You're describing a problem that I have with a lot of social activists and liberal arts / humanities academicians: a desire to change the world or to develop a theory of humanity without actually observing humans, or understanding them at a biological level (gaining an understanding of human nature). Applying rationality/concepts without first gaining empirical observation is blind.
eh. you're just mad that they haven't derived the same ideas of rationality from "biology" which in the first place provides us very few hints towards consciousness at the deeper level
In the dim light a curled up rope is mistaken for a snake due to inherent “negativity bias” and causes fright and anxiety - but when the light is turned on, calm and peace returns due to the accurate perception of it being a mere rope. So this maxim is used to illustrate how our angst and suffering is due to our misperception of reality.
This fetishisation of inductive reasoning doesn't apply to most people. Also, behaviour without a goal is nonrational, not irrational. If there's no goal, how can you measure its usefulness? It just is.
In this video: Luke argues for the proper acknowledgement of (evolutionary) Chesterton fences. I applaud this. Critique: The fence is a norm. It serves a purpose. To rip out the fence while ignorant of its purpose is to invite chaos. But we continue to believe better things can exist. Despite how rarely it is done, it is possible to intentionally move the fence, based on careful consideration, and actually achieve a better stable equilibrium. To believe the human ability to understand systems, whether you call it rationality or any other name, is somehow fundamentally not of use in the project to intentionally advance the human condition, seems to me defeatist. But I _think_ you are only criticizing those who try to "rationalize away" a fence, and not those who are actually grappling with the full breadth of the problem of moving it.
@@saeedbaig4249 Behind both of them are widespread wrong, but somewhat internally consistent models of how the world works, that people are prone to emotionally attach themselves to. That emotional attachment then needs defense against outside criticism, and a common way to do it is to call the model "progressive", "rational" and "scientific" despite its flaws and despite the fact that its adherents don't actually treat it in an analytical, objective manner.
@@p_serdiuk folks who insist they're on the "right side of history" are usually just ripping fenceposts out of the ground that they have no comprehension of
You're truly one of the beautiful creatures of this world...beautifully uncensored, on the correct direction of reasoning, and truthful AF... You know someone's past the "good or bad" scale when they use memes for thumbnails...
The comment I was replying to was deleted about social/religious practices like genital mutilation, stoning, women's suffrage, blocking women's education..... I wanted to briefly ask: "@Luke Smith, I too would like to know. Are examples like these just what you would call "rare" examples of where irrationality IS actually bad. Or are we to believe that the many abhorrent religious/social/gender practices developed over millennia are probably beneficial to humanity and we should not try to understand why we do what we do?"
TheAnimateor I agree that all of those things are *bad*, but are they really *irrational*? Why is stoning less “rational” than prison? The point is that there isn’t necessarily anything inherently bad about irrationality. Not all bad things are irrational, and not all good things are rational.
I think this is a good point we shouldn't just skip over. I think the point that is made here, is that we shouldn't just rationalize away all aspects of religion, but that we also shouldn't just keep all aspects of religion as they were. It is more a process of trial and error how this this will change in society. It is not just a process of a small group of clever man and woman comming up with a rationalized society. Society will slowly change and often technology is the most important reason here, allthough I don't want to go into depth here why I think that technology is the most important aspect. The aspects of religion you mention are doubtfully beneficial to society, but might have been to a society of thousands of years ago. Even for the latter, hard to image, but since it emerged there must have been some unknown forces in play here. For society today, I think this will go away eventually, and maybe all aspects of religion will in the end disappear completely from society. However, this can't go away just one day to another by the process of rationization, since then we cannot forsee all consequences of such a radical change in society.
My first distro was Manjaro, then I had to use something stronger, so Gnome came, then Arch and now Artix. Don't do Linux kids it ruins your life and Manjaro is a gateway distro to the down spiral of your life.
To be fair, the craziness of quantum mechanics is due to the theory. The physical phenomena are puzzling but not crazy. I anticipate that a better understanding of physical reality is possible where the quantum weirdness will be explained in a more reasonable way, but it might be a long time before such a theory could emerge. My field of study is nuclear physics, and at the moment the theory of the strong force (the one that holds together subatomic particles), QCD, isn't known outside of a limited domain called the perturbative regime, which is a fancy way of saying that the theory has two domains: One where you can understand physics by changing or "perturbing" a system by a small amount, and one where the behavior is not understandable by that procedure. People are aware that gravity hasn't been quantized yet, and I bring up the strong force to point out that the strong force hasn't been tested in the same way that electromagnetism and the weak force have been. It's entirely possible that new mathematics will open up non-perturbative QCD and potentially reveal holes in quantum theory. As quantum mechanics is a theory limited to statistical observables, any event-level theory that accurately describes something quantum mechanics fails to anticipate will win the scientific theory precedence race.
