What is P and -P?

[Terrapin Station]

Name a species where equivocations aren't fallacious.

So now you are fond of social norms?

Yesterday you were arguing against the wrongness of murder.

I wasn't arguing against the wrongness of murder. I was explaining that "the wrongness of murder" isn't something found outside of minds.

Asking you the species of logic that has non-fallacious equivocations isn't a "fondness of social norms." It's underscoring rather that you're talking out of your ass just because you want to be a troll here.

[Skepdick]

I wasn't arguing against the wrongness of murder. I was explaining that "the wrongness of murder" isn't something found outside of minds.

Asking you the species of logic that has non-fallacious equivocations isn't a "fondness of social norms." It's underscoring rather that you're talking out of your ass just because you want to be a troll here.

Second time you are calling me a troll, even though I am substantiating everything I am saying.

Have you considered that you have weaponised the phrase "troll" to commit ad-hominem fallacies?

[Terrapin Station]

Second time you are calling me a troll,

If you're going to keep count you're going to be very busy.

[Skepdick]

If you're going to keep count you're going to be very busy.

In which case, I'll point out that I have no idea what trolling is, but if it takes one to know one then I might be a troll.

[Terrapin Station]

If you're going to keep count you're going to be very busy.

In which case, I'll point out that I have no idea what trolling is

"'Hipster' doesn't even refer to anything!"

[Skepdick]

I wasn't arguing against the wrongness of murder. I was explaining that "the wrongness of murder" isn't something found outside of minds.

And I was explaining to you that since you are a physicalist, then mind is physical, so it doesn't matter where it's found for it to be objectively true.
Me being thirsty is an objective fact, even if it's "just in my mind".

It's a gambit in the stupid Philosophical game, you see - an effective move against any monist metaphysic.

Because now you have to commit special pleading.

[Skepdick]

"'Hipster' doesn't even refer to anything!"

In so far as I can tell it refers to a category in your head. But I can't relate the contents of your mental category to any objects outside of your head unless you tell me how to distinguish hipsters from non-hipsters.

The magic sauce is in the classification rule.

[Terrapin Station]

And I was explaining to you that since you are a physicalist, then mind is physical, so it doesn't matter where it's found for it to be objectively true.

It matters if we're using "objective" to refer to "mind-independent," doesn't it?

But let's ignore that and say that something is true by virtue of occurring as a mental phenomenon.

So, Joe feels that murder is wrong, and this implies that "murder is wrong" is true in your view, right?

But Frank feels that murder is morally permissible, and this implies that "murder is morally permissible" is true in your view, no?
'
If the above isn't the case in your view, why isn't it the case?

[Terrapin Station]

"'Hipster' doesn't even refer to anything!"

In so far as I can tell it refers to a category in your head. But I can't relate the contents of your mental category to any objects outside of your head unless you tell me how to distinguish hipsters from non-hipsters.

The magic sauce is in the classification rule.

Do you believe that there are categories that aren't in persons' heads?

[Skepdick]

It matters if we're using "objective" to refer to "mind-independent," doesn't it?

I don't know how you could possibly use it that way since only minds refer to anything.

But let's ignore that and say that something is true by virtue of occurring as a mental phenomenon.

Well, you don't have to say that if you are a physicalist.

It suffices to say "something is true by virtue of it occurring as a phenomenon".

So, Joe feels that murder is wrong, and this implies that "murder is wrong" is true in your view, right?

But Frank feels that murder is morally permissible, and this implies that "murder is morally permissible" is true in your view, no?

If the above isn't the case in your view, why isn't it the case?

Sure, but it's trivially true and it lacks nuance.

Joe (and other people like Joe) went out of their way to develop jurisprudence, societies, social institutions, law enforcement and many other social structures to punish murderers. Joe and his ilk have been doing this for thousands and thousands of years.

Frank (and other people like Frank) didn't seem to care to go to such extents.

It seems to me that Joe (and people who think like Joe) are much more committed to his their position than Frank and people who think like Frank.

Frank's mindset is experiencing negative natural selection.
Joe's mindset is experiencing positive natural selection.

[Terrapin Station]

It matters if we're using "objective" to refer to "mind-independent," doesn't it?

I don't know how you could possibly use it that way since only minds refer to anything.

"We can only use terms to refer to the thing that refers"? In other words, "We can't refer to anything aside from the thing that's capable of reference"? So in other words, we couldn't have a word like "toaster" that refers to the electrical devices that heat slices of bread and the like, because those devices aren't capable of reference ("toasters" don't refer to anything; only minds do). Do you agree with that?

But let's ignore that and say that something is true by virtue of occurring as a mental phenomenon.

Well, you don't have to say that if you are a physicalist.

