Are You Rational? #1 Are You Motivated? | Philosophy Tube

Part 1 in a new 4-part series; what does it mean to be rational? To have a reason to do something? What does that tell us about law enforcement and artificial intelligence?
Watch the series: • Are You Rational? #1 A...
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Patreon: / philosophytube
Paypal.me/PhilosophyTube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6tpup
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8bo4gb
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgjek5w
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: [e-mail]
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Ahmed, The Cultural Politics of Emotion - tinyurl.com/y9a569vy
Aristotle, Politics - classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/pol...
Baring (AKA Lord Cromer), Modern Egypt - archive.org/details/modernegy...
Carlyle, “Occasional Discourse on the N***** Question” - tinyurl.com/yag7dqr4
Cherney, “The Rhetoric of Ableism” - dsq-sds.org/article/view/1665/...
Critchley, Infinitely Demanding - tinyurl.com/y9jpnxxr
Damore, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” - tinyurl.com/y9awcow8
De Beauvoir, Le Deuxième Sexe - tinyurl.com/ycq23krd
Dreyfus, What Computers Still Can’t Do - tinyurl.com/ybtnuhz7
Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk - tinyurl.com/y9c2g93k
Faludi, Backlash - tinyurl.com/ycnjhv5s
Foucault, Discipline & Punish - tinyurl.com/y86oxxhg
Fricker, Epistemic Injustice - tinyurl.com/yb2pp7lc
Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason - tinyurl.com/y89lncge
Hume, Treatise of Human Nature - www.davidhume.org/texts/thn.html
Hutcheson, On the Nature & Conduct of the Passions - tinyurl.com/y7zsuuj3
Jaggar, “Love and Knowledge: Emotion in Feminist Epistemology” - tinyurl.com/yd4sleh6
Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals - tinyurl.com/ybwenvxo
Kissinger, “Domestic Structure & Foreign Policy” - tinyurl.com/y8tzcl78
Medina, The Epistemology of Resistance - tinyurl.com/yao6zvth
Plato, Phaedrus & Republic - classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedru... & classics.mit.edu/Plato/republi...
Raz, The Morality of Freedom &“Authority, Law, and Morality” tinyurl.com/ybgalw58 & tinyurl.com/yaplyfgf
Richardson (ed.), Drumbeat - tinyurl.com/y8cckear
Said, Orientalism - tinyurl.com/ycydurd7
Snedegar, Contrastive Reasons - tinyurl.com/y7cqx65f
Ture, Stokely Speaks - tinyurl.com/y7fz2hpj
Williams, “Internal and External Reasons”
Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.

[@anthonybeervor2265]

I thought being rational was all about making weekly videos on Anita Sarkeesian?

[@yasirazhari3794]

A fellow free thinking, rationalist skeptic I see. *tips fedora*

[@Theo_Caro]

Yasir Azhari I think he actually mocking the so called "free thinkers" on youtube.

[@yasirazhari3794]

T. H. Caro you really think I unironically typed "tips fedora" ?

[@TaylorjAdams]

Poe's Law. You never know.

[@wgo523]

SHE MUSY BE STAHPT!!

[@shazamguy3145]

"It might be your chocolate, might be another reason not to do it" What are you talking about comrade, it's our chocolate

[@xXRickTrolledXx]

Chocolate is not a means of production. It is deliscious.

[@stm7810]

@@xXRickTrolledXx but it is a resource that should be distributed according to need.

[@AlanKey86]

When I say rational I mean can be expressed in the form a/b where a and b are integers

[@profskett]

AlanKey86 Haha, naturally! (...Or not, as the case may be...) There's not many scenarios I can think of where you might legitimately speak of a "totally inevitable smart-ass pure mathematics comment", but apparently this is one. 😂

[@johnadams-kf3my]

But what if B = 0

[@aliecat1999]

john adams, undefined

[@SebSharma]

error. B = Null Field.

[@Mandragara]

This is premised on the idea that you can know something about the world, which is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

[@isa0ber]

it's very telling of someone's ethics when they equate their motivations with rationality, therefore dismissing anyone who disagrees as irrational. we often think of emotion as inherently irrational but i would argue that being in tune with the feelings of the person you're talking to as well as your own is absolutely necessary to reach mutual understanding. since motivation informs reasoning, empathy plays a huge role in arguing. so many things get lost in translation during arguments and it seems to me like a lot of it is due to this separation we make between reason and emotion.

[@PhilosophyTube]

You will enjoy Part 3!

[@ferencgazdag1406]

Emotions are rational btw. They will make you keep your genome alive, as they are controlled by your genome.

[@darwinxavier3516]

@@ferencgazdag1406 Well, until your emotions cause you to do something stupid resulting in your death. Whether immediately or causing long term detriment leading to your hastened death.

[@hassaanbangash4294]

@@darwinxavier3516 Thats assuming that your rationality is always picking the correct decisions and/or is not limited in its capacity as well

[@superclarendon8648]

@@ferencgazdag1406Hmm, I guess so. If you’ll allow me to switch over and focus on the mainstream idea of rationality and reason to make a point, this doesn’t mean that all emotional reactions are necessarily as fair or “right” as each other, or based in as far objective of logic as they could be; though maybe you see that as well.

