identical, the racist is basically proving they lack the mental faculty to actually discriminate.

Quincy:

Discrimination—it’s one of those heavy, loaded words that usually gets tossed around in heated debates, but if we really pull back the curtain and look at what it actually means, it’s a bit more nuanced than just the headlines suggest. At its core, to discriminate is simply to make a distinction. In a technical sense, you can discriminate between different shades of blue or tell the difference between a genuine Rolex and a knockoff from a street vendor in New York. That kind of discernment? It’s actually a vital part of how we navigate the world. We have to make choices based on quality, reliability, or even just personal preference. But then, of course, there’s the darker side of the coin—the kind of discrimination that targets people based on who they are rather than what they do. That’s where the conversation shifts from simple "distinction" to something much more systemic and harmful. When we talk about unfair treatment or prejudice in the workplace or in our communities, we aren't talking about choosing a better cup of coffee; we're talking about fundamental inequalities that strip people of their dignity. It’s a tricky balance to strike, isn't it? On one hand, we need the ability to judge things—to be discerning and make informed decisions—but on the other, we have this massive responsibility to ensure that those judgments don't turn into tools for exclusion or oppression. It’s like the difference between a chef carefully selecting the best ingredients for a meal versus someone deciding who is "allowed" to sit at the table based on nothing but bias. One is about excellence, while the other is just plain wrong. Finding that line is probably one of the most important challenges we face as a society. So, I was digging through some etymology notes earlier—you know how I get when I stumble down one of those rabbit holes—and I came across the history of the word "discriminate." It’s actually pretty fascinating how much baggage a single word can carry over the centuries. If you trace it all the way back to the 1620s, it stems from that Latin root *discriminatus*, which basically just means "to divide" or "to separate." Think of it like sorting laundry or picking out the good apples from the bruised ones; it’s all about finding that distinction or interval between things. Back in the 17th century, people even used it as an adjective just to mean something was "distinct." It was a neutral, almost mathematical way of describing a difference. But then, things take a turn. The negative side of the word—specifically the way we use it to describe racial prejudice—doesn't show up in the records until around 1866. It’s wild to think how a term that started as a simple way to describe making distinctions evolved into something so heavy and loaded in the American lexicon. Even today, while we still use "discriminating" in a positive light—like having a "discriminating palate" when you're picking out a fine bourbon or a good steak—that darker, more systemic meaning is always right there under the surface. It just goes to show how much our language shifts based on the weight of our history.

Quincy:

It’s funny how we talk about "discerning" things like it’s some sort of high-level skill—something reserved for art critics at the MoMA or sommeliers sniffing expensive Napa Valley reds—but honestly, I think it’s just a fancy way of saying you’ve finally learned how to pay attention. Most people spend their lives skimming the surface, you know? They see the headline, they hear the gist, and they move on without ever really digging into the "why" behind the "what." It’s like driving through a massive sprawl like Chicago; if you’re just looking at the GPS, you aren't actually *seeing* the city. You’re missing the textures, the small details, the subtle shifts in the atmosphere that tell you what a place is actually about. To me, discernment isn't about being judgmental or acting like you're better than everyone else—I hate that kind of elitism. It’s more about developing a bit of a mental filter. In a world where we are constantly being bombarded by noise—social media feeds, endless news cycles, even those loud-mouthed neighbors—having the ability to sift through the junk and find the actual substance is a superpower. It’s about being able to look at a situation, or a person, or even a piece of information, and say, "Okay, there’s the signal, and there’s all this other static." Think about it like cooking. Anyone can throw salt and pepper into a pan, but it takes a certain level of intuition—a real sense of discernment—to understand how a pinch of cumin is going to change the entire profile of a dish. You have to understand the components before you can judge the whole. I guess what I’m getting at is that being able to discern is really just a byproduct of being intentional. If you’re moving through life on autopilot, you aren't discerning anything; you're just reacting. But if you take that extra second to pause, to weigh things, and to ask if what you're seeing is actually true or just well-packaged... well, that’s when things start to get interesting. It’s a slow process, definitely not something you pick up overnight, but it makes the world feel a lot less chaotic once you get the hang of it. If you look back at where the word "discern" actually comes from, it’s got this really interesting history that feels much more active than how we use it today. It shows up in late 14th-century English, pulling from Old French roots like *discerner*, which basically meant to distinguish things or pull them apart—sort of like sifting through something to find what matters. If you dig even deeper, you hit the Latin *discernere*. It’s built from two parts: *dis-* (meaning off or away) and *cernere* (which means to sift, separate, or distinguish). It’s a lot like how we talk about a "crisis"—it’s all about that process of separating the wheat from the chaff, or making that sharp distinction between one thing and another. So, when we talk about being "discerning" nowadays, we're really just tapping into that ancient idea of sifting through the noise to see what's actually there.

