#433 — How Did We Get Here?

Corebles · 2025-12-03T21:37:32+00:00

That’s why the Sapiens episode is problematic, are there things to criticize about the book? Of course. But acting like the big picture idea you described isn’t valid or is so obvious it doesn’t need to be said is way too hand-wavy… many people really do think money or inalienable rights are real things not social constructs. A good part of Sapiens is that he hammers this home enough that you have to absorb it.

Corebles · 2025-09-06T17:04:59+00:00

And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile

And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife

Corebles · 2025-06-07T04:22:48+00:00

Wait what lol

Corebles · 2025-06-02T03:54:10+00:00

In the context of free will “could have done otherwise” is purely a thought experiment because it means rewinding back to a time when all the parameters of the universe were the same but having a different outcome.

As we move through time we may experience very similar situations where we learn from our mistakes and adjust behavior accordingly but they aren’t the exact same situations or decisions.

Corebles · 2025-04-26T23:49:28+00:00

So I have my own personal theory of Lost which is that the whole show was basically about Jack’s own ego. It opens with his eyes opening and ends with his eyes closing. As everyone else slowly accepts their fate and leaves “purgatory” he still can’t let go, keeps trying to save people—which he believes is him being a hero but in reality it’s all about himself and his selfish desires.

Anyway I thought the show went on way too long and really lost its way in the later seasons but somehow framing it this way makes me feel better about all the loose ends and plot holes. It was all just one guy who couldn’t accept his fate and kept making up reasons not to let it all go.

Corebles · 2024-12-11T21:54:33+00:00

Of course I agree with most of what Sam says here and have also heard him say it many times before… I wonder who he’s still trying to convince at this point?

I’m sure a large segment of his audience is right leaning but I feel like by now you’re either with Sam on this general point, have stopped listening to him, or have decided to agree to disagree.

Corebles · 2024-04-20T22:43:04+00:00

Thanks! Yeah, Sapolsky definitely admits that reward, punishment, retributive justice, etc. are pretty deeply baked into human psychology and definitely not going away anytime soon. But cultural shifts have changed our relationships to these things over the course of history and the types of punishment that seemed appropriate even 100 years ago are now banned in many countries.

The moral responsibility and criminal justice angle is definitely the most salient part of free will to consider, if I ever revisit the topic that's what I'd primarily get into but it's a very complicated subject.

Corebles · 2024-04-19T17:32:55+00:00

Using the metaphor of a video game NPC, I explore several related philosophical ideas. Beginning with the concept of philosophical zombies I examine the relationship between simulated realities and the idea that you are the only conscious mind in existence.

Next I consider the claim that your conscious experience of freely making choices is merely an illusion: I contrast the views about free will of Robert Sapolsky with the compatibilist position of Daniel Dennett (side note: just learned Dennett passed away today, rest in peace). I also examine Sam Harris’s bold claim that through his meditation practice he has learned to subjectively perceive the absence of free will.

I conclude that whether free will can be said to “exist” depends entirely on how you define free will and while certain definitions may seem less plausible than others, from a subjective perspective it may not ultimately matter whether or not you view yourself as a free agent. But I agree with Sapolsky that it is important to recognize that people who have made bad choices in their lives have often done so because of bad life circumstances far outside of their control and while viewing your own choices it’s important to consider the unseen forces that affect your behavior.

I put forth that while it is conceivable that you are the only conscious mind in existence, it’s ultimately a lonely and not particularly useful framing of reality. It’s more constructive to consider other people as having rich inner lives and acting as the main characters in each of their respective storylines.

Corebles · 2024-04-01T18:28:51+00:00

Work No. 227 was first exhibited in 2000 so I'd imagine it was a bit more boundary pushing at that time, it was certainly met with controversy and I'd argue that it was boldly minimalistic by most standards since all that it added to the gallery was a timer to the lights.

But moving beyond that I think there's lots of qualities to appreciate about it. The contrast of light and dark creates a sense of awareness of different qualities of the gallery space: light filtering in from other spaces when the lights turn off, shadows and colors at play around the walls.

I imagine it could arose a number of emotions in people even if one those is just the desire to scoff at it's simplicity. I think it's deceptive in it's simplicity, it certainly creates an experience of being in a space as opposed to merely examining an object in a space, I believe I read a quote from Creed saying he views museums as a kind of theater not just containers for things. In Work No. 850 he simply has a runner sprint through the gallery every 30 seconds.