[@w1nterblind]

Good god, if you wanted my chocolate all you had to do was ask.

[@SomeoneBeginingWithI]

I like the good-natured joke, but it does raise another way in which morality is relative to what people want and what people know. If Ollie doesn't know that you would be happy to share your chocolate, the chocolate being yours still gives him reason not to take it from you. The reasons Ollie has depend both on what you want, and on what Ollie knows of what you want.

[@natalycotes9824]

That intro? That's some vintage philosophy tube bby

[@varunkapur5640]

My my, I'm blown away by the depth of his knowledge of philosophy everytime i watch his videos. His expression makes the content all the more immersive.

[@steampunkerella]

olly wants to be bad... naughty

[@zooblestyx]

Olly, I can't seem to find Philosophy, MA. Is it in the greater Boston area?

[@zooblestyx]

@@raphaelbell2791 Comedy is hard

[@appa609]

@@raphaelbell2791 XD

[@Shakespeare563]

I'm reminded of a lecture I attended by one of the grad students at my University, whose work was on the relationship between reasons, intentions, and actions. He talked about how, if we were perfect examples of Aristotle's "rational animal" we would accumulate reasons in piles in our brains until one pile of reasons to do something got big enough for it to become an intention, then that intention would translate into an action. Of course, psychologically, no one actually does this. An intention might start with the spark of a reason, but once an intention has formed in your mind, it will grow largely independent of reasons, and in fact will actively seek out reasons that support it and discard reasons that don't (confirmation bias) but then this leaves us with two rather complicated problems: what the hell even is an intention if not a pile of reasons (it could be described as a want, but surely there are things we want that we do not intend, that being what we call self control)? And perhaps more importantly, how do intentions become actions? What the grad student ended up falling into was a sort of variant on the gettier cases from epistemology: we agree that an intentional action is one that is in some sense "caused" by your intent, but no matter how many criteria he tried to put on the cause-effect relationship, he could always think of an example where intent and action were both present but where almost everyone would say the result is unintentional.

[@maleineperle1770]

That's interesting

[@ricardaseven6083]

literally opened up a package of chocolates when you said 'I might wanna eat loads of chocolate' and felt kinda called out :D anyway, gonna continue watching (and eating) now!

[@risamaeve]

"or do you want to be.. bad?" *vigorously fans self*

[@Tomgaar]

Now that's a hell of a good cliffhanger. Now I am Motivated to Watch your Next Video, so obviously it's only Rational to wait for it.

[@logicalfallacy4156]

1:19 "What you wanna do is not necessarily what you're gonna do." ~ Gia Gunn

[@MarcelTega]

Stay away from my chocolate, Ollie!

[@PristianoPenaldoSUIIII]

R A T I O N A L Verb. To spend the bulk of one's time whining about Karltural Marx and feminiminism

[@ScoutXdude]

Dnt Wry I love your profile picture

[@PristianoPenaldoSUIIII]

*sniff*

[@czechmeoutbabe1997]

Isn’t that a verb though? Not that I disagree

[@PristianoPenaldoSUIIII]

Admiral Ackbar Don't make me host a 3 hour live stream debunking you fam

[@cjdabes]

Dnt Wry Who is the person in your profile pic supposed to be, Slavoj Žižek?

[@rorykurek643]

So thankful for this series. I've used the word "rational" for years to justify my opinions to myself, but have started to suspect that it might just be shorthand for "agrees with my worldview". Props to all those out there who want to examine their own biases!

[@allypoum]

Loving the thistles in the background during the Hume part. Viva Caledonia!

[@rsarto74]

I’ve been really excited about this series ever since you mentioned your intent to do it. Thanks! Looking forward to parts 2, 3, & 4!

[@diablominero]

AI could totally work, so long as you give it a terminal goal to start with. Most terminal goals imply some instrumental goals that must be achieved first.

[@deus_ex_machina_]

Insert Isaac Arthur's video on the 'Paperclip Maximizer' and the idle game 'Univeral Paperclips' here.

[@klop4228]

6:32 but if the first bidder starts at one cent, he can't bid an even number like 100 cents if they go up in one cent jumps. Just a nitpick for you, Olly :P. We understood what you meant

[@PhilosophyTube]

Fair cop!

[@theoneandonlymichaelmccormick]

klop422 Hey, blame Horkheimer.

[@AlexGoldhill]

Interested to see how this ties in with morality. It's a question I have often asked and part of the reason I'm attracted to Virtue Ethics as it comes with built-in reasons to be good, namely by tying virtue to a normative idea of the good life. Trouble is that tends to run into problems of objective reason and being able to define what is an objectively good life.

[@R0DisG0D]

I hope he mentions discourse ethics. It's an attempt to create something "bigger" than subjective morality (as it ties in with subjective reason) without falling into the same traps objective morality does by relying on communication or intersubjective morality. The presuppositions of discouse already dictate a few conditions (everybody can participate, arguments are not backed up by force other than that of the argument itself, nobodys arguments are surpressed, that every statement can be critisized and a few others) and from there on you reason it out. It's sneaky in the way that it states some things as pressuppositions that otherwise might be considered morals themselves (everybody being able to participate, nobodys argument being surpressed and arguments not being backed up by any external force account for a good chunk of human rights already).

