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

[Skepdick]

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

You are full-time Socratising without engaging in the dialectic. You are feeding your own confirmation bias without any effort to falsify the pre-uppositions of your question.

I simply want you to tell me why one measurement is "objective" and the other one is "subjective".

[Terrapin Station]

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

You are full-time Socratising without engaging in the dialectic. You are feeding your own confirmation bias without any effort to falsify the pre-uppositions of your question.

I simply want you to tell me why one measurement is "objective" and the other one is "subjective".

I'm asking you a question with the aim of clarifying your position. I couldn't care less whether your view winds up being that we're measuring whether something is morally permissible or not. I'm just trying to clarify that that's your view. That's what it seemed to be, but maybe I'm not understanding you very well.

[Skepdick]

I'm asking you a question with the aim of clarifying your position. I couldn't care less whether your view winds up being that we're measuring whether something is morally permissible or not. I'm just trying to clarify that that's your view. That's what it seemed to be, but maybe I'm not understanding you very well.

I don't have a position. I am a scientist. Epistemic transparency and my commitment to objectivity does not allow me to hold a bias!

I am simply reporting my observations given the theoretic pre-suppositions of Information Theory.

If you ask yourself "Is murder wrong?" and you produce an answer (yes or no) you have measured 1 bit of information.
If you ask yourself "Does a particle have left-spin?" and you produce an answer (yes or no) you have measured 1 bit of information.

If ask yourself ANY question and that question is semantically well-formed (e.g it's coherent to you, given your own understanding of what the question is asking and what the words in the question mean) and you produce an answer, then you have measured 1 bit of information.

ANY English statement/expression can be paraphrased as a yes/no question.

There is chocolate in the fridge.
Is there chocolate in the fridge? Yes

Germany invaded Poland during World War 2.
Did Germany invade Poland during World War 2? Yes.

Paris is the capital of Italy.
Is Paris the capital of Italy? No.

Terrapin Station is thirsty.
Is Terrapin Station thirsty. No.

Terrapin Station thinks murder is wrong.
Does Terrapin Station think murder is wrong? Yes.

Measurement....


So, I am asking you to explain why some measurements are called "objective" and some measurements are called "subjective" if ALL questions are coherent.

[Terrapin Station]

If you ask yourself "Is murder wrong?" and you produce an answer (yes or no) you have measured 1 bit of information.

So that sounds like you're saying that answering this is indeed a "measurement." What would you say that one is measuring there? The way one feels about whether we should (be allowed to) murder anyone, or something else?

So, I am asking you to explain why some measurements are called "objective" and some measurements are called "subjective" if ALL questions are coherent.

I can't answer for anyone else, but the only way that I'd call a measurement "objective" is if we're talking about some sort of external-to-us measuring device (and then we're talking about the state that device is in--what a meter displays for example)

[Skepdick]

So that sounds like you're saying that answering this is indeed a "measurement." What would you say that one is measuring there? The way one feels about whether we should (be allowed to) murder anyone, or something else?

Whatever we are measuring doesn't matter. Is the yes/no question coherent TO YOU? Can you answer it?

Am I allowed to murder Terrapin Station? Yes.

1 bit of information.

Whether the ontology which provides the answer is "reality" or "your mind" it has been measured.

I can't answer for anyone else, but the only way that I'd call a measurement "objective" is if we're talking about some sort of external-to-us measuring device.

All external-to-us measurement devices are are made by us.

Why is it objective if an external device tells you it's raining, but it's not objective if I tell you it's raining?

Is it raining? Yes

One bit of information.

[Terrapin Station]

Whatever we are measuring doesn't matter.

Whether you feel it matters or not, whether you're interested in this or not, THIS is what is typically being talked about in all of these discussions about whether morality is subjective, objective, cognitive, noncognitive, etc.

You don't have to be interested in it, of course, but that's what the disagreements are coming down to.

Is the yes/no question coherent TO YOU? Can you answer it?

Sure. I'd be answering how I feel about it.

Am I allowed to murder Terrapin Station? Yes.

The way that I feel is that I'm not in favor of being murdered. I'm not against all nonconsensual killing, however. (For example, I'm okay with it in a context of war, I'd be okay with it to get rid of many dictators, etc.)

All external-to-us measurement devices are are made by us.

Sure. Per how I use the terms, that's irrelevant here.

Why is it objective if an external device tells you it's raining, but it's not objective if I tell you it's raining?

For the umpteenth time, I use the "objective/subjective" distinction to refer to mind or person-independence versus mind or person dependence. And that's it. Absolutely no other connotation to the terms, no implied valuations, etc. for me aside from telling us the location of the phenomena in question.

So the external device is mind or person independent. You're not.

[bahman]

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

How can the need to survive by all human [till inevitable mortality] be matters of opinion.
I have argued the obvious, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality]. This is an objective fact that is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, thus objective.

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.

Note my definitions;

• What is a Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  A fact is that which is specific to its Framework and System of Knowledge and Reality.
  