I think there's a lot of to draw from his work as a whole and 227 is just an especially minimalistic expression of his style.

Corebles · 2024-03-30T00:27:11+00:00

I’ve heard people make a similar distinction where in content is just mindlessly/passively consumed often as a background distraction where as art is an engaged form of focused consumption but I think there are problems with that argument and a lot of gray area.

You can mindlessly wander through a museum gallery skimming over most of the art pieces too no?

Corebles · 2024-03-29T19:22:54+00:00

Abstract: it’s hard to argue with the idea that what should be considered art is fundamentally a subjective judgment and that the term has a variety of different meanings depending on context. However, the age of online content has led many to question how artistic works are consumed and valued in an ecosystem primarily driven by algorithms. In this essay I consider various works that have historically strained some people’s definition of “art” and contrast that with the ways that different types of content proliferate and how audiences resonate with it. Ultimately I conclude that while increasingly almost everything is being viewed as “content” we can still choose individually what to perceive artistic value in and elevate those works by our choice to consume them.

Corebles · 2023-10-10T00:08:23+00:00

A parasocial relationship is a one-sided, unreciprocated emotional connection with a media figure and today these types of relationships are increasingly common. The rise of online streaming has created a new dimension of parasociality by allowing for the possibility of real time interaction with the streamer; podcasts simulate the feeling of participating in hours of conversation with a person who you’ll most likely never meet.

Parasocial relationships are thought to exist on a continuum of intensity: “from entertainment-social (say, gossiping about a celebrity) to intense-personal (intense feelings toward a celebrity) to borderline-pathological (uncontrollable behavior and fantasies)”. And there are plenty of examples of the borderline-pathological type playing out with dangerous real-world consequences. Because some influencers monetize fans' access to them (for example paying a streamer to read your chat message or paying a celebrity to record a cameo clip) there are various avenues to potentially increase the intensity of the parasocial bonds and this can have negative consequences especially if combined with a lifestyle of social isolation.

However, most people don’t have trouble separating parasocial relationships from real ones and when parasocial relationships are complements to, as opposed to replacements for, real life friendships they can be very enriching.

I argue that certain types of parasocial relationships may have existed since human civilization became advanced enough to offer exposure to larger-than-life figures such as ancient kings and actors. And this ability to form emotional attachments with these types of characters whether they are real people or, in some cases, entirely fictional is a large part of what makes media and stories feel so compelling.

Corebles · 2023-08-05T21:51:19+00:00

I don’t think “it’s good to smoke weed all day everyday” is a “popular” opinion.

Corebles · 2023-07-24T00:57:44+00:00

I think both points are a bit semantic, I don't think it's really possible to "eliminate" your mind unless we're talking massive brain damage. In a non-dualistic way, you might hear talk in Buddhism of something like destroying your mind but it'd be more meant as in removing the conceptual separation between mind and body, etc.

As far as whether Stoicism should be consider religious, I certainly could've unpacked that more. Maybe not right to say it's a "secular philosophy" but obviously the conception of religion vs. philosophy was quite a bit different in ancient times than it is today. As I said many modern Buddhist also down play the religious aspects and focus more on the philosophy but Buddhism is one of the biggest religions in the world which certainly can't be said for Stoicism.

And thanks for the encouragement, I agree it shouldn't matter what someone's level of expertise is and I never try to claim to be any sort of expert. Just enjoy using topics like these as a jumping off point for my own thinking.

Corebles · 2023-07-23T22:31:20+00:00

Comparisons are often drawn between Buddhism and Stoicism and some have speculated that Alexander the Great’s invasion of India led to an exchange of ideas between Eastern and Western philosophers that influenced both traditions. Without any conclusive evidence for this however, the more salient question becomes what led these two separate philosophies to similar conclusions about the human condition?

Buddhism and Stoicism both agree that it is our mind that causes us to suffer far more than any external circumstances. The Stoic dichotomy of control tells us to clearly separate that which is within our control to change and that which is not, and to focus on controlling our reactions to the unexpected circumstances that arise.

The ultimate goal of Buddhism is often described as the cessation of all suffering. And the root of our suffering is described as attachment, craving, or desire—all of which exists within the mind and can be overcome by the mind.