[@im19ice3]

i had never heard of the auction bit, it's wild how quickly it becomes both irrational and justified XD that was a genius thought exercise, gives me that giddy feeling from back when i started falling in love with philosophy, it gives me the giggles

[@User24x]

"Subjective reason" seems to be when one doesn't think about other variables. For example, getting away with stealing money is 'beneficial' for oneself, but if someone found out, it would be very unbeneficial. "Objective reason" seems to just mean considering what will happen if one does x and if it will achieve their ultimate goal/motivation. We are 'programmed' with goals, and those are our 'motivations'/desires/goals we have. That's the only reason we do things. Knowing whether we should have those goals or not is asking whether we do have those goals or not. Or if we have goals that are more important or are incompatible with whatever goal we are trying to argue against.

[@R0DisG0D]

User No, that's not how Horkheimer uses objective reason. Objective reason means that you can't critisize it as subjective, even if it refers to moral statements or other things. As an example: let's say I believe in god and god claims (in my holy book) that listening toThe Beatles is bad. It now doesn't matter if I really want to listen to The Beatles because I really like them, it's still the wrong thing to do and therefore it's not rational. Additionally, it's wrong and irrational for everyone else to listen to The Beatles. I cannot critisize the word of god, it's true and objective (even if only for me). It takes the realisation that either what god wants is up to my interpretation or that god does not exist for me listening to The Beatles to become rational. It now is, because there's no objective force forbidding it and I really want to do it. Furthermore, even if I didn't like The Beatles, I could acknowledge, I could acknowledge that it might be rational for you to listen to them. That's subjective reason then. As I understand it (and believe that Ollie misrepresented it), Horkheimers problem with subjective reason is not that it's an inferior kind of reasoning, Horkheimer believes objective reason to be an illusion, but rather that subjective reason seeks to control it's environment.

[@R0DisG0D]

Also, what you describe sounds like what Habermas refers to as "teological" and "strategical" reasoning. Teleological reasoning is about what will happen if I do X and if it will lead to the desired state Y. Strategical reasoning is a part of teological reasoning but it also accounts for other peoples actions and the motives they might have.

[@sydneyrica1802]

I've been looking forward to this series! You've mentioned Raz a few times and what you've said has made me curious about their writings.

[@soblackismyself]

I can be divided into pieces that can be defined by integers.

[@theredqueendefect7833]

Great Video Ollie!!! Can't wait for the next one !!!

[@LordSlag]

"...pehtrol..." I love your accent! :D

[@Phase4TheProphet]

You mention that objective reasoning is only really possible in computers by applying higher orders of subjective reasoning, but I don't really see how this differs from the way humans operate. To go back to the Dollar Auction example, the way you break out of that loop is to evaluate that participating in an infinite auction is not something that you're motivated to do. Thus, you stop bidding to reach your goal of drawing the auction to a close. Perhaps this is a little premature since you still have more to cover with externalism, but it seems like you kind of have to do some mental gymnastics to establish this idea of things that are rational independent of the motivations of actors. Great video though, and I'm looking forward to the rest of the series!

[@LimeyLassen]

So future prediction, essentially.

[@Phase4TheProphet]

I mean not any more than regular reasoning is future prediction. Like to even make what we understand as a rational decision, you have to have a basic understanding of cause and effect. "If I bid highest, I will win the auction" is as much a prediction as "If we continually attempt to outbid each other forever, I will never satisfy my motivation for bidding in the first place". It's more about acknowledging that humans and machines both seem to resolve the problem Olly referenced by switching to a higher-order motivation and reasoning from there instead of continuing to work towards the original motivation (here, winning the dollar in the auction). Let me know if that doesn't make sense, I'm extremely tired so I'm not 100% confident in my ability to explain anything right now haha

[@LimeyLassen]

Yeah, I agree. It's the same thing, but more complex.

[@Torthrodhel]

I was thinking that. I think a lot of thought experiments are very limited, and probably best used as introducers to an idea rather than ways of exploring it very far.

[@jezzuh9120]

Common sense is just high order subjective reasoning and human beings absolutely get stuck in loops like machines. I seened it with my own eyes.

[@polarys79]

Without giving it a a second thought I automatically completed the blank with "If you want PEACE, you should obey the law" not because I think it is true. On the contrary, I am terrified that *that's* where my mind went. I recognize that is what I was raised to believe and even though I don't think like that anymore, the thought is still there. That was a great example for class!!!

[@aalheiurflosadottir5976]

it´s very good to listen to you, I find that the most important

[@texas8040]

Great video, lookin forward to future parts!

[@appletreepear]

My philosophy is incredibly similar to reasons internalism (but taken further, with a bunch of epistemology and psychology and framed completely differently), which I've somehow never heard of. I'm glad it's been thought of before because I was confused about why I'd never seen anyone make these arguments, despite seeming so intuitive. Closest I'd seen before this was just various forms of hedonism. So thanks!! I got a lot out of this video, looking forward to parts 3 & 4 : )

[@_infinitedomain]

Another awesome vid! Can't wait for the next episodes.

