Oh, that's a neat trick! Dodge the question by appropriating it.
Through various measurements and approximations which produce models with tolerable failure rates.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:20 pm How could you know this if you can't accurately observe eyes, optic nerves and the like?
Well why are you asking me if you're using the term yourself? We're back to playing stupid a la pretending to need definitions of terms that you shouldn't need definitions for--especially in this case because you're using the term yourself just a moment later. I'm not interested in doing philosophy by playing stupid. That's a pet peeve of mine rather.
Measurements of what and how would we be checking the failure of anything?Through various measurements and approximations which produce models with tolerable failure rates.
We'd need to be able to access some territory to be able to say this. Otherwise we'd have no ground for it.All models are wrong. Some are useful. The map is not the territory etc etc etc.
I didn't ask you for a definition of a term?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:38 pm Well why are you asking me if you're using the term yourself? We're back to playing stupid a la pretending to need definitions of terms that you shouldn't need definitions for--especially in this case because you're using the term yourself just a moment later. I'm not interested in doing philosophy by playing stupid. That's a pet peeve of mine rather.
Then lets pretend you are a solipsist and I am a figment of your imagination.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:38 pm We'd need to be able to access some territory to be able to say this. Otherwise we'd have no ground for it.
No shit!Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:51 pm A model is just a model. It isn't the thing being modelled.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:51 pm The stupid claim that all models are wrong - fashionable fifty years ago - assumes the fantasy possibility of a model that's right, without bothering to explain what that could be: a description that is the described. It's the same stupidity as denying the existence of things-in-themselves.
The problem is that there's no ground for knowing this if you can't access (via knowledge-by-acquaintance) things that aren't models. It's just like saying something is an illusion while not being able to access just what the illusion is getting wrong. You need to be able to access that in order to fuel the claim that something is an illusion.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:59 pmNo shit!Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:51 pm A model is just a model. It isn't the thing being modelled.
That's why it's called a model.
Then I guess I don't have any knowledge. I am just really good at guessing!Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:03 pm The problem is that there's no ground for knowing this if you can't access (via knowledge-by-acquaintance) things that aren't models. It's just like saying something is an illusion while not being able to access just what the illusion is getting wrong. You need to be able to access that in order to fuel the claim that something is an illusion.
You have no ground for anything other than solipsism. All you'd be saying is that you're predicting your own mind.
That's just a way of saying that you don't really get what claims are.At what point are you going to grok that I don't claim anything about anything?
Sure. That's what I am predicting now anyway - my experiences of whatever it is that I am experiencing.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:31 pm You have no ground for anything other than solipsism. All you'd be saying is that you're predicting your own mind.
And I don't want to "get it". Especially since I am supposed to "defend" my claims.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:31 pm That's just a way of saying that you don't really get what claims are.
OK, Freud, but you got me figured all backwards. Besides having a loving family and being happily married, I have actually been right to the bottom of first principles thinking. Towards learning to speak precisely using formal languages I had to deconstruct my own linguistic framework and unlearn absolutely everything till I hit rock bottom and so, I see all metaphysic/language/conception and even my own mind as 100% instrumental - in a mind-space of infinite possibilities intent is first and foremost. This isn't even that unique - phenomenologists put primary import on intentionality.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:31 pm Evolution/Creation/Age-whatever he goes by here is similar with his aversion to saying that he believes anything. It's all very infantile, really, and it's particularly weird when it amounts to a way of rebelling all while you're admiring conformism a la constructivism/knowledge by consensus (while ignoring the issue of how you can even know what anyone else would be saying or doing to detect a consensus in the first place) . . . it's a big mess that's probably motivated by psychological issues/personal relationship issues in your past.
So you know how you get tired of having to explain how everything works?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:31 pm it's particularly weird when it amounts to a way of rebelling all while you're admiring conformism a la constructivism/knowledge by consensus (while ignoring the issue of how you can even know what anyone else would be saying or doing to detect a consensus in the first place)
If you insist otherwise, so be it.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:55 pmFor many commonly held "oughts" I'm a "different person."--I have a lot of unusual moral views. And for almost all others, I know some "different people"Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:21 am I don't agree with (2).
The physical referent of normatives are universal in all humans, thus the same for all people.
