3 ms·

Without intelligence, there is no red or blue. You can't begin to overlay a color framework on the world if there are no sentient beings to create it. Maybe un

Without intelligence, there is no red or blue. You can't begin to overlay a color framework on the world if there are no sentient beings to create it. Maybe universal morality does exist, we're just too simple minded to see it.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Without eyes, there's no red or blue. There are wavelengths of light, but no colors. Colors are the names we give to sensations. Similarly, morality is a property of mind. It's like color, not like wavelength. And unlike light, we didn't find any objective source in the outside world, nor do we know of a process that would tune our perception of morality with fundamental laws of physics. Personally, I currently believe the only somewhat-objective source of morality is path dependence: all humans share the same brain architecture. I think all the base shared moral instincts we have come from that.
- dota_fanatic 8y ago
  Semantics methinks. Without minds, there is light, but no wavelengths. Wavelengths are the names we give to aspects of a _shared formalism_ which is applied to light. Do wavelengths _exist_, or are they an extremely convenient system of formalism that "matches" enough to be useful? Much like Newtonian is useful, but not "real". Color, wavelength, photons, waves, all useful fictions to lesser and greater degrees for intelligent agents, but do they "exist"? When one person sees red, another person also sees red, and not instead blue. Because it is the same wavelength. Because it is the same light. Personally, I think there's good evidence towards the truth of a universal morality as laid out by Christopher Alexander in his texts "The Nature of Order", an interpretation that looks to the order of all matter in the universe... not just consciousness. Ie it's not "on top of", it just looks to what is, and wonders how we can learn from this and apply it to "our" ends. Interestingly, if humans were more in tune with the order of nature, there would certainly be a lot less suffering on this planet, and a much much better outlook for the future. ;)

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Without eyes, there's no red or blue. There are wavelengths of light, but no colors. Colors are the names we give to sensations. Similarly, morality is a property of mind. It's like color, not like wavelength. And unlike light, we didn't find any objective source in the outside world, nor do we know of a process that would tune our perception of morality with fundamental laws of physics. Personally, I currently believe the only somewhat-objective source of morality is path dependence: all humans share the same brain architecture. I think all the base shared moral instincts we have come from that.

dota_fanatic 8y ago
Semantics methinks. Without minds, there is light, but no wavelengths. Wavelengths are the names we give to aspects of a _shared formalism_ which is applied to light. Do wavelengths _exist_, or are they an extremely convenient system of formalism that "matches" enough to be useful? Much like Newtonian is useful, but not "real". Color, wavelength, photons, waves, all useful fictions to lesser and greater degrees for intelligent agents, but do they "exist"? When one person sees red, another person also sees red, and not instead blue. Because it is the same wavelength. Because it is the same light. Personally, I think there's good evidence towards the truth of a universal morality as laid out by Christopher Alexander in his texts "The Nature of Order", an interpretation that looks to the order of all matter in the universe... not just consciousness. Ie it's not "on top of", it just looks to what is, and wonders how we can learn from this and apply it to "our" ends. Interestingly, if humans were more in tune with the order of nature, there would certainly be a lot less suffering on this planet, and a much much better outlook for the future. ;)