  There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

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

Have you ever thought of commit suicide? There are people who live with it.

I stated the fundamental of well-being is to survive well - note 3 below,

Scientific approaches to well being
Three subdisciplines in psychology are critical for the study of psychological well-being:[15]

1. Developmental psychology, in which psychological well-being may be analyzed in terms of a pattern of growth across the lifespan.
2. 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]
3. Clinical psychology, in which well-being consists of biological, psychological and social needs being met.

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

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

How about those who fight for the land and kill each other. The fight is for survival. Are they sick too?

[Skepdick]

Whether you feel it matters or not, whether you're interested in this or not, THIS is what is typically being talked about in all of these discussions about whether morality is subjective, objective, cognitive, noncognitive, etc.

You don't have to be interested in it, of course, but that's what the disagreements are coming down to.

ANY claim you make about ANYTHING in ANY language, can trivially become a yes/no question.

Whatever the answer, it can only be meaningful if the question is coherent.

Is it raining outside? Yes.
Is it ornithologically correct to smurfen the gurfen shmurfen incoherenturfen whatever the fuck this means? Yes.

Sure. I'd be answering how I feel about it.

Sure. Answers to coherent questions are measurements.

The way that I feel is that I'm not in favor of being murdered. I'm not against all nonconsensual killing, however. (For example, I'm okay with it in a context of war, I'd be okay with it to get rid of many dictators, etc.)

If you encode the contextual information in your question they become different questions.
Different measurements.

Am I OK with murdering others in the context of war? Yes
Am I OK with murdering others in the context of peace time? Yes.

For the umpteenth time, I use the "objective/subjective" distinction to refer to mind or person-independence versus mind or person dependence.

Sure. Can you give me an example of something that's mind-independent?

And that's it. Absolutely no other connotation to the terms, no implied valuations, etc. for me aside from telling us the location of the phenomena in question.

That doesn't really solve anything? What is the location of emergent phenomena? Those that emerge from the interaction between tho observers?

So the external device is mind or person independent. You're not.

My mind is literally in the critical/causal path of the device existing! If there was no mind the device would never have come to existence?!?!

The device is a COPY of my mind! It embodies my Mathematical intentions. Any measurement device literally denotes some man-made Mathematical semantics. It is literally designed to do what I want it to do.

At what point did the separation occur?

[Terrapin Station]

ANY claim you make about ANYTHING in ANY language, can trivially become a yes/no question.

Whatever the answer, it can only be meaningful if the question is coherent.

Is it raining outside? Yes.
Is it ornithologically correct to smurfen the gurfen shmurfen incoherenturfen whatever the fuck this means? Yes.

No idea what this has to do with what you quoted from me above. I was clarifying what we're typically addressing in disagreements about the nature of morality. That has nothing to do with whether we're talking about yes/no questions or not.

Sure. Can you give me an example of something that's mind-independent?

Rain.

That doesn't really solve anything? What is the location of emergent phenomena? Those that emerge from the interaction between tho observers?

Assuming there are "emergent" phenomena, and without addressing what you have in mind there (I don't normally use the term "emergent," and some ideas some people have in mind for that term are something I don't buy), the location would be the location of the matter in dynamic relations in question.

My mind is literally in the critical/causal path of the device existing! If there was no mind the device would never have come to existence?!?!

The idea is simply that location-wise, at the time in question, the item is mind/person-independent. In other words, it exists external to your body.

[Skepdick]

No idea what this has to do with what you quoted from me above. I was clarifying what we're typically addressing in disagreements about the nature of morality. That has nothing to do with whether we're talking about yes/no questions or not.

Any propositions about the "nature of morality". Anything you call a premise, anything you call a claim, anything you call a conclusion, anything you call an inference. All of those can be re-stated as yes/no questions without screwing up the semantics of the expression.

Rain.

That's abstract/context-free concept. Concepts exist only in minds.

If you are concretely claiming that there is rain outside then your are measuring.

Is there raining outside? Yes.

Assuming there are "emergent" phenomena, and without addressing what you have in mind there (I don't normally use the term "emergent," and some ideas some people have in mind for that term are something I don't buy), the location would be the location of the matter in dynamic relations in question.

So where is the location of this very text you are reading now? My screen? Your screen? Both screens? The server which hosts it? The internet routers which moved it from A to B?

The idea is simply that location-wise, at the time in question, the item is mind/person-independent. In other words, it exists external to your body.

That's arbitrary. The time in question exists only because I made the object exist.

My mind is a dependency in that object's world-line.

[Terrapin Station]

Any propositions about the "nature of morality". Anything you call a premise, anything you call a claim, anything you call a conclusion, anything you call an inference. All of those can be re-stated as yes/no questions without screwing up the semantics of the expression.

Ooooohkay . . . . Again, I don't know what significance you're seeing to this in context.

Maybe we could ask this: what side of the debate do you think is disagreeing with this?

That's abstract/context-free concept. Concepts exist only in minds.

Not the concept. Rain.

