4 ms·

Again, thanks for your clarity > [objectivity] doesn't have inherent moral usefulness Agreed. But I take it as a required pre-cursor, and that was implicit, s

Again, thanks for your clarity > [objectivity] doesn't have inherent moral usefulness Agreed. But I take it as a required pre-cursor, and that was implicit, so you are right to check definitions. I go something like Nihilism: an absence. A zero Objective: a difference beyond zero. A value These are simplifications, but useful to me So "physical state", and "facts not depending on what anyone thinks" both have value -- they are objective realities. Yes some people say physical state and facts are meaningless and so nihilistically ascribe them zero value. But you have not done that I think you are saying the universe definitively exists -- it has value. Morality does not exist (in that it has no predefined value, it is a zero). And from there, you take emergent properties of life, the mind, and psychology, to create a new morality -- one which does have value, but as defined in an emergent property of humanity > even if no such objective truth exists Now I understand you (I think). You are after a different objectivity By my personal definition, your second morality must be objective -- you've given it a value, and said it is different to the previous morality -- a fact As far as I understand things, to have any meaning, there must be objectivity -- otherwise everything is an effective zero, and there is no valid way to say any one thing is better than another. For instance to say something is good rather than bad So what you have done... Please correct me... is say there is no morality, but there is humanity, psychology, physics, desires, etc. You are saying these are objective facts people agree on, and from there you will build an objective morality that people can also agree on If so, three comments: 1) Emergent properties and psychology are fascinating, you can build an objectively interesting morality on these. I appreciate your work and your clarity so far. Sorry, your link didn't open for me 2) How would this morality differ from the current morality -- or, to what extent is the current morality not based on emergent properties of psychology and human behavior? 3) Ah, you are cutting God out of the loop. I don't think this objectively (pun) succeeds... But would love to hear more and any corrections

