The machine, the ghost, and the limits of understanding: A Chomskyan thematic study

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.
👋

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: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.

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. ☕

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. 🤣

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.🤣

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.🙂

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. 😍

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. 😍

You’re falling into the exact same trap Noam Chomsky did when he responded to that one student.

From that particular vantage point, even he—Apemant—is merely acting out his inherent nature, unable to do anything else. The concept of 'absurdity' doesn't actually alter the reality of the situation as it stands.

It is somewhat 'pathetic' that Noam Chomsky seems oblivious to the implications of his own words, whereas 'some random anonymous student' certainly isn't. But then again, those are just their respective limitations... he is simply incapable of grasping (or perhaps accepting) them, while she is incapable of pretending she doesn't see the implications (which, frankly, doesn't make her happy either)... his specific constraints regarding this matter are just slightly more 'stuffy' than hers...

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. 😍

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. 😍

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.

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 find that comparison to be quite poor... for if one accepts those premises as true, people aren't actually making decisions at all, but are merely laboring under the ILLUSION of agency.

Naturally, for any human being, it is profoundly difficult to truly "come to terms" with such a realization, even if it happens to be the absolute truth.

feralranger said:I find that comparison to be quite poor... for if one accepts those premises as true, people aren't actually making decisions at all, but are merely laboring under the ILLUSION of agency.

Naturally, for any human being, it is profoundly difficult to truly "come to terms" with such a realization, even if it happens to be the absolute truth.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."

It's a dead end.
And it's rigged, because any counterargument can just be dismissed as being part of your programming.
You could turn this into a whole cult movement.
Apemant is out in the wilderness, holding the flag for world software.
Spinning in circles like this makes me want to shut the system down.
I guess I'm just programmed that way.
if 'shutting down the system' return to 'it's a dead end'.

lonegardener said: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.😬

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 😬).

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.

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

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:It's a dead end.
And it's rigged, because any counterargument can just be dismissed as being part of your programming.
You could turn this into a whole cult movement.
Apemant is out in the wilderness, holding the flag for world software.
Spinning in circles like this makes me want to shut the system down.
I guess I'm just programmed that way.
if 'shutting down the system' return to 'it's a dead end'.

Well, if one maintains a strictly scientific and materialistic perspective, life—regardless of how you attempt to spin it—is quite clearly a "dead end."

it’s just being cynical, because any counterargument can easily be dismissed by claiming you were simply programmed that way.

I wouldn't call it "cynical"; rather, if that premise holds true, then things are simply as they are, and there is no other possible state for them to exist in.

one could even turn this into a sort of cult.
An Ape Man on the floor, waving the flag of the world software.
The sheer futility of spinning in circles like this makes me want to trigger a system shutdown.
I suppose I must be programmed this way.
if 'system shutdown' return to 'it's a dead end'.

😍

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

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

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.