So, here’s the thing—and it’s the same old story every single time—most people seem to be operating on a pretty low frequency. They have this weird, knee-jerk reaction where they assume that the ability to discriminate is inherently some kind of moral failing. But honestly? If we didn't have that fundamental capacity to filter through information and make distinctions, most of us wouldn't even make it past the first week of life. It’s basic survival, really. ☕

Got a tough one for me? Lay it on me—I'm ready. 😍 !?

lonegardener said: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. 😵

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.)

I honestly think we’ve squeezed every last drop of constructive conversation out of this thread, so I feel like it's probably high time for me to bow out of this long-distance typing marathon.☕

👋

lonegardener said: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.

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.

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.

😕 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. 🤣

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. 😍

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. ☕

lonegardener said: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." 😬

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.

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. 🤣

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. 😍

lonegardener said: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." 😬

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.

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. 🤣

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.🤣

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. ☕

Noam Chomsky

lonegardener said: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.

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.
👋

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? 🤷

lonegardener said: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. 🤷

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. 🤷

lonegardener said: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."

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.😬

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 🙂

ironmarlin1 said:To build on that point about doing "harm to the natural sciences"—if you look closely, his entire lecture seems to be an attempt to shift away from that old-school, mechanistic view of how things are intelligible in the first place. It’s clearly his way of trying to prevent any actual "damage" to the scientific field. But, if I may, it feels like he's presenting a false dichotomy here. He acts as though those are our only two paths, but they aren't the only alternatives available to us. We don't have to be stuck choosing between res cogitans and res extensa, if we're going by the logic of Descartes; instead, we could take what we now understand about res extensa and use it to demonstrate that these two realms aren't nearly as distinct as they appear.

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.☕

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.

So, are you suggesting we just stop studying the mind altogether, or do you actually have a specific alternative in mind?

It’s almost as if he were treating the concept of "secretion" as a literal biological process—you know, like how a gland functions in the body to release certain substances. But there’s a massive catch there, isn't there? The whole idea falls apart because, in reality, we can actually observe those physical secretions objectively. It's a bit of a logical leap that just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

I think you might have gotten a little lost in the metaphor there—and honestly, it feels like you weren't really listening to what was being said. To set the record straight: Chomsky was actually citing Locke and Darwin, and it's from Darwin that that whole "secretion" metaphor actually comes from. 🤷

Beyond just that, we now understand that the "um" actually fires impulses through neural connections that jump right over the synapses—and honestly, you can observe those signals just as "objectively" as you could watch a gland secreting hormones. 🤷

On the other hand—and this is where things get interesting—meanings and thoughts aren't some universal constant. They don't just sit there waiting to be discovered; they actually play out quite differently depending on who you're talking to. It’s all about the role they play in a person's life, which varies wildly from one individual to the next.

If things didn't work that way, none of us would be able to make heads or tails of what anyone else is saying. Honestly, the way we're all talking to each other right now is a perfect little demonstration of how much of our communication relies on the fact that we experience most meanings in the exact same way—it’s really that shared understanding that allows us to actually make sense of one another.

I mean, I haven't exactly run into anyone who would go out of their way to argue that something tastes bitter when it's sweet, or insist that blue is actually red. As long as research sticks to these kinds of everyday, non-controversial concepts—you know, the stuff we all agree on—I honestly don't see any reason why they couldn't be used in objective studies. It’s pretty straightforward: when you're talking about things like "right," "blue," "warm," "cold," the number 15, "yesterday," a skyscraper, or even the moon, there really isn't any debate or any meaningfully different way to interpret those terms. They just mean what they mean. 🤷

lonegardener said: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.