6:41 No no no! The human brain uses quite rational heuristics. You just forgot that it computes not only an approximate probability but also an associated risk. The error compounds easily and the "risk aversion" is dependent on each individual. Also it depends on what the individual knows, which is quite limited.
Louder for the people in the back ! Luke you fucking bald-headed wizard, I love you. Probably need a bit more solid philosophical grounding in this one, but the point is very much an important and unspoken one. There is a lenses of "Rationality" people use these days, and its ironically a sort of intellectual crutch one uses when trying to discount opposing ideologies. Of course another folly being that people consistently fail to recognise their own ideological motives, drives and biases as even those. We covet an idealised objectivity and boldly lead discourse with philosophical blind spots, all the while championing "Rationality" . It is truly an issue that is not addressed enough in my opinion.
Most of the "rational" thinkers I've met are really just that. They will have to change their views/morals on certain topics based on the rational thought they hold dear. It can be scary, since people can rationalize themselves into all sorts of terrible things. ex: We generally know that a person is typically ready mentally and physically to start reproducing sometime in the 20s. Some people will rationalize that since our bodies are generally ready for that sometime around 13 years old that it's okay for anyone to have sex with someone in that age group. "It's nature". People hate taking a hit to their pride, so they will claim the outcome of that rational thought. That's why I really try to not make absolute statements unless I've thought long and hard about it, and even then I still learn a lot through conversation and debate all the time!
damn it used to be the primary concern of mine, i hope i'm not like what you seem to have known i always try to question my reasonning against myself, not using fallacies as a weapon but as a self-check tool, remembering i don't know everything, it never felt good but it felt right i know it's been 2 years but are the people you're talking about the kind of people always using fallacies as a weapon? this is what i find the closest to your description from my experience
9:16 this can also be said for things like a peacocks tail, at first it might seem irrational for it to be there since it is heavy, makes it harder to move and also makes the animal more evident to predators, but there is a reason it is there
Even more it might seem unequal since the female peacock doesn't have such a tail, and it seems to be doing fine, so we might aswell get rid of the tail all together🥴
On another topic, I am amazed that this microphone in Luke his phone, or whatever he uses, captures the sound of those stones so well on which he walks. It sounds almost the same as in real life (good headphones here).
5:35 I'm not sure if I understood correctly, but it's more then simply one brain. If people collaborate very well in a team they create a virtual super brain. Well, at least that is one of the gists of Laws of Success. But your point is still valid, since even this virtual super brain is still not sufficient to plan a society.
Reason has to have targets, and for humans this needs motivation, and values. Values are what drive morality, and emotion, motivation. A philosopher (probably Burke) said that if one sits on a pin, it is not one's rational thought that motivates one to stand up - it is the pain.
5:00 Man, you took 10 minutes to say: "Thinking rationally only works so far as you have some knowledge to base your logic upon. Since our knowledge and understanding of the universe are flawed, we should be very careful about any conclusions we make. The only thing we have is experience, be it through our ancestors' wisdom or by experimenting with things ourselves. "
Oh god why am I replying to a youtube video: Rationality doesn't describe the example conundrums you laid out. For gender roles, one can rationally conclude that societal animals tend towards masculine/feminine constructs as a means of survival. One can also rationalize that we need not formally define gender roles as nature has already done so. Strong independent women and weak dependent men both exist and can not or will not fill the masculine or feminine roles of their assigned gender. To force it either way is irrational. Same goes for religion. Rationalism sees that religion can be made up. Rationalism can also see that religion has a profound effect on society and can easily be attributed to both glorious revolutions and hideous regressions in every aspect of human existence. It really depends on scale.
A rational agent is an agent that acts to achieve the best expected outcome. There isn't anything more to rationality. Despite being somewhat foreign to concrete mind, quantum mechanics allows for predictive deductive reasoning. With formal methods (and computers), the human mind is capable of modelling so many things, including societies. There will be always simplification to allow for tractability, but when done carefully, approximations in physics serve no less than complete analytical solutions. So is it everywhere. Also, emergent structures of natural systems don't have purpose. Purpose presupposes a designer. They have reasons for existence, a particular history of their appearance and sustenance. For certain cases, it does start looking like purpose, say, for an important protein in a cell. It would be still false to say that every protein in a cell has definitely any function. This situation is even worse for culture: some memes are harmful (but not too much), many are useless to their bearers. On the other hand, they have ability to give meaning, which sets apart their definition of usefulness from mine. Who am I to judge, or even care? On the hand, there is that not entirely correct, normative notion of rationality. It is a certain way by which a current culture endorses definitions of success and choices of methods that can be used to achieve it. That is simpler: I will endorse such norm of rationality that facilitates achievement of my goals through "rational" behavior of others.