adjkant 6y ago
> By my personal definition, your second morality must be objective -- you've given it a value, and said it is different to the previous morality -- a fact At this point we're talking definitions, yes. IMO this is a subjective morality because it is only valid when you value what humans value - it comes from our perspective. Without looking at it through our perspective and values, it has no meaning. Repeat for every individual human and combine to get that more or less "objective/existant" rule set. > You are saying these are objective facts people agree on Yes, but stronger. Agreement is not needed. I don't personally find use diving into metaphysical brain in vat scenarios, so I choose to philosophically work under that we can observe the universe, and either it's real or its fake and still matters, for similar reasons of "we still exist and feel" invoked before. > you will build an objective morality that people can also agree on Theoretically, but good luck getting that agreement, lol. As to "objective" see above. I think the distinction of "shared subjective" is important here. > How would this morality differ from the current morality -- or, to what extent is the current morality not based on emergent properties of psychology and human behavior? It really depends on what morality you ascribe to. This view for example is highly supportive of consequentialism in my experience, while pretty clearly kills deontology where it stands. Generally I think the end results in full won't be all that different, though I will say, politically in the US, lack of responsibility via determinism makes strong arguments for things like socialist and egalitarian policies. Of course, psychological factors can offset those, which is why things like full equality a la communism get so much pushback. I think Rawls and the veil of ignorance become pretty useful ideas as a starting point to figure out the details. [1] Our imperfect knowledge will always make this stuff an estimation at best in practicality though. > Ah, you are cutting God out of the loop. I don't think this objectively (pun) succeeds... I've heard enough god arguments that I effectively cut that out of the equation, yes. Similar logic to brain in vat - either its false and we move on, or its true and we can't do anything about it anyways. At the end of the day, there is no god proof that I have seen that justifies a meta-ethical underpinning having to do with god or DCT [2] or the like. Basically, evidence strongly points one direction, and we will never have proof one way or the other, so we do our best, make a choice, and move on. [1] https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignorance https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignoranc... [2] https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/ https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/
- tsegratis 6y ago
  Thanks that is helpful to me. Will respond, I hope, later today
- tsegratis 6y ago
  > Theoretically, but good luck getting that agreement, lol Ha, yes :) > As to "objective" see above. I think the distinction of "shared subjective" is important here So my objective is the "facts irrespective of opinion", but your objective is a subjectivity summed together from many points of view I suggest my 'objectivity' agrees with what you quoted from the dictionary, but your objectivity (more importantly :o) agrees with the zeitgeist -- in that easily the majority of comments here take your view -- a rejection of objectivity I agree this universe is not objective, and I agree shared subjectives exist. So how to make that jump? -- from no fixed point from which to measure true/false -- to a world we can at least have a shared fixed point from which to measure From an external stand point X varies around zero (or there is no zero). From an internal stand point, everyone can measure from X So externally we can make no meaningful statement, but internally we can generate a whole microcosm. So shared subjectivity is the internal view? So is the external an effective zero from a meaning standpoint. Then internal+0 = internal. What meaningfully separates the internal from the external? Is the external meaningfully non zero. Then internal+external > internal. Good. But then we have external meaning. I think you are also saying shared_subjective > external. So internal > external I realize you solve this. You say the universe contains something, but not meaning. From electricity, behold, I create light -- a shared subjectivity If I join you -- I agree, the external world makes no moral sense. I step inside and look from your perspective -- a shared subjectivity. So now I see and make statements about morality based on X -- so to agree with you means to take the perspective that I have objectivity? I think your answer is yes -- I want you to base your life on X > I think Rawls and the veil of ignorance become pretty useful ideas as a starting point to figure out the details So this X is a point from which you can measure decisions and the details of morality? What is the quantitative difference between that and the gods of DCT (thanks for the links) -- haven't you recreated god by a different name? I suppose you might say: Yes, but my God is from electricity. Theirs is from the unknown I think we can prove such a statement as partly right, and partly wrong ---- I think: Either nothing is knowable as true or false, and we move on Or, we know something is true, and then we have a foundation to build on Maybe this is shared subjective. But we are not able to fully prove it. For instance mathematical proof is based on axioms. Axioms are unproven assumptions. So even the most basic things are unproven in anything beyond the subjective. We are like finite beings trying to reach outside the realm of finite observations. How can we we make categorical statements when we will never be able to fully check them? Famously: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." But I would like to suggest a way, and the only way I can imagine We need evidence that 1) Makes categorical statements 2) Makes them within our observation 3) Gives proof not derivable from observation 4) Does that as a unified package Some kind of object from beyond our finite realm, stepping in, acting in a finite way (so we can understand it), and also acting in a non-finite way (otherwise ignore it); and doing this as a unified package, so we can connect the two together (finite and non-finite, inside and outside observation) Notes: Proof would have to be things we consider impossible -- outside of anything we have observed, and not baseable on anything we have observed Categorical statements should be things we don't agree with, otherwise (If we already agree with them, then they're probably not based on evidence we don't already have) I suppose we'd also need reason to trust. Aliens can step onto our television screens and make categorical statements, but they also tend to have the goal of blowing us up and lying -- also they tend to make much lower than categorical claims -- "I can tell you the answers of infinity", or "this is a universal truth" is too wild even for aliens Such claims are necessarily stupendous, and we'd maybe want equivalently stupendous proof before getting off our backsides --- So can I say...? Nothing is knowably true or false, or, evidence exists Which is tantamount to saying: Nothing exists, or, evidence exists I think for a nihilist, I would also add If nothing exists, then at the very least, evidence also equivalently exists -- Which I think is as far as anything can be proved If this is as far as anything can be proved, then is this not effective proof that such evidence exists?? In a deterministic universe, I probably _cannot_ say: "Every action and statement you make is a decision between two options. You are saying one is better, one is worse. You are deciding truth and falsity. Ergo you agree such things exist" But I probably _can_ say: "At the point all your decisions are not between a better and worse option, then truth and falsity are not relevant, and you at the least, do not disagree with anything I'm saying" Please do correct me!!! It is now your turn to question my inconsistencies :) Final point (if you are still with me, and not laughing your head off). I agree: Laughing is a good response An objective truth -- a truth no matter what perspective necessarily makes a statement beyond observation: Infinity beside the finite is always the ratio 1:0. How can the effective 0 make any statement about the effective 1? It cannot The effective 1 is always going to be completely outside the expectations and sensibilities of the 0 I think your electricity giving a shared subjective has been placed in the 1

adjkant 6y ago

> By my personal definition, your second morality must be objective -- you've given it a value, and said it is different to the previous morality -- a fact At this point we're talking definitions, yes. IMO this is a subjective morality because it is only valid when you value what humans value - it comes from our perspective. Without looking at it through our perspective and values, it has no meaning. Repeat for every individual human and combine to get that more or less "objective/existant" rule set. > You are saying these are objective facts people agree on Yes, but stronger. Agreement is not needed. I don't personally find use diving into metaphysical brain in vat scenarios, so I choose to philosophically work under that we can observe the universe, and either it's real or its fake and still matters, for similar reasons of "we still exist and feel" invoked before. > you will build an objective morality that people can also agree on Theoretically, but good luck getting that agreement, lol. As to "objective" see above. I think the distinction of "shared subjective" is important here. > How would this morality differ from the current morality -- or, to what extent is the current morality not based on emergent properties of psychology and human behavior? It really depends on what morality you ascribe to. This view for example is highly supportive of consequentialism in my experience, while pretty clearly kills deontology where it stands. Generally I think the end results in full won't be all that different, though I will say, politically in the US, lack of responsibility via determinism makes strong arguments for things like socialist and egalitarian policies. Of course, psychological factors can offset those, which is why things like full equality a la communism get so much pushback. I think Rawls and the veil of ignorance become pretty useful ideas as a starting point to figure out the details. [1] Our imperfect knowledge will always make this stuff an estimation at best in practicality though. > Ah, you are cutting God out of the loop. I don't think this objectively (pun) succeeds... I've heard enough god arguments that I effectively cut that out of the equation, yes. Similar logic to brain in vat - either its false and we move on, or its true and we can't do anything about it anyways. At the end of the day, there is no god proof that I have seen that justifies a meta-ethical underpinning having to do with god or DCT [2] or the like. Basically, evidence strongly points one direction, and we will never have proof one way or the other, so we do our best, make a choice, and move on. [1] https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignorance https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignoranc... [2] https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/ https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/

