The Limit of Hume's Knowledge

[Veritas Aequitas]

While Hume "No Ought From Is" [NOFI] is touted and insisted dogmatically as the default there can be no objective moral facts, it is actually relied upon based on gaps in empirical knowledge that Hume lacks due to his time in the 1700s.

I have read Hume's work very thoroughly and came across loads of points where he acknowledged his ignorance of the internal workings of the human brain.

Here is a sample [there are more] where Hume acknowledged his ignorance of the depth of the knowledge that is pertinent to the issue.

A Treatise of Human nature [1739]

• Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
  1. those of SENSATION and
  2. those of REFLEXION.
  
  The first kind arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
  The second [impression of reflexion] is derived in a great measure from our ideas, and that in the following order.
  
  An [8] impression first strikes upon the senses, and makes us perceive heat or cold, thirst or hunger, pleasure or pain of some kind or other.
  
  The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
  SECTION II.: Division of the Subject.
  ………………..
  Its effects are every where conspicuous; but as to its causes, they are mostly unknown, and must be resolv’d into original qualities of human nature, which I pretend not to explain.
  SECTION IV.: Of the connexion or association of ideas.

In the above Hume acknowledged he lacked the knowledge then to know the causes of the sentiments and drives he was talking about.

What Hume claimed is Moral Conclusions of oughts are derived from these sources which to him is unknown.
During Hume's time there was little knowledge about the human brain, emotions, neurosciences, etc.

However, by now we have sufficient knowledge to understand more about the human brain, emotions, neurosciences, evolutionary psychology, etc.

The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
SECTION II.: Division of the Subject.

Yes it is the works of anatomists and natural philosophers [scientists] to dig deeper into the roots of sensations.
Then it is from these scientific facts that we can understand the Moral Potential therein as the inherent moral facts derivable from a moral framework.

This conclusion is not a derivation from impressions as Hume spoke within his limited knowledge but a conclusion of the direct evidences of the cause, i.e. the moral potential and moral facts.

The point is those who echo blindly what Hume supposedly said NEVER research into the depths of his works to have a thorough understanding of his philosophy.

Views?

[Impenitent]

...
This conclusion is not a derivation from impressions as Hume spoke within his limited knowledge but a conclusion of the direct evidences of the cause, i.e. the moral potential and moral facts.

The point is those who echo blindly what Hume supposedly said NEVER research into the depths of his works to have a thorough understanding of his philosophy.

Views?

"direct evidences" of the cause attained from which impressions?

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

...
This conclusion is not a derivation from impressions as Hume spoke within his limited knowledge but a conclusion of the direct evidences of the cause, i.e. the moral potential and moral facts.

The point is those who echo blindly what Hume supposedly said NEVER research into the depths of his works to have a thorough understanding of his philosophy.

Views?

"direct evidences" of the cause attained from which impressions?

-Imp

There is sufficient of direct evidences at present [in contrast to Hume's time] on how the brain works, e.g. the primal and secondary emotions, the lower brain, the mid-brain, the higher prefrontal cortex and the whole brain.
The discovery of mirror neurons is a path to the linkage of the brain with morality.
All these knowledge were not available to Hume.

There is still a lot of knowledge we need to know of the brain and scientists are very optimistic they will master the workings of the whole human brain soon with the gradual discovery of knowledge of the brain via the Human Connectome Project.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

[Impenitent]

which specific neurons and synapses have been mapped (and empirically proven to be identical in every single human brain) that link to morality?

"optimism" is not evidence

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

which specific neurons and synapses have been mapped (and empirically proven to be identical in every single human brain) that link to morality?

"optimism" is not evidence

-Imp

I did not intend that this is a confirmed claim.

I stated,

The discovery of mirror neurons is a path to the linkage of the brain with morality.

There is still a lot of knowledge we need to know of the brain and scientists are very optimistic they will master the workings of the whole human brain soon with the gradual discovery of knowledge of the brain via the Human Connectome Project.

In contrast,
All these knowledge, potentials and possibilities were not available to Hume.

[Iwannaplato]

The discovery of mirror neurons is a path to the linkage of the brain with morality.