That's pretty much the point of half of JBPs lectures, the definition of truth, the importance of hierarchies, biblical lectures, archetypes etc. It's EXACTLY what dude means, the "rationality" as it's usually understood is nothing against the combined force of million of years of evolution and before deconstructing something traditional it's worth having a little bit of humility and reflection. I know "based and redpilled" are often dislike JBP, but his main philosophy is just what you've tried to express.
Some people call themselves rational but are conspiracy theorists, religious, extremists in politics etc. The terms "rational" "skeptic" are used bu groups to just call themselves right and others wrong, this is a horrible disservice for the skeptic community tbh.
@@Sebi20070 yeah yeah, if I had Spiderman in my name, it would 100% mean that i genuinely believed i was Spiderman, no chance it was a joke nor a reference.
@Evan Myshkin It's really hard and it's different for every situation. But if you hold the burden of proof, make sure to provide evidence and to also periodically check advancements in the research. I think foundation beliefs you are talking about are axions, in which I have 2. 1 the universe exists and 2 we can learn stuff about the universe. I'm talking more about science than philosophy, I'm not good with philosophy. I'm talking about everyday skepticism that can help you not fall for charlatans and scams.
Judging requires to zoom out: Thus ratio before logic, when judging. This is popularized under common sense. But there is a Catch22... There is not a single significant digisoof; only analogue philosophers without technical experience. A new generation of philosophers will stand up. Like Luke, since he's pretty good in what he does.
In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of some thing or action, with the aim of determining what actions are best to do or what way is best to live, or to describe the significance of different actions.
Hey Luke, have you ever considered that being an individual is not the primary mode of consciousness for Sapiens? Some evolutionary biologist have said this argument already (Bret Weinstein is one that I remember). Where is your idea of human individuality from? What if all this "being able to live as an individual" is not relevant to being a human at all, maybe it's just a small deterioration? After all, humans didn't evolve to live alone, our strength lies in collective thinking, power of the masses and large-scale co-operation.
They say rationality is this fundamental principles and methods of thinking. And its way more then just the inputs we get from the world through our senses And for me with an Islamic theism background i came across this misconception of eather relaying completely on the rationality to approach everything or completely not worrying about anything and taking a nihilistic path in thinking ..well this is hug topic and i just remembered something i heard in a theological lecture about those 3 stages of consciousness... the senses. The rationality "logic" and the 3rd stage is what i can translate to English as "meta rationality " or "beyond logic" or "beyond the mind" It is well known that the rang of possiblity in the rational field is wider than the senses field..in fact aba hamid alghazali "Muslim theologist and philosopher" said that the 3rd stage is as wide as the rationality stage to the senses stage .
I mean, I can "rationally" analyze a religion. Maybe it's just semantics, but of course I can see that people who take part in religious rites feel better because of it and so on...But I think that some religions advocate for nonsense and for some reason, people take some religions more literally than others and some religions tell you to go around preaching and trying to convert others, because that's what their god said. Should religion exist? Maybe. Do I need a religion? I don't feel like I do, at the moment, but I could change my mind, who knows. I think we know from experience in communist countries that forceful removal of religion is bad, but I think we could slowly "evolve" past religion, in its current state, to something "better".
"the best societies are those that are not 'rationally' planned" Would you apply this to languages as well? Do you consider languages that are constructed like esperanto pointless? Why or why not?
5:38 I think most civilisations are built rationally despite the overall chaos and corruption around the subject. You misuse the word. You don't need a planned economy to be rational. "planned" civilisation has the issue of being a plan without experimentation, so of course, it fails. The experimental approach, either through "elder's wisdom" or "scientifical method" is necessary to build such systems. As an example, even when codding 60 lines of codes, you may still end up with unexpected behaviours and bugs... Rationality is very fucking useful while codding, yet experiment, a.k.a. testing, is needed. But as mere humans, we can't really test societal organisations, because it may take a whole generation to notice an issue with this kind of problem. So the best we have is... books and statistics. Both of which are quite a thin veil of evidence, often difficult to obtain (see our shitty pay-to-read science papery scam) or simply incomplete. In short: Planned society fails, because we do not have the necessary knowledge to apply logic on... or at least it is very limited. We just follow whatever formula works well enough.
Superstition is to religion what astrology is to astronomy the mad daughter of a wise mother. These daughters have too long dominated the earth. Voltaire
Luke, are you from the same universe as me? In my universe the Ford logo had no squiggle on the F. Please help, i seek guidance trough the universe. - F where will you take me.....