tsegratis 6y ago
Thanks that is helpful to me. Will respond, I hope, later today
tsegratis 6y ago
> Theoretically, but good luck getting that agreement, lol Ha, yes :) > As to "objective" see above. I think the distinction of "shared subjective" is important here So my objective is the "facts irrespective of opinion", but your objective is a subjectivity summed together from many points of view I suggest my 'objectivity' agrees with what you quoted from the dictionary, but your objectivity (more importantly :o) agrees with the zeitgeist -- in that easily the majority of comments here take your view -- a rejection of objectivity I agree this universe is not objective, and I agree shared subjectives exist. So how to make that jump? -- from no fixed point from which to measure true/false -- to a world we can at least have a shared fixed point from which to measure From an external stand point X varies around zero (or there is no zero). From an internal stand point, everyone can measure from X So externally we can make no meaningful statement, but internally we can generate a whole microcosm. So shared subjectivity is the internal view? So is the external an effective zero from a meaning standpoint. Then internal+0 = internal. What meaningfully separates the internal from the external? Is the external meaningfully non zero. Then internal+external > internal. Good. But then we have external meaning. I think you are also saying shared_subjective > external. So internal > external I realize you solve this. You say the universe contains something, but not meaning. From electricity, behold, I create light -- a shared subjectivity If I join you -- I agree, the external world makes no moral sense. I step inside and look from your perspective -- a shared subjectivity. So now I see and make statements about morality based on X -- so to agree with you means to take the perspective that I have objectivity? I think your answer is yes -- I want you to base your life on X > I think Rawls and the veil of ignorance become pretty useful ideas as a starting point to figure out the details So this X is a point from which you can measure decisions and the details of morality? What is the quantitative difference between that and the gods of DCT (thanks for the links) -- haven't you recreated god by a different name? I suppose you might say: Yes, but my God is from electricity. Theirs is from the unknown I think we can prove such a statement as partly right, and partly wrong ---- I think: Either nothing is knowable as true or false, and we move on Or, we know something is true, and then we have a foundation to build on Maybe this is shared subjective. But we are not able to fully prove it. For instance mathematical proof is based on axioms. Axioms are unproven assumptions. So even the most basic things are unproven in anything beyond the subjective. We are like finite beings trying to reach outside the realm of finite observations. How can we we make categorical statements when we will never be able to fully check them? Famously: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." But I would like to suggest a way, and the only way I can imagine We need evidence that 1) Makes categorical statements 2) Makes them within our observation 3) Gives proof not derivable from observation 4) Does that as a unified package Some kind of object from beyond our finite realm, stepping in, acting in a finite way (so we can understand it), and also acting in a non-finite way (otherwise ignore it); and doing this as a unified package, so we can connect the two together (finite and non-finite, inside and outside observation) Notes: Proof would have to be things we consider impossible -- outside of anything we have observed, and not baseable on anything we have observed Categorical statements should be things we don't agree with, otherwise (If we already agree with them, then they're probably not based on evidence we don't already have) I suppose we'd also need reason to trust. Aliens can step onto our television screens and make categorical statements, but they also tend to have the goal of blowing us up and lying -- also they tend to make much lower than categorical claims -- "I can tell you the answers of infinity", or "this is a universal truth" is too wild even for aliens Such claims are necessarily stupendous, and we'd maybe want equivalently stupendous proof before getting off our backsides --- So can I say...? Nothing is knowably true or false, or, evidence exists Which is tantamount to saying: Nothing exists, or, evidence exists I think for a nihilist, I would also add If nothing exists, then at the very least, evidence also equivalently exists -- Which I think is as far as anything can be proved If this is as far as anything can be proved, then is this not effective proof that such evidence exists?? In a deterministic universe, I probably _cannot_ say: "Every action and statement you make is a decision between two options. You are saying one is better, one is worse. You are deciding truth and falsity. Ergo you agree such things exist" But I probably _can_ say: "At the point all your decisions are not between a better and worse option, then truth and falsity are not relevant, and you at the least, do not disagree with anything I'm saying" Please do correct me!!! It is now your turn to question my inconsistencies :) Final point (if you are still with me, and not laughing your head off). I agree: Laughing is a good response An objective truth -- a truth no matter what perspective necessarily makes a statement beyond observation: Infinity beside the finite is always the ratio 1:0. How can the effective 0 make any statement about the effective 1? It cannot The effective 1 is always going to be completely outside the expectations and sensibilities of the 0 I think your electricity giving a shared subjective has been placed in the 1