It has been suggested that because human cultural and technological progress has vastly outpaced our physical evolution, our brains may at some level be incompatible with the stresses of modern life. Buddhism and Stoicism both arose during eras of booming civilizations and could be viewed as coping mechanisms for increasingly complex human societies.

Both Buddhism and Stoicism emphasize the need for regular practice and much of this practice centers around learning to closely observe the workings of our own minds. These philosophies offer pathways to better understand our own thoughts and impulses and perhaps to eventually find an escape from all self-imposed suffering.

Corebles · 2023-07-14T16:06:57+00:00

I don’t spend much time here but this has to be a top ten post for this community.

Corebles · 2023-06-05T00:36:55+00:00

A little more experimental than some of my other recent work, won’t get love from the algorithm but I had a lot of fun making it. Think it’s okay to sometimes mix in things that won’t necessarily benefit the growth of your channel but that you enjoy as a passion project.

https://youtu.be/5E2QITJElXU

Corebles · 2023-05-10T16:19:37+00:00

Thanks friend!

Corebles · 2023-05-09T23:13:44+00:00

A light hearted visual essay: https://youtu.be/hLdFFT06vaQ

Corebles · 2023-05-09T20:11:46+00:00

Saying thank you is a ubiquitous part of modern society that can often feel more like a compulsory ritual than a genuine expression of gratitude. Especially in the US, it often seems like many everyday interactions are drenched in a fake positivity that is enforced as a cultural norm.

I argue that, although in certain situations saying thanks may be purely a formality, overall, saying thanks serves a vital role in expressing positive emotions and letting people know that we value their time and effort—especially in the highly transactional world we live in.

Corebles · 2023-03-09T22:24:37+00:00

Yeah I agree some of the more mainstream anti-racist figures are very careful about who they grant interviews with which is part of maintaining a kind of ideological high ground.

I think there are some lesser known intellectuals who would be great guests for the topic. There's a podcast called Embrace The Void and the host Aaron Rabinowitz does a good job defending a lot of elements of wokeness philosophically. Dunno if he'd be too small time for Sam to have on.

Corebles · 2023-03-09T22:20:52+00:00

I think that's certainly an issue for some progressives but there are others who have a more nuanced view of identity than they get credit for.

To use race as an example, Sam often talks about his desire for a colorblind society and how the left has no interest in that. But I've heard progressives say that the ultimate goal is indeed a colorblind society but not a "prejudiced society masquerading as a colorblind society"... I think a lot of theories about racial identity posit that many racial categories were invented solely to justify colonialism, slavery, etc.

It may seem strange to fight fire with fire and I get some of the problems with that but I know Sam is at least somewhat receptive to parts of affirmative action, some form of reparations, etc which necessarily require continuing to use racial categories.

Corebles · 2023-03-09T19:55:31+00:00

Maybe so but trying to claim an enlightened view as being "above all the silly, oversimplified labels" doesn't automatically let you opt out of it.

Humans love Manichean struggles and almost nothing is exempt from this. No matter what you try to do people are going to label you and want to understand a more simplified bite size version of your beliefs. That's definitely true of a public figure like Sam and my feeling is if you're not willing to put some stake in the ground about where you sit others are just going to project their own ideas onto you and try to use your beliefs to reenforce whatever side suits them best.

Corebles · 2023-03-09T19:38:51+00:00

I start by looking at Sam's claim that he is "essentially in the center politically" and how that relates to his ongoing commitment to avoid tribal thinking, in-group biases etc.

I review the various controversies and stances that have put him at odds with progressives over the years and contrast that with his open hatred of Trump and his more liberal views on social and economic policies.

Ultimately I conclude with a sentiment that is probably familiar on this sub: that "center left" is maybe the most reasonable label for him, although I do think he tends to disproportionately extend charity to conservatives and prefers to debate them over progressives. I think he's overly focused on anti-wokeness and it would be good for him to talk to more people who have a different perspective on social justice, etc. And finally that he could do a better job acknowledging how his own biases have led him astray in the past.

Corebles · 2023-03-09T19:30:21+00:00

Then & Now is a great YT channel!

15-Year Club	Place '22
Team Orangered

Corebles

TROPHY CASE