Of course parts of brains and minds are connected to what is called morality. Brains have to do with behavior, for example. Brains have to do with feelings. Mirror neurons can connect our feelings to the experiences of others. Empathy. But the leap from empathy to objective morals is, well, still a leap. Hume's lack of knowledge about mirror neurons hasn't caused his critique any problems.

Yes, we, most of us, have built in patterns that often lead to empathy. IOW we can feel sympathy for the suffering of others and even empathy.

But that doesn't make it something else. It means that we, as social mammals, since other mammals have mirror neurons and can feel empathy even cross-species. We can care about others. I doubt Hume would have been suprised by that.

Before the psychologist Edward Titchener (1867–1927) introduced the term “empathy” in 1909 into the English language as the translation of the German term “Einfühlung” (or “feeling into”), “sympathy”was the term commonly used to refer to empathy-related phenomena. If one were to point to a conceptual core for understanding these phenomena, it is probably best to point to David Hume’s dictum that “the minds of men are mirrors to one another,”(Hume 1739–40 [1978], 365) since in encountering other persons, humans can resonate with and recreate that person’s thoughts and emotions on different dimensions of cognitive complexity.

Oh, look, he even used the word 'mirrors'.

and

David Hume, for example, has suggested that moral judgments are based on peculiar sentiments of moral approbations and disapprobation, which are causally mediated by our ability to empathize— or what he called sympathy— with the pain and pleasures of others (See also Sayre-Mcord 1994 and 2014).

IOW Hume recognized the function even though he did not know of mirror neurons.

The problem is that while one can see how empathy and potentially mirror neurons play a role in morality, since we can suffer with others, this does not mean that any action or rule or attitude is objectively good. We might generate rules that people in general like. IOW there may be rules of behavior or guidelines that lead to consequences and attitudes that feel good to us. But that doesn't make them objectively good. Humans as a whole, for all we know, are a plague on the earth. What's good for us might not be good, if there is a good on the objective level, a moral good.

Just as things that make sharks or parasites feel good might not be good at the objective level, if there is one.

We can look at brains and behavior and try to move towards what we like, what we prefer at the interpersonal level at the societal level. I have no objection to that, though I think the enterprise is much harder than some think. Further even empathy is limited and even can cause problems when making decisions at larger scales. Problems meaning 'dlsliked consequences by many humans, including those who priortize empathy'.

But none of this points to a flaw in Hume's assessment.

And Hume's assessment on the other hand, regarding is and ought, does not take away at all from projects trying to find out what heuristics and guidelines lead to life being more like we like.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hume went close with his matter of moral fact, i.e. 'sympathy' but could not go further due to the limited knowledge in his time.
At present, we have advanced knowledge and thus could go further than Hume to establish what are objective moral facts.

[Iwannaplato]

Hume went close with his matter of moral fact, i.e. 'sympathy' but could not go further due to the limited knowledge in his time.
At present, we have advanced knowledge and thus could go further than Hume to establish what are objective moral facts.

None of this rebuts anything I said. You merely reasserted your position.

[Peter Holmes]

Facts, information or knowledge about where human morality comes from can never establish the existence of moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity. So the premise - if Hume had known more, he'd have acknowledged moral objectivity - is false.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Facts, information or knowledge about where human morality comes from can never establish the existence of moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity. So the premise - if Hume had known more, he'd have acknowledged moral objectivity - is false.

I had explained many times;

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
Your sense of 'what is fact' is based on an illusion grounded on philosophical realism, i.e. absolute human-independence, facts exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.
On that illusory basis, you insist there are no moral facts because moral elements are contingent to humans.

To you, what is objective is based on 'facts'.
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Your what is fact is grounded on an illusion, so, your sense of objectivity is also illusory and false in relation to reality.

From your false and illusory perspectives, there cannot be any moral facts, so, morality cannot be objective. But this argument is a farce and not realistic.

As I had argued, my basis of what is fact and therefrom what is objectivity are both contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS i.e. FSERC] of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard.
Since we can establish a human-based moral FSERC which has near credibility and objectivity to the gold standard, morality is objective [as qualified to the set of specific moral elements].

