Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

You're claiming that it's a moral assessment of the album, correct?

No, I am not.

I am claiming that Uttering "This album is utterly shit!" is a moral interaction.
In exactly the same way that "Murder is wrong and unacceptable" is a moral interaction.

I am programming your feelings towards the album and towards murder.

I am reifying my values through replication.

[Terrapin Station]

You're claiming that it's a moral assessment of the album, correct?

No, I am not.

But that's what I said. When people say "This album is bad," they're not (usually) uttering a moral assessment of the album.

[Skepdick]

But that's what I said. When people say "This album is bad," they're not (usually) uttering a moral assessment of the album.

So what?

The interaction between interlocutors pertaining to the album is still a moral interaction

[Sculptor]

So take an example of something like Elvis' soundtrack albums of the 60s, many of which a lot of people think are bad. What are some examples of assessments of them being bad where people are saying that they're morally bad? (I'm referring to albums such as Kissin' Cousins, Paradise Hawaiian Style, It Happened at the World's Fair, etc.--you can look at rym reviews for examples of negative comments)

You are having a laff mate.
Comments about Elvis' immorality were legion.
By the time he was making films he'd been tamed and anodyne - that is as much a moral statement as him attracting critique for shking his hips.
Maybe you could try a different example?

The task was for you to provide actual examples of assessments of those albums being bad where you're reading the assessments as moral assessments.

And that is why your choice is risible.

[VVilliam]

A rock isn't the same thing as a simulated rock. You'd have to literally BE a rock (and then somehow also be capable of sentience from that perspective, which would probably mean that you're not a rock.)

What if we are experiencing a simulation of the universe as it once was?

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science ... belltitem1

What would be a reason you'd believe that?

I don't claim to believe it. I think it plausible. Do you? If not, why not.

[Terrapin Station]

What if we are experiencing a simulation of the universe as it once was?

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science ... belltitem1

What would be a reason you'd believe that?

I don't claim to believe it. I think it plausible. Do you? If not, why not.

No, I don't think it's plausible. There are no good reasons to believe it aside from possibility. For something to be plausible there needs to be something more than possibility.

[Skepdick]

No, I don't think it's plausible. There are no good reasons to believe it aside from possibility. For something to be plausible there needs to be something more than possibility.

There are no good reasons not to believe it.

Apparently you can believe that there's no need in the haystack but keep looking....

If there's no causal relationship between belief and action then believe whatever you want to believe.

[VVilliam]

What would be a reason you'd believe that?

I don't claim to believe it. I think it plausible. Do you? If not, why not.

No, I don't think it's plausible. There are no good reasons to believe it aside from possibility. For something to be plausible there needs to be something more than possibility.

Well it is at least good to find evidence that some are making the actual effort to investigate...

[VVilliam]

I don't claim to believe it. I think it plausible. Do you? If not, why not.

No, I don't think it's plausible. There are no good reasons to believe it aside from possibility. For something to be plausible there needs to be something more than possibility.

Well it is at least good to find evidence that some are making the actual effort to investigate...that is what science is for. Investigating the nature of our reality experience and [as with quantum stuff] coming to such conclusions as to what is possible. Small steps...and since it is plausible it is rightfully investigated rather than dismissed out of hand. [dismissing something out of hand, is non-scientific..]

Here is a link to the full paper on it. It is quiet a read.

[Skepdick]

Well it is at least good to find evidence that some are making the actual effort to investigate...that is what science is for. Investigating the nature of our reality experience and [as with quantum stuff] coming to such conclusions as to what is possible. Small steps...and since it is plausible it is rightfully investigated rather than dismissed out of hand. [dismissing something out of hand, is non-scientific..]

Here is a link to the full paper on it. It is quiet a read.

The crux of the simulation hypothesis is the ancient Philosophical problem: How does language relate to the world?

The simulation hypothesis is equivalent to a view that some language (a more advanced programming language) IS the world.

Maybe. Maybe not, but recursion/self-reference is a powerful idea for understanding the world AND language.

Learning how to invent programming languages, and how to invent automatons which can translate between languages leads to intuitions that are difficult to acquire otherwise.

The anti-climax of the simulation hypothesis is thus: What if language doesn't relate to the world? What if the magic sauce of language is in the process of meta-linguistic abstraction?

[VVilliam]

Well it is at least good to find evidence that some are making the actual effort to investigate...that is what science is for. Investigating the nature of our reality experience and [as with quantum stuff] coming to such conclusions as to what is possible. Small steps...and since it is plausible it is rightfully investigated rather than dismissed out of hand. [dismissing something out of hand, is non-scientific..]

Here is a link to the full paper on it. It is quiet a read.

The crux of the simulation hypothesis is the ancient Philosophical problem: How does language relate to the world?

The simulation hypothesis is equivalent to a view that some language (a more advanced programming language) IS the world.

Maybe. Maybe not, but recursion/self-reference is a powerful idea for understanding the world AND language.