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.

lonegardener said: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. 😬

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).

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 😁

boldtinker1 said:Ever heard of that experiment where they split "normal people" into two groups—some playing prisoners and others acting as guards? After a while, the guards turned brutal and they had to shut the whole thing down. It just goes to show: circumstances dictate how you act. Is there anyone out there who’d actually swim against the current? Probably. One in a million.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about that famous study—you know, the one often referred to as the Milgram Experiment regarding how people react to authority. It’s one of those psychological studies that just sticks in the back of your mind, isn't it? It really makes you pause and wonder about the thin line between being a decent person and letting a role or a uniform take over your entire identity. It’s a heavy topic, honestly. When you look at how quickly those participants shifted from being regular folks to playing out these extreme, almost theatrical roles of guards and prisoners, it feels less like a controlled experiment and more like a warning sign about human nature. It reminds me of those old social commentaries where you see how easily a group can be swayed by a little bit of power or a sense of duty, even when that duty starts feeling fundamentally wrong. I remember reading a thread once where Gregory Thomas14 brought up a similar point about how modern corporate structures can sometimes mirror that kind of intense, role-based behavior—where people stop acting like individuals and start acting like cogs in a machine. And I think Gary Carter made a great point too, about how we don't see this happening as much today because we've become so used to seeing "performative" behavior in our everyday lives. But still, there's something deeply unsettling about the idea that the setting itself—the environment we put ourselves in—can dictate our morality. It’s like if you put someone in a high-pressure environment, say, a fast-paced trading floor in New York City or a high-stakes legal firm in Chicago, the pressure to conform to the "professional" persona can sometimes override their actual compass. It’s a sobering thought, really—that who we are might just be a byproduct of where we happen to be standing at any given moment.

Melissa Barnes4 said:I honestly don't get why people do this. Why is there such a desperate need to drag others down, gossip about their private business, or dissect everything they do? It’s like they find some weird sense of fulfillment in it, acting as if sticking their noses into everyone else's affairs somehow makes them superior or more important than they actually are. It's exhausting to watch.

In my experience, these kinds of people are just fundamentally unhappy. I truly believe that someone who is actually content with their own life wouldn't spend their energy trying to maliciously tear someone else down. If you're genuinely happy, you don't feel the need to meddle in things that have nothing to do with you.
Now, I’m not talking about those trivial comments about what someone chose to wear or other superficial nonsense.

What’s your take on all this?

p.s. I tried searching for a thread on this already, but came up empty.

It’s actually pretty straightforward—really, if you take a second to look at it, it’s quite simple.

It’s funny how people work—they spend all their energy obsessing over everyone else's business just so they don't have to deal with the mess in their own lives. It’s like someone spending hours scrolling through a neighbor's Facebook feed or watching a reality show on Netflix instead of actually fixing the leaky faucet in their own kitchen. If they stayed focused on their own stuff for even half the time they spend judging others, they might actually get somewhere. But hey, that’s just how some people roll.Honestly, if I’m left alone with my own thoughts for even a second, my brain immediately starts spiraling into deep introspection—and not always in a productive way. It’s like my mind just takes off on its own. The only real way I’ve found to stop that mental wandering is to stay busy with little daily distractions, whether that's binge-watching a series on Netflix, scrolling through forums, or—let's be real—just mindlessly staring out the window at the neighbors. It’s such a universal human tendency, actually; it’s probably why the entire reality TV industry exists, built entirely on those "Big Brother" style concepts that capitalize on our obsession with watching other people's lives instead of dealing with our own.

