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

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

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

Meh.

😍

If we were all to simply inhale the "authentic" life of Noam Chomsky, I suppose we could all sit back and happily witness such a miracle—an unprecedented one, naturally.

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

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

Meh.

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

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

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

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

Personally, I would argue that the reality is quite the opposite—that the opportunists are actually the ones feeding off those who remain "inert." At least when we are discussing the politically active dregs of society, I feel reasonably certain of that conclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

feralranger said:😍

If we were all to simply inhale the "authentic" life of Noam Chomsky, I suppose we could all sit back and happily witness such a miracle—an unprecedented one, naturally.

And what about you? You going to hold the candle?

coastalwalker said:And what about you? You going to hold the candle?

In a world where we are all just endlessly pushing boulders uphill, any sort of miracle is a welcome distraction. And an unprecedented one, at that. 😍

feralranger said:In a world where we are all just endlessly pushing boulders uphill, any sort of miracle is a welcome distraction. And an unprecedented one, at that. 😍

So when does the miracle happen where you finally stop rolling?

I find myself once again contemplating the sheer, overwhelming scale of our modern existence—specifically, that dizzying sense of being buried under an endless mountain of trivialities. It feels as though we are perpetually drowning in a sea of one thousand tiny, insignificant distractions, each one more draining than the last, leaving us to wonder if we will ever truly break free from this cycle of mindless clutter. As I have previously observed, there exists a certain inescapable truth to the matter at hand.

Honestly, if every single individual on this planet actually committed to mastering their own specific niche—to truly pursue that one thing they are undeniably best at—I have this nagging, somewhat unsettling suspicion that the entire world would simply spontaneously combust. 🤔 Do you truly possess nothing at all?

It seems to me that the world—this relentless environment we inhabit—frequently demands nothing less than the absolute worst from an individual. It relentlessly pressures us to shed our integrity in favor of becoming socially palatable and market-friendly, even if it means becoming utterly loathsome to our own souls.

I find myself once again contemplating the sheer, overwhelming absurdity of our modern existence—specifically, the way we attempt to quantify things that defy any semblance of logic. It’s much like looking at a massive, disorganized pile of junk and trying to count every single stray bolt or rusted washer. One might say I am staring down a mountain of a thousand little trivialities, all of them equally insignificant yet somehow collectively exhausting. It is a task as futile as counting grains of sand in the Mojave, really, though perhaps slightly more tedious. As the saying goes:
And when exactly might we witness the miracle of you finally rolling uphill?

To roll along or to roll away—is there even a meaningful distinction to be made? In any case, one remains trapped within the same rigid framework of circumstance.

"Quote:"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Quote:"

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

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

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

Edward Flores4 said:It is truly charming when someone convinces themselves they are some sort of infallible arbiter, capable of deciding what qualifies as 'pathetic' and what doesn't... or perhaps more importantly, deciding who is actually aware of their own situation.☕

Sound familiar? 🤣

Well, I did put 'pathetic' in quotation marks, didn't I?

I could have just as easily written that the situation was—how shall we say—deplorable.

In any event, the esteemed Mr. Chomsky clearly failed to grasp the essence of what that student was asking her, whether it was pathetic, deplorable, tragic, or whatever other descriptor one might choose to employ...

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. ☕

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lonegardener said:"Quote:"

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

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

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

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

"Quote:"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.☕

👋

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

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

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

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

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

Give me a break.😍 I said you’re out here waving the World Program flag, and then you suddenly decide to play the nihilist political party card.

coastalwalker said:Give me a break.😍 I said you’re out here waving the World Program flag, and then you suddenly decide to play the nihilist political party card.

You mentioned some kind of "following," and surely the person flying the Bill Gates banner would be a key part of that group... actually, never mind. LOL.

So how does exactly stuff like this even happen? I mean, is it some kind of hardwired genetic programming, just weird internet memes, or maybe free will... I guess I'm just genuinely curious from a theoretical standpoint.

Apparently, she walked into a restaurant in downtown Washington, D.C., around 9:40 PM last Friday, March 16th, and when she saw the husband of Denis Popović sitting at the next table with his new friend Ivo Majoli, she just launched into a verbal assault. Omazić reportedly started with a barrage of insults, then spat right at her from about two feet away, and finally, when the woman tried to defend herself, she ended up landing a slap. And all of this went down right in front of a stunned crowd of diners. It was actually the other patrons who stepped in to stop things from turning into a full-blown brawl. After about fifteen minutes, the police had to show up to handle the situation.

Apemant, I have a feeling that whole "programming" theory doesn't really hold much water when you're dealing with women... 😍