[@tarathetortoise]

As an over-thinker I really enjoy all you content, but this one in particular. Thank you.

[@HavidVideos]

Derek Parfit has interesting views on reasons too. He defines objective reasons as: "Certain facts give reasons to have desires/aims and to do whatever might achieve these desires/aims. These reasons are given by the facts about the objects/goals of these desires/aims". Subjective reasons as: "Our reasons for acting are depended on/provided by certain facts about what would fulfill or achieve our present desires/aims". He defends objective reasons.

[@AkiraSpectrum]

Great video, looking forward to the rest of the series.

[@frost587]

Already got me hyped for the next episode.

[@ilaydak2418]

Your channel has beautiful topics to dive into for the ones with a nagging thirst for exploration. Thanks for communicating ideas.

[@PhilosophyTube]

My pleasure!

[@cloney999]

I am all about this more nitty gritty content, Top Stuff mate :)

[@jmclean6648]

When I started watching you you were a great presenter, and you've only improved as of late

[@thisaccountisdead9060]

Good to see you back on the horse Olly! :D "There's no other way" - Archbishop Desmond Tutu, protesting Apartheid and advocating Peace.... .....(Also Damon Albarn from 'Blur').

[@htpkey]

Your video's are life changing! Keep up the amazing work :)

[@jordang7479]

I'm worried there's somthing wrong with my brain because I seem to have a lot of trouble processing philosophy. Like I hear and understand but I can't seem to put the puzzle pieces together.

[@princesseuphemia1007]

That doesn't mean there is something wrong with your brain at all. You might have trouble putting the puzzle pieces together but that could be for several reasons. Maybe you're just not used to philosophy and it will just take more practice and exposure to it for it to make sense to you, or maybe you just aren't inclined towards it. Everyone's brain works differently and that's okay. Some people are better at sports while others are better at art and others are better at engineering and so on. I don't know if this is just in my head but it seems like most people I've met who are good with philosophy also tend to be good with foreign languages and art, but are really bad at math and economics and engineering and stuff like that, whereas people who are good with math and stuff have a hard time with philosophy and art. I guess it is just how the human brain works.

[@oldfag_adventures]

to me personally, i see philosophy as kind of special, it's not something that's entirely grounded in reality because it itself is an observation of reality and kind of an opinion on it

[@jonsnor4313]

It takes you a while to get accusumed to it, like when you find it hard to get into a book or show in a genre, but the more you see, the more can you make connections with things you already you know and it gets easier. The comparison as sort of language is pretty good. Or a genre like anime. Getting into philosophy is a learning process, like language or other topics. The more you engage in a language, the better you get. The beginning is always the hardest. Philosophies are mostly a mental exercise to do thing in praxis. And interesting mindgames to expand your perspectives and others. A bit like mindgames. But its soo big. Try to watch THE GOOD PLACE, the show uses philosophies in praxis organicly in the show, but doesnt hit you over the head with it. You probably like that. And its a really good smart fun yet thought provoking show.

[@matthewmalpeli]

Looking forward to the edition that covers the idea of rational expectations in economics theory. Spoiler Alert! There's very little rationality at work.

[@sydneyrica1802]

Im at the end of the video and I'm wishing he'd released these all at once like the Antifa video. Ugh.

[@Silvain1]

Same here... That cliffhanger feeling is strong with this one

[@sydneyrica1802]

Silvain Nordseal I know. I guess he's building up anticipation - it works though and and it keeps me coming back.

[@MrScentless]

I was like "Shiieeeeeeeeet" at that cliffhanger, really well done! Now I want more ;..;

[@KGmaster1188]

Well...there is simply no objective reason. As you rightly pointed out, rationality can only help you choose actions to achieve goals but not the goals themselves. Even when rationality seems to imply a certain goal, it is always a sub-goal in the context of a higher one. Interestingly, a human can adopt a set of goals from others without questioning and see them as objective reasons (e.g. moral values). However, once he questions them, he sees that they are merely sub-goals of the higher goal of achieving a functioning society.

[@arcanewonders9641]

I like the way you think.

[@TheDavid2222]

"The meaning of a concept lies in its conceivable consequences." C.S. Peirce fight me. Lol

[@AFSRodrigues]

Really interesting video, as always :) On this subject, António Damásio (which I believe is the neurosurgeon you mentioned was at the Madrid Future Trends Forum) wrote a very interesting book, "Descartes' Error", where he explores how certain brain damage that impairs emotions also impairs the ability to make rational decisions, including in relation to your own self interest. He's conclusion is that emotion is a mechanism that not only provides motivation for our behaviour, but also acts as a bias in our decision making process, guiding us to decisions that are conducive to our self interest, even without exploring thoroughly all the options and consequences (i.e., we often make good decisions by gut feeling/heuristics, that we could not reach with "pure reason™"). It seems trivial, but the important part is that the emotions are not just there to set the goal and then pure reason kicks in - emotions play a role in the whole decision making process. I think this greatly enriches the internalists' picture of reason, although it does not solve the problem of "wanting to be bad" - looking forward to your video on that!

[@whitfitzgerald638]

I absolutely love your videos. Thanks so much.