So I see some miss understanding in our world let me try to elaborate a bit. The term logos is the assumption that the world is rational. So the only thing that could be erational is our understanding of the world not parts of the world. So in art things are worked out roughly, drawing out a rough scetch of shapes, preporations and positions. Then proceeding in order of detail going finer as the drawing emerges. Now what is important about this is the method, the method in itself can be refined and improved but acording to what standard but reality. So if we apply this to science the methods change to better represent reality so we then can make use of this level of truth in so much as our understanding of reality. This greater understanding from the tools we have come up with according to the previous methods can then create better methods to represent reality. So what dose it come back to, I love Albert camus saying, "there are things beyond reason but nothing without reason. " Our prediction is only as good as our reason and our reason only as good as our understanding of reality. So to live well we must live according to our best understanding of reality or Nature as the Stoics would say. I tend to like the Stoic view on morality so I won't delve into that.
Every axiomatic belief is by definition beyond rationality and is there for founded on faith. A materialist has his faith in what he perceives to be the smartest people alive today. Which if you really dig in to the limitations of that they might as well put their faith in the smartest cockroach. The one who has his faith in god and tradition is tapped in to a hivemined consisting of billions of people over millienia. You don't need to know and make sense of every dictate past down from god and tradition, you just need to understand that.
Most people are not capable at being rational because most people are still primarily being steered by the primitive part of our braing (the deeper lying part which our species (or the species which we derived from) acquired long before they developed a neocortex. Most people act mostly based on emotion. Simply put, the neocortex can override the more primitive part of the brain but that requires effort, when it is not active the primitive part of the brain is in charge. Pretty much as Luke said. I don't know if he has any understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the brain.
To strawman you, correct me if I am wrong, the enlightened human is an individual who achieves scientific and technological superiority yet only does what is required to survive, spending the rest of his hours in a lotus position as to do anything else would be animalistic, wow great idea.
The problem is not rationality. It’s rationality without empiricism. It is rational to test a removal of objects or institutions that don’t serve a rational purpose. It is not rational to double down on the removal of these institutions even after you begin to experience severe adverse consequences to doing so.
The point is it's impossible to know there's no reason, because there are MILLIONS of variables at play, and no human brain can both grasp it all and subsequently analyze it without melting away. It's just not possible.
Luke rants as he disposes a body in the forest.
Chad moves
just like minecraft
Hahahaha
😂
Dang
It upsets me that his right shoulder strap is twisted. Please fix your backpack.rc file
It might be there for a much bigger reason than you can anticipate.
That’s how you know it’s good.
LUKE DESTROYS RATIONALITY
WITH FACTS
AND LOGIC!
BECAUSE FACTS DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS
(epic style)
Luke destroys rationality with rationality
except he didn't
should be pinned IMHO ;P
Ben Shapiro would've cum over this
You're describing a problem that I have with a lot of social activists and liberal arts / humanities academicians: a desire to change the world or to develop a theory of humanity without actually observing humans, or understanding them at a biological level (gaining an understanding of human nature). Applying rationality/concepts without first gaining empirical observation is blind.
Those dudes want to reform society worldwide but are too socially awkward to even hold a conversation
@@LarryHazard Not just dudes but dudettes!
eh. you're just mad that they haven't derived the same ideas of rationality from "biology" which in the first place provides us very few hints towards consciousness at the deeper level
It gets worse when they try to enforce it.
“The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses.”
― Francis Bacon
survivorship bias time
I just ate bacon
Bacon was a gnostic, he belived that only the chosen ones that have the hidden knowledge should have power.
Bacon haha
@@joenathan8059hardest line in the history of YT comments
In the dim light a curled up rope is mistaken for a snake due to inherent “negativity bias” and causes fright and anxiety - but when the light is turned on, calm and peace returns due to the accurate perception of it being a mere rope.
So this maxim is used to illustrate how our angst and suffering is due to our misperception of reality.
TL;DW the earth is flat
Yes lmao
It's shaped like a dinosaur. You're spreading propaganda 😭🙏
This fetishisation of inductive reasoning doesn't apply to most people.
Also, behaviour without a goal is nonrational, not irrational. If there's no goal, how can you measure its usefulness? It just is.
A 10 minute and 2 second video
now THAT'S rationality
just get eternal life
My thoughts are rational because they can be represented as a thought divided by another.
You Didnt say I use Arch btw
I only use the linux kernel btw
[ _TempleOS has been successfully installed_ ]
In this video: Luke argues for the proper acknowledgement of (evolutionary) Chesterton fences. I applaud this.
Critique: The fence is a norm. It serves a purpose. To rip out the fence while ignorant of its purpose is to invite chaos. But we continue to believe better things can exist. Despite how rarely it is done, it is possible to intentionally move the fence, based on careful consideration, and actually achieve a better stable equilibrium.
To believe the human ability to understand systems, whether you call it rationality or any other name, is somehow fundamentally not of use in the project to intentionally advance the human condition, seems to me defeatist. But I _think_ you are only criticizing those who try to "rationalize away" a fence, and not those who are actually grappling with the full breadth of the problem of moving it.
Mindless progress is as bad as mindless regression, and they often have the same motivation.