You also don't have to use "true" to refer to "anything that exists, as it exists." You can if you want to, but you don't have to.

Sure, but it's trivially true.

Joe (and other people like Joe) went out of their way to develop jurisprudence, social institutions, law enforcement and many other social structures to punish murderers.

Frank (and other people like Frank) didn't do any of that.

It seems to me that Joe is much more committed to his position than Frank.

Whether someone is "committed to their position" would be different than whether something is true, though, wouldn't it?

At any rate, so your view is that every moral stance that anyone has is true. Is that right? (Just that some people are "more committed" to their moral stances than others are.)

Re being "committed" by the way, Frank might be a very prolific serial killer, but since not many other people feel the same way that Frank does, Frank's behavior didn't wind up codified as social (statistical) norms.

[Skepdick]

"We can only use terms to refer to the thing that refers"? In other words, "We can't refer to anything aside from the thing that's capable of reference"? Do you agree with that?

I don't, because it's not true.

The action of "referencing" is performed by the mind. The mind can refer to anything it damn well pleases. Even itself.
"can" and "cannot" are prescriptive/restrictive statements created by the mind. The mind can even refer to the very rules it created.

So if you are going to subject the mind to rules of its own creation you have to tell me why you are doing that. What is the purpose/telos of the rules you are inventing?

You also don't have to use "true" to refer to "anything that exists, as it exists." You can if you want to, but you don't have to.

Exactly. I don't say "It's true that murder is wrong". I just say "murder is wrong". It's implicit.

Whether someone is "committed to their position" would be different than whether something is true, though, wouldn't it?

Only if you are appealing to abstract notions of truth.

In the words of William James

There can be no difference anywhere that doesn’t make a difference elsewhere – no difference in abstract truth that doesn’t express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere, and somewhen. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one.

I am pointing at the consequences of people's commitment. What is there to talk about if a commitment or "true state of mind" has no consequences?

At any rate, so your view is that every moral stance that anyone has is true. Is that right? (Just that some people are "more committed" to their moral stances than others are.)

Re being "committed" by the way, Frank might be a very prolific serial killer, but since not many other people feel the same way that Frank does, Frank's behavior didn't wind up codified as social (statistical) norms.

My view is that cooperation leads to the codification and enforcement of moral stances, and murderers ain't very sociable and cooperative folk.

At global scale these social dynamics are equivalent to selection pressures.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't, because it's not true.

Good, because I sure don't agree with it, either (although if someone has it in mind--wouldn't it be true to you?)

So I have to wonder why you'd think that we can't refer to something (such as objectivity being mind-independent things) that isn't itself capable of reference.

I don't say "It's true that murder is wrong". I just say "murder is wrong". It's implicit.

Well, you did write, "Murder is wrong. It's trivially true."

My view is that cooperation leads to the codification and enforcement of moral stances, and murderers ain't very sociable and cooperative folk . . .

That's not what I'm interested in though. Is it your view or not that every moral stance that anyone has is true?

[Skepdick]

So I have to wonder why you'd think that we can't refer to something (such as objectivity being mind-independent things) that isn't itself capable of reference.

Because the mind constructed the notion of "objectivity"?

Because the mind determines what is "objective " and what is "subjective"?

All categorisation is done by minds.

You can do whatever you like with your mind, you can invent whatever categories you want and you can categorize the world however you choose to.

I am still asking you "Why are you using your mind like that?"

Well, you did write, "Murder is wrong. It's trivially true."

And I also wrote "Murder is wrong". And "It's true that murder is wrong".

I made the implicit explicit because it was useful to do so.

That's not what I'm interested in though. Is it your view or not that every moral stance that anyone has is true?

Obviously it's true. If you are a monist (and you claim that you are) then it can't be any other way.

But just because a moral stance is true, it doesn't mean it's prevalent.

[Terrapin Station]

Because the mind constructed the notion of "objectivity"?

Because the mind determines what is "objective " and what is "subjective"?

All categorisation is done by minds.

Right. But how are you figuring that that amounts to only being able to REFER to minds? It seems like you aren't getting what reference is (which is why I sarcastically posted earlier "Reference, how does it work?") Aren't you familiar with denotation or extension?

Cameras create photographs, all photography is done by camera, etc. Does that imply that we can only photograph cameras (and the very same camera that is doing the photography)?

I am still asking you "Why are you using your mind like that?"

Because I often have a need to refer to things like toasters. I want toast sometimes.

And I also wrote "Murder is wrong". And "It's true that murder is wrong".

Sure. So it wouldn't be honest to say you didn't write that.

Obviously it's true. If you are a monist (and you claim that you are) then it can't be any other way.

But just because a moral stance is true, it doesn't mean it's prevalent.

What would the significance of prevalence be? Is there any significance to it?