[@whitfitzgerald638]

I guess my one question about the content in this video is how we can really justify Reasons Externalism. It seems that in the chocolate dilemma, that is, you choose not to eat it because of health reasons, you still have to want to be healthy *more* than wanting to eat the chocolate. Or even in the case of more logical/evidenced premises-you may want to satisfy your own wants or beliefs more than you want to adhere to some set of logical principles, i.e. even if you'd known you were about to drink petrol, if you wanted to drink it more than you cared about your health afterwards, in that context, it still would be "reasonable" to drink it. And when I condemn that action, I'm doing so with respect to a value I subjectively place on that person not dying rather than satisfying their wants. I've been struggling recently with the place of logic and reason in the universe. I'd probably place myself within the nihilist camp, and as such, believe that there isn't an objective reasonable justification to do or not do anything. However, I also am a gay person with religious, homophobic parents-and, because of my own beliefs, find it hard sometimes to argue along the lines of reason when, according to their beliefs, there is reason that would suggest homophobia, and the effectiveness of my appeal to anything else would have to initially conform to the receptability of my parents to whichever subject, e.g. science, logic, my happiness-over that of their religious beliefs. I know I'm encountering a generally main inefficiency within nihilism-that it erodes objective ought statements to a nub-but man does it suck sometimes. Anyways, thanks so much. I'll watch the rest of the series now! WF

[@thisaccountisdead9060]

When I was studying engineering design at university we were introduced to this design tool called "quality function deployment" - it was invented in Japan in the 1960's apparently. There are many complicated versions of it. But the basic set up is of a matrix (a spreadsheet or a square grid) with qualities of something listed down the left side and quantifiable attributes list across the top. So for example for a car, a customer could list the qualities they want like "fast" or "comfortable" or "econimical" down one side. These will then be related to the attributes across the top like "fast" = "speed in mph and acceleration and chassis design", or "comfortable" = "ergonomics and noise vibration and harshness", or "econimical" = "cost per mileage". The most important qualities/subjective needs would be weighted for their importance to the customer, and so the objective means of achieving those needs can be prioritised. Basically anyway. It is still open to bias. As well as distortion of customer needs by imposing the objective demands of the designers retrospectively (backwards bullshit) onto the customer. Or the customer wanting something that could only exist in the realm of fanstasy/marketing. Or just curruption by being both the customer and the supplier - such as a student using the process and cutting corners so as to get their assignment in on time.

[@RoyalFusilier]

That metaphor of the auction for a dollar also works as a crushingly effective metaphor for Democrats and Republicans in the USA, or really two-party politics anywhere. The actual move is to bail out and refuse to keep playing, in hopes of breaking the system and forcing a new system to your liking, but that imparts huge loss and risk. More loss than each individual step of 'compromise your principles and get nothing in return but lessen the decline' at each point. Thus ensuring you keep playing.

[@beyond-journeys-end]

A rare opinion, i find that refreshing.

[@alexpatterson4286]

In his Madness and Civilisation, Foucault famously read Descartes' doctrine of 'rationalism' as an extirpation of madness.

[@SomeoneBeginingWithI]

I am intrigued by the closing question... good thing I left watching these until I had the time and mental energy to digest them, now it has the added benefit that I can watch two back to back and that doesn't have to be a cliff-hanger question. The closing question reminds me of an episode in season 3 of Sherlock which I disliked. Maybe that was the philosophical idea Gatis was trying to explore...

[@AvonaStar]

Plot Twist: He's the Hey Ocean! publicist... :D

[@robertbaillargeon3683]

Huh. Every time something came up that interested me, it was skimmed over. I'm looking forward to the rest of this series, because now I'm mostly just confused

[@zmail8566]

Have a feeling I'm gonna like this series :D

[@matthewfurnari-omara2079]

Great work!

[@tolmuncica1]

I was so confused in the beginning of this, when you started withe rationality and then went on to explain reasons (motivations). English is my second language and until this video it never consciously occured to me that the word reason in English is used in both ways. In my first language those are two different words that correlate to a completely different concept in my mind when talking about them, closer to something like for example in German: "Grund" and "Vernunft".

[@nickgeffen8316]

It's finally here! :D

[@zeeiremonger9201]

Excellent video btw !!

[@gg_rider]

What came to mind was the lyrics to the dark mood Pleasure, Little Treasure regarding "reasons".

[@jerrywhite7328]

Hey man, awhile back you did a video about 'Brave New World' with the litcritguy, if you recall. I really liked it and I was thinking recently, as you've started focusing on modern time and modern issues, that it would be cool if you did videos like that again. For other novels or maybe something like it for non-fiction. Just regular length videos which delve into some of the bigger concepts in books you've recommended through-out the show, where people can vote on what they want to hear about, and maybe get a better understanding as they read it. It's just an idea, you change form and format pretty well, and I think it would be engaging. Thanks for all the awesome content.

