Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

No, they don't.

Yeah... They do.

Deviation from norms doesn't happen without a reason. Homeostatis.

This is off topic, but we have to make a whole host of other assumptions for a given statistical norm to fuel a prediction.

None whatsoever. I assume that the future will be like the past. And I am suspicious when it isn't.

Ergodic theory.

Ignoring the the comment immediately above, what the heck is this supposed to have to do with a normative? lol

The norm in every complex system is homeostasis - steady state.

Murders declining is surprising.

Surprise == information.

What? It looks like we're not even talking about the same thing at all.

We are. You are just not groking.

If your moral predispositions are not causal then they can't change anything. Homeostasis remains the norm. Change (as observed) doesn't take place.

[Terrapin Station]

Deviation from norms doesn't happen without a reason.

And what is that supposed to have to do with normatives? lol

[Skepdick]

And what is that supposed to have to do with normatives? lol

Are normatives causal?

Yes or no.

Anything causal is objective.

[Terrapin Station]

And what is that supposed to have to do with normatives? lol

Are normatives causal?

They can be, but the issue isn't whether people think things like "I ought to x."
That's not at all the topic.

Anything causal is objective.

That's not what we're talking about!

[Skepdick]

They can be, but the issue isn't whether people think things like "I ought to x."
That's not at all the topic.

It IS the damn topic.

OUGHT normatives be causal?

If you can't honestly answer 'yes' to this question - you are wasting everybody's time!

Non-causal normatives are sterile.

That's not what we're talking about!

You don't get to tell me what I am talking about.

I am "we". You are not me.

[Terrapin Station]

They can be, but the issue isn't whether people think things like "I ought to x."
That's not at all the topic.

It IS the damn topic.

lol, no it isn't. No one is arguing that people don't think things like "I ought to x" or that they don't sometimes act in response to that thought.

[Skepdick]

lol, no it isn't. No one is arguing that people don't think things like "I ought to x" or that they don't sometimes act in response to that thought.

I am arguing it.

If you are going to insist I am no one, I could just switch from reason to violence...

I reject your framing. I reject your linguistic and conceptual normatives.

[Terrapin Station]

lol, no it isn't. No one is arguing that people don't think things like "I ought to x" or that they don't sometimes act in response to that thought.

I am arguing it.

If you are going to insist I am no one, I could just switch from reason to violence...

I reject your framing. I reject your linguistic and conceptual normatives.

So you're saying that the statistics you're presenting have something to do with normatives, but you're saying that you're claiming that no one is thinking things like "I ought to x" or that no one is acting in response to those thoughts.

Ohhhhhkay.

[Skepdick]

So you're saying that the statistics you're presenting have something to do with normatives, but you're saying that you're claiming that no one is thinking things like "I ought to x" or that no one is acting in response to those thoughts.

Ohhhhhkay.

You are doing the same thing.

You are married to your conception of "objectivity" - which I reject as philosophical horseshit.

The difference between your conception of "objectivity" and mine? Mine's testable/falsifiable.

[Terrapin Station]

So you're saying that the statistics you're presenting have something to do with normatives, but you're saying that you're claiming that no one is thinking things like "I ought to x" or that no one is acting in response to those thoughts.

Ohhhhhkay.

You are doing the same thing.

You are married to your conception of "objectivity" -

No, as I've stated many times, I couldn't care less what we CALL anything. What I care about are the facts that obtain and what the upshots of those facts are re what the world is like--whatever we name anything. It doesn't really matter what we name anything--that's only useful for us to both be talking about the same thing instead of talking about two completely different issues.

The issue here is one of what facts obtain and what the upshots of those facts are--it's an issue about specific sorts of facts/upshots. The issue in no way hinges on using particular sounds (particular words) for anything.

[Skepdick]

No, as I've stated many times, I couldn't care less what we CALL anything. What I care about are the facts that obtain and what the upshots of those facts are re what the world is like.

Wouldn't you say that you have a bit of a problem then?

If you want to know what the world is like, but you can't even tell whether A is or isn't like А, it seems you have a problem with your epistemology/methodology for determining sameness and difference.

How are you going to figure out what anything is LIKE?

It doesn't really matter what we name anything--that's only useful for us to both be talking about the same thing instead of talking about two completely different issues.

The issue here is one of what facts obtain and what the upshots of those facts are--it's an issue about specific sorts of facts/upshots. The issue in no way hinges on using particular sounds (particular words) for anything.

Shame. You seem stuck in your religion. If it doesn't matter what we call things, go ahead and explain to me what you really want without using the words "facts", "obtain". Maybe try paraphrasing "same" and "different" also...

[Terrapin Station]

If you want to know what the world is like, but you can't even tell whether A is or isn't like А, it seems you have a problem with your epistemology/methodology for determining sameness and difference.

The tokens are different. Usually what I'd take the tokens to be referring to is not.
The tokens are names. That's what I don't care about--it doesn't matter what we call anything.

[Skepdick]

The tokens are different. Usually what I'd take the tokens to be referring to is not.

They aren't tokens. They are patterns.

There's A
And there's A

Is A the same pattern as А?

The tokens are names. That's what I don't care about--it doesn't matter what we call anything.

I keep telling you that they are not names; or referents; or anything like your idiot-ass is trying to interpret them as.

Observe them for what they are. Marks on a screen. Physical existents. Quit mis-interpreting them

This A is itself. Call it A-one (since you like labels).
This А is itself also. Call it A-two (since you like labels).

A-one refers to this ----> A
A-two refers to this ----> А

[Terrapin Station]

Is A the same pattern as А?

Not "at the A" itself, no. The patterns are at two spatiotemporal locations. Thus they're not the same.

We formulate a mental abstraction about it, though, where we say that it's the same pattern (per our mental abstraction). This is more or less how two tokens referring to the same referent works as well.

A-one refers to this ----> A
A-two refers to this ----> А

You can take them to refer to themselves as marks on a screen if you like. There's not a correct answer about reference. It depends on how an individual thinks about it.

[Skepdick]

Not "at the A" itself, no. The patterns are at two spatiotemporal locations. Thus they're not the same.

Great! That's sufficient for me to claim that metaphysically you consider separation in space-time as sufficient criterion for difference.

This thing and that thing are different.

Now tell me what's a sufficient criterion for "sameness".

What makes you refer to two necessarily-different things using the same word?

We formulate a mental abstraction about it, though, where we say that it's the same pattern (per our mental abstraction). This is more or less how two tokens referring to the same referent works as well.

But you don't ONLY use the "same token" to refer to "the same referent".

You use the "same token" to refer to a multitude of different spacio-temporal referents.

The relationship between token and referents is 1-to-Many, not 1-to-1. Grouping/classification.

You can take them to refer to themselves as marks on a screen if you like. There's not a correct answer about reference. It depends on how an individual thinks about it.

I imagine you refer to a whole lot of different things by the referent "facts"