If you are concretely claiming that there is rain outside then your are measuring.
Is there raining outside? Yes.

Duh . . . and?

So where is the location of this very text you are reading now? My screen? Your screen? Both screens?

Both screens (that is for the text you're writing/I'm reading). And then there are locations for the electronic signals that wind up producing the pixel activations on the screens, and so on. A lot of different things have to happen for text to show up on two different computer screens. All of those things have locations.

That's reductionist.

If that's what you call it, okay. And?

The time in question only exists because I made the object exist.

You only make time exist insofar as you move or change. (Time is change/motion.)

[Skepdick]

Maybe we could ask this: what side of the debate do you think is disagreeing with this?

Leave the language of agreement/disagreement aside. It has unnecessary connotation.

I am asking a trivial question. If everything is measurable, what justifies the objective/subjective distinction?

And what justifies the social connotation of objective measurements being "better" than subjective ones?

Duh . . . and?

So an interaction between a mind and a phenomenon took place and the mind asserted "It is raining".

I am still waiting for the mind-independence.

You only make time exist insofar as you move or change. (Time is change/motion.)

There are infinite time dimensions, don't waste mine. Every particle in the universe is its own clock and has its own world-line. Light/causal cones do not necessarily intersect.

I didn't make time exist. I made the object exist. The object's world-line commenced with my mind creating/inventing it.

[Terrapin Station]

I am asking a trivial question. If everything is measurable, what justifies the objective/subjective distinction?

The fact that there are bodies and/or brains and things that aren't bodies and/or brains.

So an interaction between a mind and a phenomenon took place and the mind asserted "It is raining".

When you answer whether it's raining, sure. But what about that?

I am still waiting for the mind-independence.

The rain part. It would be raining whether any people existed or not.

There are infinite time dimensions,

lol, whatever that's supposed to amount to. It would only be playing with mathematics at best.

Every particle in the universe is its own clock

That would make sense in the sense that they're moving/changing.

I didn't make time exist.

You do insofar as you change or move.

I made the object exist.

Sure, and as something that's outside of your body, it's objective.

[Skepdick]

The fact that there are bodies and/or brains and things that aren't bodies and/or brains.

And?

They are just different configurations of physical matter.

Bodies/brains can ask/answer questions. So can machines.

Why are brain-measurements "subjective", but machine-measurements "objective" ?

That sure seems discriminatory against meatbags.

When you answer whether it's raining, sure. But what about that?

I asked you for an example of mind-independence. And you furnished an interaction between your mind and the rain.

Wanna try again?

The rain part.

That your mind observed.

It would be raining whether any people existed or not.

That's a counter-factual. It's unverifiable by anybody - it's incoherent.

lol, whatever that's supposed to amount to. It would only be playing with mathematics at best.

It's just physics. Every "observer" keeps track of their own time. Time is local.

That would make sense in the sense that they're moving/changing.

You do insofar as you change or move.

That's not time - that's change, you are merely pointing out a potential candidate for a clock. But who needs clocks except beings who want to keep track of time?

Sure, and as something that's outside of your body, it's objective.

You've moved the goal posts for "objectivity" from "mind independence" to "outside of my body". OK...

So when I reify my mind in the form of a machine - that's objectivity.
But when I reify my mind in the form of morality - that isn't objectivity.

[Terrapin Station]

The fact that there are bodies and/or brains and things that aren't bodies and/or brains.

And?

They are just different configurations of physical matter.

And as I've said umpteen +1 times now, all that I use the terms subjective/objective for are LOCATIONS, and there's absolutely nothing else implied by them. The locations in question are (persons') bodies/brains versus other than (persons') bodies/brains. And yes, those are definitely just different physical locations, different configurations of (dynamic relations of) matter.

Bodies/brains can ask/answer questions.

Sure.

So can machines.

In a manner of speaking, at least. I wouldn't say that as of yet there's a good reason to believe that machines have any mental qualities. (So in other words, I'm not at all convinced yet of substratum independence or functionalism.)

Why are brain-measurements "subjective", but machine-measurements "objective" ?

Because those are the sounds/letter strings that I'm attaching to the location-based distinction in question.

I asked you for an example of mind-independence. And you furnished an interaction between your mind and the rain.

Not at all. I answered "rain." I didn't answer "the concept of rain," or "answering whether it's raining" or anything like that.

That your mind observed.

I didn't say "rain-as-observed." I just said "rain."

That's a counter-factual. It's unverifiable by anybody

Not that it at all hinges on verification.

It's just physics.

A lot of physics is just playing with mathematics. (Unfortunately in my opinion.)

That's not time

Yeah, it is. Again, time is just change/motion.

You've moved the goal posts for "objectivity" from "mind independence" to "outside of my body".

That's what I mean by "mind-independence." As I've said umpteen +2 times now, it's a distinction of location. You assigned meaning to the terms that I didn't intend. Hopefully it's clearer to you now that what I mean by "mind/person-independent" is that the LOCATION is outside of minds (brains)/persons' bodies.