[@richardbeard9391]

great video homie

[@Anna-rb6rg]

talking about reason in times, when Sapolsky's lectures for decade are free at KZbin, OK, good, super. Saying that people tend to make rules and obey them only by force - wonderful! So deep, OMG

[@isa0ber]

in a sliding scale between subjective and objective, what falls where in the scale is in itself a subjective thing. it's a matter of perception and any attempts to make it crystalized are futile. after all, objectivity implies there's an objective beeing seeked and that brings us back to motivation. if there's a specific thing we want to achieve, we're already biased to get there. in my humble onion, establishing an objective that seems fair to all parties and being aware of motivations is the best way to escape the trap of being constantly guided by what we want. i got in a fight with a friend last week because i sent them a link to a short film i thought they'd like but they said the film made them angry. i dropped the fight once i realized i didn't know why them not liking that film made me so upset. upon analising my intentions i realized i wanted to make them happy and was actually angry at myself for failing. had i insisted on arguing in defense of the film, i would've overlooked what actually mattered the most about me having sent that film to my friend in the first place: their happiness.

[@auspistic]

I can't stop thinking about how "If You Wanna Be Happy" by Jimmy follows reasons internalism.

[@Garland41]

Honestly, and I don't know how you'll take this, a lot of this sounded like the consequence of Nietzsche's famous declaration of the dead of God. Now to be fair, my knowledge of the Nietzsche's formulation of the Death of God comes mainly from Gilles Deleuze (who you should really read I'll buy you one of his books) using the understanding of Nietzsche at first for the understanding as no innate connective force in nature which then leads to Deleuze's formulation of Difference in Itself in Difference and Repetition, and then later for Deleuze to challenge the traditional image of thought. "It is this element, in Difference and Repetition, that founds Deleuze's most serious criticism of the traditional image of thought: that it fails to come to terms with the true nature of difference and repetition. As a result, it is fair to say that this moment of the book is essential for understanding the way in which Deleuze both wants to base his assessment of traditional philosophies of identity and time, and how he wishes to exceed them: his reformulation of difference and repetition is made possible by this critique." (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy page of Gilles Deleuze). On the aspect of Reason Internalism, is there then a problem of origin? What I mean to say of that is that we have this tendency to say, I like Chicken, or the color orange, but is there a failure of specific differentiation of the origin of these internal beliefs of ours? Similar to the idea in which we are psychologically 1) ingrained from a time where we have no autonomy ourselves, and 2) being born certain ways. I think a problem with this understanding of rationalism is that it is based on a normative metric. What do I mean by that? Well it came across to me in my previous semester of Uni in which the philosophical of self and identity came up with an understanding of life after death in which the question or problem was linking this question to Autism or another form of mental difference. If the case were that there was an afterlife, then would the person remain Autistic or become what we consider normal. That being the question, the idea of Reason internalism, related to subjective reason, is the question of the internal origin of wants and needs and if it is possible to separate them from these conditions which are beyond the normal metric?

[@projectmalus]

I don't know about the rest of your comment but I think for the life after death question that the autistic person would be neither autistic or normal, that person would return to the Godhead or whatever you want to call it, if you believe in a top down view of reality, where the deceased ascends to a higher level. If we see a bottom up reality, the person returns to a lower level, that of molecules, again neither autistic or normal.

[@R0DisG0D]

It's a line of philosophy that Nietsche is definitely part of and advanced.

[@gianlucaborg195]

the first 60 or so seconds tell me: Kant versus Hume and the hypothetical against categorical reasoning. Can't wait for the next one!

[@gianlucaborg195]

Then it gets confirmed in the next 200 or so seconds!

[@alenbacco7613]

Been putting these videos off forever, frankly i dont really care if im rational, but I enjoyed this one allot and Im looking foreword to the rest

[@eruyommo]

For me, reason is external, and it's the state of dynamic equilibrium that is achieved through the infinite interactions of infinitely diverse people exposed to infinite diverse situations in an infinite time. As one can guess from the infinite infinites of my definition, it is a tendency, not a physical reachable thing. Therefore, we can only iterate to be closer and closer to it.

[@TaylorjAdams]

Great video. I would argue that the vast majority of the time people obey the law because they agree with it and people who don't agree with the law tend not to obey it. Those who obey the law because it is the law tend to do so because they agree with the social contract that we as a society have chosen together through elected representatives and whatnot. In both cases there's a cost/benefit analysis involved but threat of violence is often less important than trading obedience to one law for the upholding of another that's considered more important. I spose that's a bit analogous to submitting to a threat of violence on one's self in exchange for the threat of violence to be exerted on others, or to be free of a different threat of violence, but I feel like that makes about as much sense as the libertarian stance that anything paid for by tax money was done so at gun point as opposed to being a form of transaction. I don't pay taxes because I'm afraid to go to jail, I pay them because I like roads and schools and hospitals etc. Avoiding jaywalking across an empty road in the middle of the night if a cop is in view I do to avoid a penalty, but that's a small price to pay compared to the benefits.

[@kittuojha]

I think there is only one objective reason or only one true motivation so to speak = Avoid suffering. Hume's quote also says so. After that end goal is hardwired, rest all becomes reasons to achieve it. So I totally believe in subjective reasons or reasons internalism. Reasons externalism talk about changing objectives, to which I say that objective actually remains the same = avoiding suffering. The reason to stop keep bidding in the dollar auction is the motivation of damage control = to avoid suffering. The reason to start the bidding is to make more money = a promise of privileges = to avoid suffering.

