The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

[Skepdick]

You can disagree on what's the case, not simply what you say about what's the case.

How would you know which sort of disagreement is happening without calibrating the machines?

Sigh. Then what are we measuring?

What are YOU measuring when you distinguish "objective" from "subjective" measurements?

[Terrapin Station]

By the way, here's a good reason I won't do increasingly longer responses:

You could say the same thing about temperature--what's considered "temperature" isn't something objective, and that's certainly the case, but it's just a sound we're applying to a particular objective phenomenon--relative motion of particles (in water, or in the air, or whatever).

Ahahahahahaha! RELATIVE TO WHAT?

I answered this already above. You didn't respond to it. I don't know if you bothered to read what I wrote about it above or think about it very much or whatever. So now I'd have to repeat what I already wrote because of this.

This is why I like sticking to one simple thing at a time.

[Skepdick]

This is why I like sticking to one simple thing at a time.

You want simplicity in a complex system. Shame....

[Terrapin Station]

You can disagree on what's the case, not simply what you say about what's the case.

How would you know which sort of disagreement is happening without calibrating the machines?

That's fine but what would it have to do with not being able to grok a difference between disagreeing on "measurements" versus what we say about them?

Sigh. Then what are we measuring?

What are YOU measuring when you distinguish "objective" from "subjective" measurements?

Not measuring anything. Simply pegging whether something is mind/person-independent or not.

If we can't do that, then we certainly can't argue that things like well-being are mind/person-independent.

[Terrapin Station]

This is why I like sticking to one simple thing at a time.

You want simplicity in a complex system. Shame....

I'm not about to type things that I have to wind up retyping because they get lost in long posts.

[Skepdick]

I answered this already above. You didn't respond to it.

You didn't answer it, because that was the very first time you used the particular phrase "relative motion of particles".

That is when and why I asked you "relative to what?"

[Terrapin Station]

I answered this already above. You didn't respond to it.

You didn't answer it, because that was the very first time you used the particular phrase "relative motion of particles".

That is when and why I asked you "relative to what?"

I wrote what they're relative to:

"The particles in question will have different relative motion to each other, relative to other motion (for example, relative to the relative motion of the sun and Earth)."

That's from a post I wrote on the last page.

[Skepdick]

That's fine but what would it have to do with not being able to grok a difference between disagreeing on "measurements" versus what we say about them?

Is there a disagreement between two machines who answer the same yes/no question differently?

You say "yes".
I say "no"

Which one of us is miscalibrated?

Not measuring anything.

Yes you are. You are answering a yes/no question. Exactly like the measurement machines.

Simply pegging whether something is mind/person-independent or not.

Is X mind-independent? That's a yes/no question. Measurement.

[Sculptor]

The choice of goal (say, well-being), the moral rightness of the goal, what constitutes the goal, whether an action and its consequences are consistent with the goal - these are all matters of opinion, not matters of fact. It's subjectivity all the way.

The fundamental of 'well-being' is to survive well.

IYO

How can the need to survive by all human [till inevitable mortality] be matters of opinion.

People chose to die. People face the inevitable.

I have argued the obvious, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality].

IYO

This is an objective fact that is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, thus objective.

IYO

Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.
100% of all normal people will agree in consensus they strive to survive to avoid death at least till inevitable mortality.

Please cite evidence

Note my definitions;


Who is arguing 'survival' and 'well being' are matters of opinion and not matters of fact?

[Skepdick]

"The particles in question will have different relative motion to each other, relative to other motion (for example, relative to the relative motion of the sun and Earth)."

Different relative motion describes "colder" (slow motion) and "hotter" (fast motion).

I asked you what "temperature" in general is relative to. Then you resorted to apologetics and dragged motion into the equation.

What is motion relative to? I expect you'll bring position and time into the equation.

What's time relative to?

[Terrapin Station]

That's fine but what would it have to do with not being able to grok a difference between disagreeing on "measurements" versus what we say about them?