@@p_serdiuk What is that motivation, out of curiosity?
@@saeedbaig4249 Behind both of them are widespread wrong, but somewhat internally consistent models of how the world works, that people are prone to emotionally attach themselves to. That emotional attachment then needs defense against outside criticism, and a common way to do it is to call the model "progressive", "rational" and "scientific" despite its flaws and despite the fact that its adherents don't actually treat it in an analytical, objective manner.
@@p_serdiuk folks who insist they're on the "right side of history" are usually just ripping fenceposts out of the ground that they have no comprehension of
Hmm this fence analogy is really good. Nice write up
You're truly one of the beautiful creatures of this world...beautifully uncensored, on the correct direction of reasoning, and truthful AF...
You know someone's past the "good or bad" scale when they use memes for thumbnails...
This is the gayest thing I've read ever.
using LOGIC and FACTS
The comment I was replying to was deleted about social/religious practices like genital mutilation, stoning, women's suffrage, blocking women's education..... I wanted to briefly ask:
"@Luke Smith, I too would like to know. Are examples like these just what you would call "rare" examples of where irrationality IS actually bad. Or are we to believe that the many abhorrent religious/social/gender practices developed over millennia are probably beneficial to humanity and we should not try to understand why we do what we do?"
TheAnimateor I agree that all of those things are *bad*, but are they really *irrational*? Why is stoning less “rational” than prison? The point is that there isn’t necessarily anything inherently bad about irrationality. Not all bad things are irrational, and not all good things are rational.
I think this is a good point we shouldn't just skip over. I think the point that is made here, is that we shouldn't just rationalize away all aspects of religion, but that we also shouldn't just keep all aspects of religion as they were. It is more a process of trial and error how this this will change in society. It is not just a process of a small group of clever man and woman comming up with a rationalized society. Society will slowly change and often technology is the most important reason here, allthough I don't want to go into depth here why I think that technology is the most important aspect. The aspects of religion you mention are doubtfully beneficial to society, but might have been to a society of thousands of years ago. Even for the latter, hard to image, but since it emerged there must have been some unknown forces in play here. For society today, I think this will go away eventually, and maybe all aspects of religion will in the end disappear completely from society. However, this can't go away just one day to another by the process of rationization, since then we cannot forsee all consequences of such a radical change in society.
My first distro was Manjaro, then I had to use something stronger, so Gnome came, then Arch and now Artix. Don't do Linux kids it ruins your life and Manjaro is a gateway distro to the down spiral of your life.
To be fair, the craziness of quantum mechanics is due to the theory. The physical phenomena are puzzling but not crazy. I anticipate that a better understanding of physical reality is possible where the quantum weirdness will be explained in a more reasonable way, but it might be a long time before such a theory could emerge.
My field of study is nuclear physics, and at the moment the theory of the strong force (the one that holds together subatomic particles), QCD, isn't known outside of a limited domain called the perturbative regime, which is a fancy way of saying that the theory has two domains: One where you can understand physics by changing or "perturbing" a system by a small amount, and one where the behavior is not understandable by that procedure. People are aware that gravity hasn't been quantized yet, and I bring up the strong force to point out that the strong force hasn't been tested in the same way that electromagnetism and the weak force have been. It's entirely possible that new mathematics will open up non-perturbative QCD and potentially reveal holes in quantum theory.
As quantum mechanics is a theory limited to statistical observables, any event-level theory that accurately describes something quantum mechanics fails to anticipate will win the scientific theory precedence race.
6:41 No no no! The human brain uses quite rational heuristics. You just forgot that it computes not only an approximate probability but also an associated risk. The error compounds easily and the "risk aversion" is dependent on each individual.
Also it depends on what the individual knows, which is quite limited.
>stop being too rational, this is bad, just return to the natural state of being
Did you use your mind to deduce that?
you're missing the point he's talking about the dangers of deconstruction. notice how rational is in quotes in the tile right.
Louder for the people in the back !
Luke you fucking bald-headed wizard, I love you.
Probably need a bit more solid philosophical grounding in this one, but the point is very much an important and unspoken one. There is a lenses of "Rationality" people use these days, and its ironically a sort of intellectual crutch one uses when trying to discount opposing ideologies.
Of course another folly being that people consistently fail to recognise their own ideological motives, drives and biases as even those. We covet an idealised objectivity and boldly lead discourse with philosophical blind spots, all the while championing "Rationality" .
It is truly an issue that is not addressed enough in my opinion.
The so called "rational" thinkers I've met are all the furthest from. I consider it a red flag at this point.