Ah--I didn't remember typing exactly that, and it didn't make sense to me out of context.Perhaps you want to retract or edit the above post?
Re the context: I was explaining to Skepdick that morality isn't morality (a la what the vast majority of people are talking about/doing with respect to what they're naming "morality") if we're not talking about normatives. He said "Morality is the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human wellbeing. Morality is about constructing a hospitable environment . . ." So using his own wording (which is one thing that threw me off--that's not wording I'd ever use on my own; I used it because I was repeating it back to him), I was trying to say, although I didn't make this explicit enough, that the very idea of "ensuring human survival" has an "embedded" "ought" in it, because logically, one has to think or feel that "We ought to ensure human survival" in order to be focused on that. Otherwise one would be neutral about ensuring human survival or one might even think "We ought to NOT ensure human survival."
No, no, that's nothing like what I was saying. I was saying that logically, "Morality is the effort of ensuring continued human survival . . . well-being" etc. implies that one is thinking normatives a la "We OUGHT to ensure human survival," "We OUGHT to ensure well-being," "Such and such OUGHT to count as well-being," etc. One could just as well think, "We OUGHT to NOT ensure human survival" and so on (and some people do think that).Based on what you wrote, the embedded ought/should as embedded via the DNA/RNA,
We don't equate statistic normalcy with normative directly.There's nothing normative about statistical normalcy. You keep assuming that there is.then all normal people will act from the same based of ought/should thus will not feel differently.
Only the abnormal [psychiatric cases] will feel differently.
In this case, we have to verify and justify whatever has statistic normalcy qualify to be a normative as defined above.Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative
I inferred that from what you posted re the lack of using such knowledge.Holy crap are you continually patronizing, lol. Would you like to compare our academic backgrounds?That is because you don't have necessary depth in the neurosciences to understand the above.
Note the definition of 'normative' above;And?The opposite of surviving is death.
Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with normatives.
As I had argued this can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK, note 'moral' not any other FSK.There is no ought to "avoiding premature death."As explained above, the above oughtness to survive implies avoiding premature death
Note the definition of 'normative' and avoiding premature death is good or desirable, else there are pains when one sense the threat of death.It might be a statistical norm, but STATISTICAL NORMS DO NOT IMPLY NORMATIVES. To suggest that they do is to fall to the argumentum ad populum fallacy. You keep simply assuming that statistical norms imply normatives, but they don't. It's simply falling prey to a tendency to be conformist.and that is a fact of human nature.
Moral oughts are not about thinking.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:15 pmNot supposed to be responding to you, but it's worth clearing up your confused thinking here:Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:08 pm If people were neutral about ensuring human survival then you would observe that human longevity remains steady over time. Neither improves nor worsens.
If people were thinking we ought to NOT ensure human survival then you would observe that human longevity worsens over time.
If there are a million people and 990,000 think one thing where only 10,000 think something different,, and where we're talking about communal trends, the 10,000 outliers aren't going to have much of an effect on what happens.
This implies nothing about the fact that in order to work to ensure human survival, you have to think or feel that we OUGHT to do that contra alternatives.
PH can you address this,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:51 pm A model is just a model. It isn't the thing being modelled. The stupid claim that all models are wrong - fashionable fifty years ago - assumes the fantasy possibility of a model that's right, without bothering to explain what that could be: a description that is the described. It's the same stupidity as denying the existence of things-in-themselves.
Philosophy works neither cooperatively nor combatively but progressively as dialectic. A dialectic encounter may seem superficially combative even hostile, but in the longer term, and in the absence of bigotry, dialectics are how free cultures are dynamic and change as necessary alongside larger environmental changes; changes which include encounters with foreign ideas.I am an individual who understands how cooperation works and Philosophy doesn't strike me as a cooperative sport.
It's always a dialectic when it's not a monologue. The question of cooperation is simply a question of whether the interlocutors consciously choose to work towards consensus or not.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:19 am Philosophy works neither cooperatively nor combatively but progressively as dialectic. A dialectic encounter may seem superficially combative even hostile, but in the longer term, and in the absence of bigotry, dialectics are how free cultures are dynamic and change as necessary alongside larger environmental changes; changes which include encounters with foreign ideas.