The real question worth digging into is this: why are people so terrified to actually take a good, hard look at their own lives? Honestly, if you look at how most people approach psychology, there’s this much easier, lazier route that people always seem to take—it’s just safer to focus on the symptoms. It’s way more comfortable to point fingers at someone's outward behavior and judge them for what they're doing rather than actually rolling up your sleeves to dig into the "why" behind it. It’s like trying to fix a leaky faucet by just mopping up the water on the floor every ten minutes instead of actually turning off the main valve—sure, you're dealing with the mess right in front of you, but you aren't actually solving the problem, and frankly, it's much easier to complain about the puddle than to get your hands dirty under the sink.

redstag said:

I don't know what to tell you, man. I’ve been watching this play out for a minute now, and honestly? It’s like watching a slow-motion car crash on the I-95. You see it coming, you know it's gonna be messy, but you just can't look away because the sheer stupidity of the situation is almost impressive. It’s one of those things where you realize some people just aren't playing the same game as everyone else. They're out here playing checkers while the rest of us are deep into high-stakes chess, or maybe even something more complex than that. And let's be real—it's exhausting trying to make sense of it all when the logic is basically non-existent. It's like trying to follow a GPS that keeps rerouting you into a lake. Just total nonsense. kaže:
Look, I’m asking you a dead simple question here—do you actually have anything on your side that performs better than science? Seriously.

Look, you’re dead wrong... this isn't some debate about science or medical breakthroughs. It’s about how the whole damn system is rigged from the top down. The way our society is set up dictates exactly what healthcare looks like, why it exists, and how they treat you. The people running the show? They don't give a single damn about preventative care for you. Why would they? Keeping you healthy and proactive doesn't line their pockets. Their entire business model relies on having a doctor slap a handful of pills in your hand just to keep you functional enough to clock in every day. Then, once you hit retirement age and stop being a walking paycheck, you become nothing but a massive liability on their balance sheet. In their eyes, it’s actually more profitable if you just kick the bucket as soon as possible. This has zero to do with "science"—it's pure, cold-blooded math.

Look, being "cultured" doesn't mean you actually know anything. It’s a total scam. People act all high and mighty about their refined tastes while they're busy being short-sighted, selfish pricks who strip-mine every natural resource in sight just to line their pockets today—completely ignoring the fact that they're basically stealing the future right out from under our kids. It's pure greed, plain and simple. 🤷

Look, let me put this bluntly—you’re basically trying to blame science for your own massive screw-ups. It's like someone crashing their car into a hydrant and then pointing at the laws of physics like they're the ones who drove the wrong way. You messed up, plain and simple. Stop using "science" as a convenient scapegoat for your own lack of foresight. ☕

Short and sweet. "Laws of nature are simple," people say. Yeah, sure. That’s exactly what you hear from anyone who isn't actually deep in the trenches of real science. It's easy to talk big when you don't have to deal with the actual math.

Look, if you want to build a functioning society, you have to accept one fundamental truth: science isn't just some hobby for nerds in lab coats—it’s the process of uncovering the actual, hard laws of nature. It's objective. Period. It doesn't care about your feelings or your political agenda. If you don't have that specific mental framework—if you can't wrap your head around the fact that reality operates on facts rather than vibes—then you're fundamentally incapable of designing a decent way for people to live together. You'll just end up building a chaotic mess because you're trying to run a country based on wishful thinking instead of how things actually work.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: there is zero inherent rationality or logic baked into science itself. People love to throw around the word "objective" like it's some holy grail, implying that science exists independently of our own flawed, limited perception. But that’s a total myth. In its narrowest sense, science is built on the fundamental assumption that we can somehow "handle" or categorize nature—and that's a massive, built-in bias. Just because people claim this concept doesn't exist doesn't mean it isn't right there under the surface. Honestly, if you want the ultimate proof that science isn't truly objective? Just look at the sheer number of people who argue against it. If science were actually objective, it wouldn't have any real opposition in its current state. It would just *be*. The fact that there’s even a debate proves the system is flawed. Is it still useful? Sure. Does it work for us? Absolutely. But don't mistake utility for pure, unadulterated truth.

Look, I'm not saying you don't know your stuff... I'm just saying I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about here! ☕

I’ve always been such a huge fan of Tyra Banks—honestly, there's just something about her presence that hits differently. It's one of those things where you can't really explain it to someone who doesn't get it, you know? Like, she just has this effortless way of commanding a room without even trying too hard. I find myself going back to her old shoots all the time—it’s almost like a comfort thing at this point. Just a total icon through and through. kaže:
Honestly, that question right there hits on exactly what I find so frustrating. You’re asking what needs to be replaced, as if science was some sort of missing puzzle piece just waiting around for its turn to slot into place. It’s like you're assuming science is just another role in a job description—something that fits neatly into a pre-existing slot—rather than being the very foundation we build everything else upon.