Most of the "rational" thinkers I've met are really just that. They will have to change their views/morals on certain topics based on the rational thought they hold dear. It can be scary, since people can rationalize themselves into all sorts of terrible things. ex: We generally know that a person is typically ready mentally and physically to start reproducing sometime in the 20s. Some people will rationalize that since our bodies are generally ready for that sometime around 13 years old that it's okay for anyone to have sex with someone in that age group. "It's nature". People hate taking a hit to their pride, so they will claim the outcome of that rational thought. That's why I really try to not make absolute statements unless I've thought long and hard about it, and even then I still learn a lot through conversation and debate all the time!
damn it used to be the primary concern of mine, i hope i'm not like what you seem to have known
i always try to question my reasonning against myself, not using fallacies as a weapon but as a self-check tool, remembering i don't know everything, it never felt good but it felt right
i know it's been 2 years but are the people you're talking about the kind of people always using fallacies as a weapon? this is what i find the closest to your description from my experience
"cargo cult understanding of rationality"💜
man, just say it *"The development of a society can't be subjected to rational human control"*
see?
Wew buddy, that's absolutely heretical thought in a post-modern culture
You should do a boomer rant about planned economies. I thought you were gonna go in that direction with this one
Thanks for the talk big guy.
9:16 this can also be said for things like a peacocks tail, at first it might seem irrational for it to be there since it is heavy, makes it harder to move and also makes the animal more evident to predators, but there is a reason it is there
Even more it might seem unequal since the female peacock doesn't have such a tail, and it seems to be doing fine, so we might aswell get rid of the tail all together🥴
@@captainjack6010 ... so a peacocks tail is actually rational?
@@blacktiger974 pretty sure they meant there are trade-offs, regardless of the rationality
On another topic, I am amazed that this microphone in Luke his phone, or whatever he uses, captures the sound of those stones so well on which he walks. It sounds almost the same as in real life (good headphones here).
He probably has a car battery in his backpack and he’s carrying his thinkpad and microphone
so when are you getting GNU/Married
@@thewooque "first"
Family is bloat.
5:35 I'm not sure if I understood correctly, but it's more then simply one brain. If people collaborate very well in a team they create a virtual super brain. Well, at least that is one of the gists of Laws of Success. But your point is still valid, since even this virtual super brain is still not sufficient to plan a society.
Reason has to have targets, and for humans this needs motivation, and values. Values are what drive morality, and emotion, motivation. A philosopher (probably Burke) said that if one sits on a pin, it is not one's rational thought that motivates one to stand up - it is the pain.
Yea old Chesterton's fence.
Reminder that RationalWiki is anything but rational.
RW acts like that on purpose though
it's satire
That's some serious Poe's law shenanigans.
5:00 Man, you took 10 minutes to say:
"Thinking rationally only works so far as you have some knowledge to base your logic upon. Since our knowledge and understanding of the universe are flawed, we should be very careful about any conclusions we make. The only thing we have is experience, be it through our ancestors' wisdom or by experimenting with things ourselves. "
"Rational" has become nothing but yet another signifier for people to haphazardly form a superficial identity around.
I was this deconstructionist boyo at 16. Now at 20 I'm a Folk musician,potter XD.
Recommended reading: Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed by James C. Scott.
It's rational when I decide it's rational.
Here in my garage of Logic.....
This challenged my thoughts and i loved it.
Ok
Yes, and knowledge isn't always transferable. And language has limits too. #Mindmeld
It's only rational when I want it to be rational
Oh god why am I replying to a youtube video:
Rationality doesn't describe the example conundrums you laid out.
For gender roles, one can rationally conclude that societal animals tend towards masculine/feminine constructs as a means of survival. One can also rationalize that we need not formally define gender roles as nature has already done so. Strong independent women and weak dependent men both exist and can not or will not fill the masculine or feminine roles of their assigned gender. To force it either way is irrational.
Same goes for religion. Rationalism sees that religion can be made up. Rationalism can also see that religion has a profound effect on society and can easily be attributed to both glorious revolutions and hideous regressions in every aspect of human existence.
It really depends on scale.
Rationality is nothing but a feeling.
A rational agent is an agent that acts to achieve the best expected outcome. There isn't anything more to rationality.
Despite being somewhat foreign to concrete mind, quantum mechanics allows for predictive deductive reasoning. With formal methods (and computers), the human mind is capable of modelling so many things, including societies. There will be always simplification to allow for tractability, but when done carefully, approximations in physics serve no less than complete analytical solutions. So is it everywhere.
Also, emergent structures of natural systems don't have purpose. Purpose presupposes a designer. They have reasons for existence, a particular history of their appearance and sustenance. For certain cases, it does start looking like purpose, say, for an important protein in a cell. It would be still false to say that every protein in a cell has definitely any function. This situation is even worse for culture: some memes are harmful (but not too much), many are useless to their bearers. On the other hand, they have ability to give meaning, which sets apart their definition of usefulness from mine. Who am I to judge, or even care?