[@Jessery]

That was an excellent video.

[@xxden4ikxx158]

5000 rubles banknote representing one cent is pretty accurate 7:03

[@nikolademitri731]

Any video that features some words from the great David Hume is a video I’m down for. Anyway, very excited for this series, I think it’s important that people really understand the “philosophy of reason”, though I must admit I prefer these as a bulk video, like your Antifa vid. Good show, as always, sir! ✌🏼

[@SomeoneBeginingWithI]

I will reserve some judgement until all the parts are out, but at the moment I do think that this would be more enjoyable (at least for me) if it was all one long video. I put off watching Ollie until I have the time and mental energy to properly digest the videos, which resulted in me not watching this video until part 2 was also out. I liked that I could watch them back to back. Having to wait a week for the next part would have been frustrating, and my memory of the previous video would have been less clear to help me understand the next part.

[@nikolademitri731]

SomeoneBeginingWithI Yeah, I usually rewatch the first part(s) if it’s a series of vids, and I’m watching the latest, so when they’re all out, I’ll likely watch them all in one go, even if that means re-rewatching content. That’s how it best gets imbedded in your mind, anyway.

[@IkBenDigio]

6:40 why are you explaining my runescape scam i used to run while i was younger.

[@deus_ex_machina_]

wave: Doubling money

[@mathymathymathy9091]

Deciding not to play the dollar auction is still using subjective reason. "If I keep playing this dollar auction, I will lose more money. I do not want to lose money. Thus, I will stop playing." Indeed, this (wanting to gain money and not lose money) is the exact same subjective motivation as the motivation for continuing to play (though with a different reason). Also, the dollar auction can be subjected to a mathematical analysis. If both players are rational, and here I am using "rational" in a purely game-theoretic sense, then they would not just be looking at what will gain most money in the short term (like raising from 0 cents to 2 cents, for instance) but what their rational (also in a game-theoretic sense) opponent would do and thus plan ahead. I don't know the exact outcome but I do know for sure that if two rational players are playing the dollar auction, neither will ever bid more than one dollar. If two rational players are playing, then they will be able to plan ahead and if, in doing so, they find that the rational thing to do would be, at some point, to bid more than a dollar, they will realise at the start that they should not play. Thus the reason against AI doesn't really work because a completely game-theoretically rational AI would not necessarily play the dollar auction.

[@unvergebeneid]

Mathymathymathy, well, a rational thing to do if you can't be sure the second player is 100% rational would be for the first player to bid 99 cents right away, before the other player gets locked into a state where they also have to pay. If you're the second player and the first player already bid 1 cent, you can still salvage the situation by bidding 1 dollar. If the other player bids more than a cent, stop right away. _However,_ this means that another strategy for player 1 would be to open with 2 cents and rely on the other player to just stop to avoid the runaway state. This strategy of course has higher gains than the first strategy but it might not go down well with a human and therefore spiteful player 2.

[@unvergebeneid]

Of course if the players can communicate, the can just agree to cooperate and walk away with 50 cents each. And BTW, is not playing at all really that rational? Suppose someone offered you this game with not a dollar but with a million dollars. Would you really be like "nah, I'm good"? I mean, go ahead and effectively bid nothing. Gets the other guy a million bucks. How generous of you!

[@mathymathymathy9091]

Bidding one dollar is never actually better than just bidding nothing, though. It can be equal (if you actually win the dollar) or it can be worse. Thus, the second player might as well simply not play if the first player bids one cent.

[@mathymathymathy9091]

If your strategies are correct (I think they are, but I don't have proof) then that would indeed be the rational thing to do, from a purely game-theoretic standpoint. Of course, this requires knowing that the other player is also rational and also assumes that both of you have as much money as necessary. If you know for a fact that the other player has $500,000 and you have more money, you should play along with the million dollar auction, safe in the knowledge that as soon as you have to bid $500,000.01, you win.

[@unvergebeneid]

Mathymathymathy, that's true.

[@victoriavanderspek8599]

Thanks for not eating my chocolate.

[@jfortman73]

It's been almost 2 years and I'm sure this has been said... A neural network is a computing structure that runs on computer hardware but makes no assumptions about what inputs it will receive or what outputs it should provide. This system is then subjectively trained to produce "correct" outputs given a set of inputs (the training set) so that it will produce the same output given a new set of inputs (the testing set) that it has not seen before. In this way, the neural network does fit what you've described. However, a different neural can feed the outputs from its previous run back into its inputs giving the computer a kind of memory or a way to evaluate past decisions alongside new inputs. In a small system it's enough for the computer to perform "If I do X and you do Y then the proper next action is Z." In a big enough system (and big enough doesn't always need to be that big) you have a computer that can respond more like its trainer or at least respond in ways the trainer deemed preferable. What is needed is criteria for what is a positive outcome and what is a negative outcome. Now, if the system is appropriately designed (big enough, has enough "memory" in its neural network to handle a sufficiently large set of input situations) the criteria for what are positive responses and what are negative responses can also be learned. Up to this point I understand what the neural network looks like even though I've never been able to train a network that can handle more than a simple classification problem (does input X fit into category Y?) and even then text recognition has been beyond me even though the training for such a system is identical to any other classification problem. I understand conceptually how feeding the outputs back into the inputs is supposed to work but keeping all that organized from the perspective of writing the code has also been beyond me. I do know that are robotic systems capable of unassisted learning by manipulating objects in ways that toddlers play with blocks. It is conceivable that a similar system could be created that learns in the same way that humans do, making the computing system objective rather than subjective or at least subjective in the same way that human brains are. Computer neurons will never work in the same way that human neurons do, of course. Humans have x number of gagillion neurons whereas computers currently have far fewer making the scope of the computer experience a lot smaller than that of humans. Computers may be really good at washing your car but couldn't tell you how they felt about it. On the other hand, a computer might be really good at telling you how it feels without the first clue what a car is. Humans do both to a middling degree. My point though is that there's a real difference between computer code, which is subjective based on the coder, and an emergent system based on subjective computer code that has the potential to be similar to the human experience and maybe fall into the objective category. The container may dictate to some degree what is contained but is not the same as what it contained.

