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

[FlashDangerpants]

You left the decisive piece of information out of the example, and you know you did it, and you know that you aren't fooling anyone.
Which spin property does the actual particle have?

How the fuck should I know except via taking a measurement myself ?!?! But I need an apparatus, and the only two machines in the world disagree!

You constructed this imaginary scenario you see, so you get to decide which way the actual atom is spinning. That's how you know, and that is how you can fill in missing information to complete the fake puzzle.

[Skepdick]

You constructed this imaginary scenario you see, so you get to decide which way the actual atom is spinning.

I get to decide the state of affairs? We don't really do that in science - we measure stuff.

And we trust our measurement instruments to give us readings.

That's how you know, and that is how you can fill in missing information to complete the fake puzzle.

That's not knowledge. That's proclamation.

[FlashDangerpants]

You constructed this imaginary scenario you see, so you get to decide which way the actual atom is spinning.

I get to decide the state of affairs? We don't really do that in science - we measure stuff.

And we trust our measurement instruments to give us readings.

The atom is imaginary and so are the measuring devices. You aren't measuring anything except my patience for bullshit combined with tedium.

That's how you know, and that is how you can fill in missing information to complete the fake puzzle.

That's not knowledge. That's proclamation.

Fine, the real imagianry atom has left spin. The machine that reads left spin is correct, the other one needs calibration.
I have proclaimed in order to resolve your indecision problem.

[Skepdick]

The atom is imaginary and so are the measuring devices.

The epistemic constraints of the scenario are not imaginary.

You aren't measuring anything except my patience for bullshit combined with tedium.

Oh well, I am sorry that the rest of the world exists to cure your boredom.

Fine, the real imagianry atom has left spin.

How do you know? Did you measure it? With what?

The machine that reads left spin is correct, the other one needs calibration.
I have proclaimed in order to resolve your indecision problem.

Yeah. That's how recalibration errr, I mean morality works Choose one and make the others like it.

[Terrapin Station]

Developmental psychology, in which psychological well-being may be analyzed in terms of a pattern of growth across the lifespan.

Personality psychology, in which it is possible to apply Maslow's concept of self-actualization, Rogers' concept of the fully functioning person, Jung's concept of individuation, and Allport's concept of maturity to account for psychological well-being.[16]

Clinical psychology, in which well-being consists of biological, psychological and social needs being met.

Those are all views that are "distorted" by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations. What else are you figuring they could be than personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations? How do you believe those views wind up in developmental/personality/clinical psychology in the first place?

[Terrapin Station]

"Measurable" to you would be the case if someone is just saying "yes" or "no" to "Is x morally permissible" for example, right?

It would be to anybody who knows what a Shannon is, and who thinks their questions are coherent/well-formulated such that they can be assigned a yes/no answer.

Is question X coherent?
Is measurement X objective?

Earlier you suggested that simply answering "yes" or "no" to something would be sufficient for a "measurement." (Remember that I made a sarcastic comment about Magic 8-Balls as measuring devices at that point?) That's why I asked you what I asked you above. Are you saying now that that's not sufficient for a measurement?

[Skepdick]

Earlier you suggested that simply answering "yes" or "no" to something would be sufficient for a "measurement." (Remember that I made a sarcastic comment about Magic 8-Balls as measuring devices at that point?) That's why I asked you what I asked you above. Are you saying now that that's not sufficient for a measurement?

It's sufficient in the reductionist sense.

A coin can measure.

Can it measure correctly? Requires a "correct measurement" theory over and above measurement theory.

[Terrapin Station]

Earlier you suggested that simply answering "yes" or "no" to something would be sufficient for a "measurement." (Remember that I made a sarcastic comment about Magic 8-Balls as measuring devices at that point?) That's why I asked you what I asked you above. Are you saying now that that's not sufficient for a measurement?

It's sufficient in the reductionist sense.

A coin can measure.

Can it measure correctly? Requires a "correct measurement" theory over and above measurement theory.

When we're talking about "Do I think this is morally permissible" what would we be getting correct aside from what we think? You'd be saying that whether something is morally permissible isn't just what we think/feel about it but what?

[Skepdick]

When we're talking about "Do I think this is morally permissible" what would we be getting correct aside from what we think? You'd be saying that whether something is morally permissible isn't just what we think/feel about it but what?

What does that have to do with "correct measurement" over and above "measurement"?

[Terrapin Station]

When we're talking about "Do I think this is morally permissible" what would we be getting correct aside from what we think? You'd be saying that whether something is morally permissible isn't just what we think/feel about it but what?

What does that have to do with "correct measurement" over and above "measurement"?

You just brought up the idea of measuring correctly.

So with morality, are we not measuring something correctly?

[Skepdick]

So with morality, are we not measuring something correctly?

Your questions is incoherent. Measured I.

How is correctness different from morality in a moral context?

[Sculptor]

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.

Note my point above, repeat,

All human beings are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable of mortality.

Those who are prone to suicide and has committed suicide is because their above inherent program is defective thus not 'normal' which is recognized as an illness within psychiatry.

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

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 'will'.
It is an inference from the above, i.e. DNA wise and generically ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality].

Those who are prone to suicide and has committed suicide is because their above inherent program is defective thus not 'normal' which is recognized as an illness within psychiatry.

As usual you answer is empty of content.

[Terrapin Station]

So with morality, are we not measuring something correctly?

Your questions is incoherent. Measured I.

How is correctness different from morality in a moral context?

Weren't you bringing up the whole idea of measurement because you're thinking that whether something is morally permissible is something we're measuring?

[Skepdick]

Weren't you bringing up the whole idea of measurement because you're thinking that whether something is morally permissible is something we're measuring?

Yes. What is confusing you so far?

"Does the particle have left-spin?", asked the scientist.

"Yes", said machine A.
"No", said machine B.

"Is murder wrong?, asked the scientist.

"Yes", said human A.
"No", said human B.

Up to this point the experiment is "equivalent".

The difference is in recalibration strategies.

[Terrapin Station]

Weren't you bringing up the whole idea of measurement because you're thinking that whether something is morally permissible is something we're measuring?

Yes. What is confusing you so far?

"Does the particle have left-spin?", asked the scientist.

"Yes", said machine A.
"No", said machine B.

"Is murder wrong?, asked the scientist.

"Yes", said human A.
"No", said human B.

Up to this point the experiment is "equivalent".

The difference is in recalibration strategies.

Right. So on your view we're measuring whether something is morally permissible?