On the hand, there is that not entirely correct, normative notion of rationality. It is a certain way by which a current culture endorses definitions of success and choices of methods that can be used to achieve it. That is simpler: I will endorse such norm of rationality that facilitates achievement of my goals through "rational" behavior of others.
I fear and hope for the future, my boomer brother. It is too uncertain.
That's pretty much the point of half of JBPs lectures, the definition of truth, the importance of hierarchies, biblical lectures, archetypes etc. It's EXACTLY what dude means, the "rationality" as it's usually understood is nothing against the combined force of million of years of evolution and before deconstructing something traditional it's worth having a little bit of humility and reflection. I know "based and redpilled" are often dislike JBP, but his main philosophy is just what you've tried to express.
2:06 gravity stuff, well, is not well grounded lol
Haidt and Peterson talk about this very subject a lot
Stay woke Luke
Some people call themselves rational but are conspiracy theorists, religious, extremists in politics etc. The terms "rational" "skeptic" are used bu groups to just call themselves right and others wrong, this is a horrible disservice for the skeptic community tbh.
@@Sebi20070 yeah yeah, if I had Spiderman in my name, it would 100% mean that i genuinely believed i was Spiderman, no chance it was a joke nor a reference.
@Evan Myshkin By definition, yes. You have to test yourself to not let biases dominate you.
@Evan Myshkin It's really hard and it's different for every situation. But if you hold the burden of proof, make sure to provide evidence and to also periodically check advancements in the research.
I think foundation beliefs you are talking about are axions, in which I have 2. 1 the universe exists and 2 we can learn stuff about the universe.
I'm talking more about science than philosophy, I'm not good with philosophy. I'm talking about everyday skepticism that can help you not fall for charlatans and scams.
during this video i felt like we never get to the point.....
+or more like we never get over the first sentence...?!
Got some hefty maturity in you, Luke! I salute you!
Judging requires to zoom out:
Thus ratio before logic, when judging. This is popularized under common sense. But there is a Catch22...
There is not a single significant digisoof; only analogue philosophers without technical experience.
A new generation of philosophers will stand up. Like Luke, since he's pretty good in what he does.
In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of some thing or action, with the aim of determining what actions are best to do or what way is best to live, or to describe the significance of different actions.
Wow that’s a pretty rational rant!
Hey Luke,
have you ever considered that being an individual is not the primary mode of consciousness for Sapiens? Some evolutionary biologist have said this argument already (Bret Weinstein is one that I remember). Where is your idea of human individuality from? What if all this "being able to live as an individual" is not relevant to being a human at all, maybe it's just a small deterioration? After all, humans didn't evolve to live alone, our strength lies in collective thinking, power of the masses and large-scale co-operation.
They say rationality is this fundamental principles and methods of thinking. And its way more then just the inputs we get from the world through our senses
And for me with an Islamic theism background i came across this misconception of eather relaying completely on the rationality to approach everything or completely not worrying about anything and taking a nihilistic path in thinking ..well this is hug topic and i just remembered something i heard in a theological lecture about those 3 stages of consciousness... the senses. The rationality "logic" and the 3rd stage is what i can translate to English as "meta rationality " or "beyond logic" or "beyond the mind"
It is well known that the rang of possiblity in the rational field is wider than the senses field..in fact aba hamid alghazali "Muslim theologist and philosopher" said that the 3rd stage is as wide as the rationality stage to the senses stage .
Actually there is a theory : The Error Management Theory offering an explanation for this:)
The reality that is, has been and will be vs the entanglement of our figmentation of it.
Rock and a hard place
DISTILLATION is the sixth major operation in the alchemy of transformation.
I mean, I can "rationally" analyze a religion. Maybe it's just semantics, but of course I can see that people who take part in religious rites feel better because of it and so on...But I think that some religions advocate for nonsense and for some reason, people take some religions more literally than others and some religions tell you to go around preaching and trying to convert others, because that's what their god said.
Should religion exist? Maybe. Do I need a religion? I don't feel like I do, at the moment, but I could change my mind, who knows. I think we know from experience in communist countries that forceful removal of religion is bad, but I think we could slowly "evolve" past religion, in its current state, to something "better".
"the best societies are those that are not 'rationally' planned" Would you apply this to languages as well? Do you consider languages that are constructed like esperanto pointless? Why or why not?
He's said at least once that Esperanto's pointless and not of any practical use.
wait... you tell me instead of being "rational" i should be rational instead? :thinking:
Chesterton's fence!
Genuine question here: What age did you go bald? Obviously you lost your hair on top, so you shaved the rest. What age, babe?
If a boomer rants in a forest...