[@lomiification]

I definitely want to see hey ocean; they always play a fun show

[@theStormWeaver]

The dollar auction problem only exists if you lack The Concept of The Other. When you realize the other bidder will also act to min/max it becomes clear the auction is a trap.

[@xzonia1]

Wanting to act in a manner inconsistent with the majority or even the law isn't necessarily "bad," but I am interested in hearing where you're going with this discussion.

[@appa609]

The dollar auction is just variations on prisoner's dilemma. The solution in this case is to include the other player in your model and realize that bidding higher will probably not result in you winning with that bid. If you assign correct probabilities to the end conditions you can decide whether or not you want to keep bidding.

[@Sorcering]

can't wait

[@old-moose]

In the end there are but two fundamental "reasons" to do or not do anything: 1. The Positive. I stand to gain whatever I want (fame, wealth, health, pleasure, etc.)or 2. The Negative. I stand to lose something I already have (money, health, freedom, etc.).

[@zeeiremonger9201]

Hey Ollie i think music might be a little to loud. I do like it though and im a big fan of you trying out new music in different videos. This is the first time its gotten in the way a little bit tbh.

[@Silvain1]

That's the problem on adjusting volume on headphones. He probably heard his voice "clear enough" on his earbuds (I'm guessing he used one)

[@isa0ber]

how did you comment a month ago? was this posted for patreons a month ago? is youtube broken? i'm confused

[@Zee-pi3io]

Yeah it was posted for patreon users a month ago ^^

[@Frownlandia]

I swear he says, "I might really want to eat a whole load of chalk."

[@MrJameseder]

Hey, just rewatched this video because I'm doing my honours on rationality and suicide. Just wanted to compliment you on the excellent music selection

[@davidliddelow5704]

What I want from a definition of rationality is the ability to categorize human decisions as either rational or not rational. All human actions are, in some way, motivated. Therefore including motivation doesn't add anything to the discussion other that the ability to sneakily conflate reason with ethics.

[@SenpaiTorpidDOW]

Precisely. Which is why it is wrong.

[@usenlim]

How can I not find your channel until now? Your channel is great. I waste my time listening to Sam Harris's podcast.

[@THATGuy5654]

" the fact that it's your chocolate might be another reason to not do it" * turns around and sees Olly stuffing my chocolates into his mouth guiltily*

[@jeunevieux9582]

It is a desire it is above all motivation

[@gianlucaborg195]

Please do things from philosophers, I really enjoy those, such as for instance, the "God is dead, God remains dead and we have killed him" line from Freidrich Nietzsche or his Three Metamorphs or even the idea of "I am dynamite" or the final line he used "Have I been understood? - Dyonisius versus the Crucified". Thank you!

[@prereflective]

Hey ive been a subscriber of yours for a while, I've noticed that you lean towards the analytic side of philosophy. I could be wrong bc you did mention Horkheimer in this video, but i want to ask you something. Could you make a video on phenomenology? I feel like its a hot topic at my university and it would mean a lot if you made an informative video about it. This whole thing about objectivity and subjectivity really gets to me. Like yeah, i'm not a strict post modernist who believes no truth exists, but I'm also Nietzschean when it comes to talks about objectivity. Sorry, I'm rambling on. But if you do make a video on phenomenology, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

[@HxH2011DRA]

Objective reasoning just sounds like internal reasoning but on a higher level/more long term. You can be motivated to do something in the present that could hurt you in the future but as humans we're motivated to avoid future pain with the knowledge we have to work with. I've always said that tge reason we don't have A.I yet is because we can't yet program a true sense of time into a computer

[@DanAI17]

So good.

[@foreverwantingpie]

Very interesting

[@arnoldcolter]

virtue ethics rationality. First a person is aware of their shortcomings as a human in decision making, susceptibility to fallacies, the capacity to commit evil, etc. second they use logical laws and ethical theorems to compensate and counteract their shortcomings. For example, a person aware of the Milgram experiment is able to recognize when they are being effected by their natural human traits and are able to rely on their belief in ethical theories and logical laws to counteract the effect. A internal motivation to seek external judgment out of a self awareness of ones own shortcomings. So being rational has less to do with having reasons, and more to do with being aware of those reasons.