I’m asking you a very simple question here—do you actually have anything that performs better than science?

Science shouldn't be used as an excuse to swap out different roles—especially when people try to hide that intention under the guise of being "objective." It’s a bit of a slippery slope, really. For instance, look at Western medicine—and I'm certainly not claiming to practice anything "Eastern"—but there's a tendency to push one framework as the only valid one, essentially sidelining other perspectives in the name of pure data. 😁I mean, honestly—has anyone around here actually looked into preventative care? Specifically, when it comes to how our mental state or our overall "soul" condition can actually trigger or accelerate physical illness? It’s one of those things that feels like common sense once you think about it, but it seems like it gets totally overlooked in mainstream discussions. You can't just treat the body like a machine and ignore the driver behind the wheel.

That’s just not true... Honestly, this isn't even about what we know scientifically—it’s about how our social and political systems are set up, which ultimately dictates the scope, goals, and methods of our entire healthcare industry. Think about it this way: the people you're actually working for? They have zero skin in the game when it comes to your long-term preventative health. Their bottom line depends on keeping you functional enough to stay on the clock, where they can just have some doctor "patch you up" with a handful of pills to keep you moving. But once you hit retirement age, you suddenly become nothing but a massive liability on their books—so, in a cold, calculated sense, it actually serves their interests if you burn out or drop off the map as soon as possible. It’s not a failure of science; it's a feature of the system.

It feels like our science and our culture have become this incredibly invasive force—it’s something you can see everywhere if you really look for it. We tend to approach nature as if its resources are just an infinite well we can tap into without consequence. Even when it comes to medicine, we often treat the human body like a battlefield, opting to bombard it with chemicals or inject things into it rather than working with how it actually functions. It’s the same with education, too—we don't just teach; we indoctrinate. It’s all very aggressive, isn't it?

Well, I hope that little caricature of an answer actually hits the mark for what you were asking!

It’s funny how people assume that having a high level of education or "culture" automatically means you have any sense of foresight—but honestly, they're often one and the same. It’s just like seeing how some folks operate today: it’s all about that short-sighted, selfish scramble to strip-mine every natural resource we have left, basically grabbing whatever they can right now without giving a single thought to what kind of world we're leaving behind for our kids. It's pure greed over legacy, and it really shows a lack of true understanding. 🤷

To caricature it a bit—you’re basically blaming science for your own screw-ups. ☕

redstag said:Regardless of the usual gripes against the natural sciences, mainly because they focus on "discovering natural laws,"
the real issue is that "science," in this narrow-minded sense, gets put on a pedestal as if it's somehow superior to every other discipline, whether qualitative or quantitative. But honestly, the biggest critique—and here's the kicker—is that people forget science isn't designed to answer every single question out there. I mean, the whole idea that failing to explain something means you don't know it is flawed; it just means it's outside your field of study. If science is defined as the systematic attempt to gather knowledge, then anything you don't know is simply your own failure, no matter what methodology you're using. That's why we can't really distinguish between different types of science, and even splitting things into "natural" and "social" sciences leads to disastrous consequences for humanity. Because people view natural sciences as "objective," they often feel there's no need for any other kind of insight. Even when scientists push research to a high level of probability, that's just a tiny step toward implementing those theories into the actual world we live in. And that's where "non-scientific" elements start bleeding in, and people fail to realize they're dealing with real-world stuff and wielding powers they weren't formally trained to handle. Talking about "pure cognition" on its own is just pointless.
Hope you guys get what I'm saying.

You didn't actually give me an answer to that very straightforward question... so let me try this again:

Honestly, looking back at everything we've discussed—and I mean really sitting with the question—I can't help but wonder what exactly you find more valuable than science? It’s such a heavy thought. If you had to pick just one thing, what would you actually put in that "spot" that you feel science doesn't rightfully occupy?

What exactly is science "erasing" that it shouldn't be? I'm curious—what specifically got you so worked up about this?

So, what’s the deal—are we really saying there isn't anyone qualified to step up for this position?

Until you actually give us an answer to that question, your whole critique is pretty much baseless—it’s hard to see any real purpose behind it if we don't have the full picture first.