Learning how to invent programming languages, and how to invent automatons which can translate between languages leads to intuitions that are difficult to acquire otherwise.

The anti-climax of the simulation hypothesis is thus: What if language doesn't relate to the world? What if the magic sauce of language is in the process of meta-linguistic abstraction?

Language is words and words can be examined through a simple mathematic code. If the code produces anything resembling correlation, then this can lend itself as evidence supporting the idea of a self simulated existence, such as this theory examines.

[Skepdick]

Language is words and words can be examined through a simple mathematic code.

No, your understanding is not deep enough. Mathematics itself is a language. It has verbs, nouns, grammar.

So if "words can be examined..." then mathematical words must be examined via mathematical code. It's not simple, not when you have to explain the process to a computer meta-circular evaluation

Examining English programmatically is an entirely different problem. It's called natural language processing. It's wee bit difficult.

If the code produces anything resembling correlation, then this can lend itself as evidence supporting the idea of a self simulated existence, such as this theory examines.

We already have this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing)

[VVilliam]

Language is words and words can be examined through a simple mathematic code.

No, your understanding is not deep enough. Mathematics itself is a language. It has verbs, nouns, grammar.

So if "words can be examined..." then mathematical words must be examined via mathematical code. It's not simple, not when you have to explain the process to a computer meta-circular evaluation

Examining English programmatically is an entirely different problem. It's called natural language processing. It's wee bit difficult.

If the code produces anything resembling correlation, then this can lend itself as evidence supporting the idea of a self simulated existence, such as this theory examines.

We already have this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing)

That in itself does not inform me, due to the fact that I am illiterate in relation to computer code, so you will have to use a better way in which to convey what it is you are trying to explain to me, if you want me to understand what it is you're arguing.

In the mean time, what I was referring to was human language - words which can be broken down by using a simple code - in this case - The English Language, and assigning a number to each letter, as in "A=1...Z=26"...and from that, creating a database which might then provide any evidence of correlation in regards to said language. Said data can then be independently verified using algorithms one can access which are specific to that use. Such as this one.

One example of such data I am speaking about are...the name "Jesus" and the name "Lucifer". These already have correlation. [Traditionally they are regarded as each others enemy ...] Yet the interesting thing about these names is that mathematically, the simply code [A=1...Z=26] shows that both names add up to the same number.

So, in creating a data base, one can examine words in order to see if they share any direct relationship when simple math is applied.

Another correlation is with the word "Objective" and the word "Mirror" and also with the word "Subjective" and the phrase "Keep an eye on"

[Veritas Aequitas]

Language is words and words can be examined through a simple mathematic code.

No, your understanding is not deep enough. Mathematics itself is a language. It has verbs, nouns, grammar.

So if "words can be examined..." then mathematical words must be examined via mathematical code. It's not simple, not when you have to explain the process to a computer meta-circular evaluation

Examining English programmatically is an entirely different problem. It's called natural language processing. It's wee bit difficult.

If the code produces anything resembling correlation, then this can lend itself as evidence supporting the idea of a self simulated existence, such as this theory examines.

We already have this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing)

That in itself does not inform me, due to the fact that I am illiterate in relation to computer code, so you will have to use a better way in which to convey what it is you are trying to explain to me, if you want me to understand what it is you're arguing.

In the mean time, what I was referring to was human language - words which can be broken down by using a simple code - in this case - The English Language, and assigning a number to each letter, as in "A=1...Z=26"...and from that, creating a database which might then provide any evidence of correlation in regards to said language. Said data can then be independently verified using algorithms one can access which are specific to that use. Such as this one.

One example of such data I am speaking about are...the name "Jesus" and the name "Lucifer". These already have correlation. [Traditionally they are regarded as each others enemy ...] Yet the interesting thing about these names is that mathematically, the simply code [A=1...Z=26] shows that both names add up to the same number.

So, in creating a data base, one can examine words in order to see if they share any direct relationship when simple math is applied.

Another correlation is with the word "Objective" and the word "Mirror" and also with the word "Subjective" and the phrase "Keep an eye on"

"Mirror"??

Note Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature in this OP.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32188

The idea of 'mirror' was inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists [defunct] and the classical analytic philosophers.

The idea of 'mirror of nature' had been trashed and dumped into the rubbish bin by the late-Wittgenstein, Quine and Sellar and the post-analytic philosophers.

[Skepdick]

That in itself does not inform me, due to the fact that I am illiterate in relation to computer code, so you will have to use a better way in which to convey what it is you are trying to explain to me, if you want me to understand what it is you're arguing.

Ironically you are behaving exactly like a computer.

You want to be spoken to precisely in the language that you understand. You reject any other input.
So to explain any new ideas to a computer one quite literally has to teach the computer to understand a new language.

I know how to program computers. I have no idea how to program humans, s you are going to have to use your faculties of reading/understanding/learning...