Is there a disagreement between two machines who answer the same yes/no question differently?

You say "yes".
I say "no"

Which one of us is miscalibrated?

I'd have to try to figure out how you're using the term "(dis)agreement" there.

Yes you are. You are answering a yes/no question. Exactly like the measurement machines.

What sort of "measurement machine" are you thinking of there, a Magic 8-Ball?

[Skepdick]

I'd have to try to figure out how you're using the term "(dis)agreement" there.

So we can't agree on how to use "disagreement"? Awkward!

Is that an agreement or a disagreement?

What sort of "measurement machine" are you thinking of there, a Magic 8-Ball?

One that answers yes/no to the question "Does X have left-spin?"
Or one that answers the yes/no question "Is the water above 45 degrees?"

[FlashDangerpants]

So there is no point at which you are able to look at any moral fact claim and say that it is erroneous.

That's circular. What do you mean by "erroneous" ?

Do you have an error-theory?

Yet you appear to be quite convinced that you are right, and also that by virtue of your being right, my statements to the contrary must be wrong.

Yeah. A lot like your apparatus gives one reading and mine gives another.

Absent of context/consequence there's no "wrong answer" to "What's the objective spin of an electron?"

It's whatever the meter says. Up; or down.

The question of whether the meter is "correctly calibrated" is a different matter altogether.

You are not telling me here that you have measured one bit of information that I am right when I say there is no such thing as moral fact, and another bit of information that you are right when you say that there is indeed moral fact.

I am telling you THAT I have measured. You laid forth the criterion that any repeatable measurement is "objective".

So my measurement is objective. In addition to the measurement I also gave you the instruction manual, so that you can calibrate your meter.

You don't have to calibrate it. You can totally use your own metric/standard.

When one person issues a statement such as "I know that this dog has fleas" and another person says "I know that this dog has no fleas" these claims are contradictory and mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other must be false. That is part of what it means to have knowledge of whether or not a dog is flea ridden.

If your claim to moral knowledge is so weak that you can tell us you know drowning kittens to be wrong, but you cannot say that someone else who says it is right is thereby mistaken, then you are failing to meet the most basic requirements for knowing stuff.

[Terrapin Station]

So we can't agree on how to use "disagreement"? Awkward!

I wouldn't know until I figured out how you were even using it.

One that answers yes/no to the question "Does X have left-spin?"
Or one that answers the yes/no question "Is the water above 45 degrees?"

Ah, could you show me an example? Maybe link to something showing the device in question.

[Terrapin Station]

So there is no point at which you are able to look at any moral fact claim and say that it is erroneous.

That's circular. What do you mean by "erroneous" ?

Do you have an error-theory?

Yet you appear to be quite convinced that you are right, and also that by virtue of your being right, my statements to the contrary must be wrong.

Yeah. A lot like your apparatus gives one reading and mine gives another.

Absent of context/consequence there's no "wrong answer" to "What's the objective spin of an electron?"

It's whatever the meter says. Up; or down.

The question of whether the meter is "correctly calibrated" is a different matter altogether.

You are not telling me here that you have measured one bit of information that I am right when I say there is no such thing as moral fact, and another bit of information that you are right when you say that there is indeed moral fact.

I am telling you THAT I have measured. You laid forth the criterion that any repeatable measurement is "objective".

So my measurement is objective. In addition to the measurement I also gave you the instruction manual, so that you can calibrate your meter.

You don't have to calibrate it. You can totally use your own metric/standard.

When one person issues a statement such as "I know that this dog has fleas" and another person says "I know that this dog has no fleas" these claims are contradictory and mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other must be false. That is part of what it means to have knowledge of whether or not a dog is flea ridden.

If your claim to moral knowledge is so weak that you can tell us you know drowning kittens to be wrong, but you cannot say that someone else who says it is right is thereby mistaken, then you are failing to meet the most basic requirements for knowing stuff.

The best I can tell is that he just goes by consensus, and then for some reason he doesn't take that the be the argumentum ad populum fallacy.