He looks like Heisenberg 😂
Love your woods videos dude, but you have to get some optical image stabilization. Lol
Shout out to Werner Heisenberg for throwing Newtonian physics in the trash
5:38 I think most civilisations are built rationally despite the overall chaos and corruption around the subject. You misuse the word. You don't need a planned economy to be rational. "planned" civilisation has the issue of being a plan without experimentation, so of course, it fails. The experimental approach, either through "elder's wisdom" or "scientifical method" is necessary to build such systems. As an example, even when codding 60 lines of codes, you may still end up with unexpected behaviours and bugs... Rationality is very fucking useful while codding, yet experiment, a.k.a. testing, is needed.
But as mere humans, we can't really test societal organisations, because it may take a whole generation to notice an issue with this kind of problem. So the best we have is... books and statistics. Both of which are quite a thin veil of evidence, often difficult to obtain (see our shitty pay-to-read science papery scam) or simply incomplete.
In short: Planned society fails, because we do not have the necessary knowledge to apply logic on... or at least it is very limited. We just follow whatever formula works well enough.
Superstition is to religion what astrology is to astronomy the mad daughter of a wise mother. These daughters have too long dominated the earth. Voltaire
damn conservative how dare you
Iam an Egyptian mummy and I am telling you that the brain didn't matter.
forest pilled
This video came at just the right time.
Deletion Distortion Generalization Meta Programs, Belief Systems, Values, Decisions, and Memories.
So woke. Where can I get some of that koolaid.
Luke, are you from the same universe as me?
In my universe the Ford logo had no squiggle on the F.
Please help, i seek guidance trough the universe.
- F
where will you take me.....
So I see some miss understanding in our world let me try to elaborate a bit.
The term logos is the assumption that the world is rational.
So the only thing that could be erational is our understanding of the world not parts of the world.
So in art things are worked out roughly, drawing out a rough scetch of shapes, preporations and positions. Then proceeding in order of detail going finer as the drawing emerges.
Now what is important about this is the method, the method in itself can be refined and improved but acording to what standard but reality.
So if we apply this to science the methods change to better represent reality so we then can make use of this level of truth in so much as our understanding of reality.
This greater understanding from the tools we have come up with according to the previous methods can then create better methods to represent reality.
So what dose it come back to, I love Albert camus saying, "there are things beyond reason but nothing without reason. "
Our prediction is only as good as our reason and our reason only as good as our understanding of reality.
So to live well we must live according to our best understanding of reality or Nature as the Stoics would say.
I tend to like the Stoic view on morality so I won't delve into that.
If you can put a line through it, its rational
Every axiomatic belief is by definition beyond rationality and is there for founded on faith. A materialist has his faith in what he perceives to be the smartest people alive today. Which if you really dig in to the limitations of that they might as well put their faith in the smartest cockroach. The one who has his faith in god and tradition is tapped in to a hivemined consisting of billions of people over millienia. You don't need to know and make sense of every dictate past down from god and tradition, you just need to understand that.
Most people are not capable at being rational because most people are still primarily being steered by the primitive part of our braing (the deeper lying part which our species (or the species which we derived from) acquired long before they developed a neocortex. Most people act mostly based on emotion. Simply put, the neocortex can override the more primitive part of the brain but that requires effort, when it is not active the primitive part of the brain is in charge. Pretty much as Luke said. I don't know if he has any understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the brain.
>mfw not realizing I'm using the primitive part of the brain instead of the neocortex at any given moment
It feels like the Dunning Kruger effect.
To strawman you, correct me if I am wrong, the enlightened human is an individual who achieves scientific and technological superiority yet only does what is required to survive, spending the rest of his hours in a lotus position as to do anything else would be animalistic, wow great idea.
Why doesn't he straighten his backpack strap ? Any perfectionists ? .......... Nice insight by the way, just the backpack strap was bugging me.
The problem is not rationality. It’s rationality without empiricism. It is rational to test a removal of objects or institutions that don’t serve a rational purpose. It is not rational to double down on the removal of these institutions even after you begin to experience severe adverse consequences to doing so.
The point is it's impossible to know there's no reason, because there are MILLIONS of variables at play, and no human brain can both grasp it all and subsequently analyze it without melting away.
It's just not possible.
Is it "rational" to wait till the 10 minute mark to stop the video? Or does it serve a greater purpose? :P
@Samurai Jack ah ok it is rational after all :P
See things the way they are or feel them, be with them ,be them
Boyancy and density need not gravity.
I mean, weren't women and men pretty equal for most of history until agriculture?
l i b e r t a r i a n
You rationalised rational. Nice
Is the forest a visual metaphor or are you just lost?
Leaving the video running at the end? Well that's irrational!
Do you read Rene Descartes?
Is this a hint at Luke doing a video on Critique of Pure Reason?
pragmatism is the best show in town
I want to like this twice
You would like to read "thinking fast and slow".
I did a whole podcast episode on it: notrelated.libsyn.com/when-youre-too-rational-to-be-rational
Literally first
Rationally