In the OP, I have referenced, Hume admitted his ignorance of where sympathy that drives morality came from.
We are now aware sympathy [empathy] has a physical, biological, neuroscientific basis.
This will enable science to verify and justify the physical roots of empathy in modern times.[subject to clearances of various objections]
What is science is objective.
Since Hume is pro-science, and if he had the neuroscientific knowledge, he would have accepted morality as objective from the scientific perspective. [by-passing the logical IS-OUGHT fallacy.]
This is what the Moral Naturalists are onto, i.e. relying on science to establish Moral Realism and Moral Objectivity/.

[Iwannaplato]

In the OP, I have referenced, Hume admitted his ignorance of where sympathy that drives morality came from.
We are now aware sympathy [empathy] has a physical, biological, neuroscientific basis.
This will enable science to verify and justify the physical roots of empathy in modern times.[subject to clearances of various objections]
What is science is objective.
Since Hume is pro-science, and if he had the neuroscientific knowledge, he would have accepted morality as objective from the scientific perspective. [by-passing the logical IS-OUGHT fallacy.]
This is what the Moral Naturalists are onto, i.e. relying on science to establish Moral Realism and Moral Objectivity/.

1) we all agree that morality exists. Science will not add to the knowledge that morality exists. It can only add to our understand of the roots of that morality. Hume knew that morality existed. I am sure, in his own wording, he considered that a fact.
2) morality includes many moralities. Finding out that this set of neurological processes does not confirm that ANY PARTICULAR morality is the objective one. It will show the mechanism involved in sympathy, which is an attitude that affects what we consider moral. You are conflating the existence of morality with any particular morality - such as yours - as being objectively correct. You have done this for years.
3) we have aggressive neural pathways, endocrine changes, etc. Neuroendicronal science is finding out more and more about these patterns in our physiology. Some person who does not see perpetual peace as the objective moral goal, could argue that research into agression is showing us morality is objective. And then they could argue that their version of morality, one with more acceptance for aggression is the correct one.

On and on you conflate findings that show us about the fact that we have morals, with findings that somehow confirm that there is one objective morality - and 'coincidentally' it is your morality, with your priority. Always when you give an example of what we are finding in brains, you cherry pick something they have found that supports your morality - usually empathy, now sympathy. I and I would guess PH also have some sympathy for your wanting to build a morality based on these cohesion focused facets of human relation. But that doesn't make your argument sound.

The problem can be highlighted by pointing out that many times you have talked about enhancing empathy. IOW you do not consider the current amount of empathy to be enough.

This means that you have decided that our current neuro-endicrone states while objective are not right. We need to adjust them. This choice is, obviously, NOT coming from what scientists are finding in brains, but rather coming from your own values.

Which is fine with me, but the process is not finding/demonstrating an objective morality.

[Peter Holmes]

As I had argued, my basis of what is fact and therefrom what is objectivity are both contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS i.e. FSERC] of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard.
Since we can establish a human-based moral FSERC which has near credibility and objectivity to the gold standard, morality is objective [as qualified to the set of specific moral elements].

1 Your FSERC theory of facts can't explain why the natural sciences are 'the gold standard' for objectivity - because you deny the existence of facts outside an FSERC. So the theory is useless.

2 Your claim that there is or can be a moral FSERC begs the question. You answer the question 'What could make morality objective?' by saying 'Morality is objective, because there are moral facts within a moral FSERC' - which is useless.

[FlashDangerpants]

As I had argued, my basis of what is fact and therefrom what is objectivity are both contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS i.e. FSERC] of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard.
Since we can establish a human-based moral FSERC which has near credibility and objectivity to the gold standard, morality is objective [as qualified to the set of specific moral elements].

1 Your FSERC theory of facts can't explain why the natural sciences are 'the gold standard' for objectivity - because you deny the existence of facts outside an FSERC. So the theory is useless.

2 Your claim that there is or can be a moral FSERC begs the question. You answer the question 'What could make morality objective?' by saying 'Morality is objective, because there are moral facts within a moral FSERC' - which is useless.

He just doesn't understand that there's trade-offs when you pull certian manoeuvres. I've seen VA claim he is now operating beyond the scope of outdated logics, fine, but that comes at a cost. And he has his constructivist truth theory where a multitude of hallucinations is the same as a measurement of something in a real world, fine, that comes at a cost too. The main problem really is his refusal to pay these costs, giving him the impression that he's fixed the big problems of moral theory, when all he really did was agressively fail to understand them.

If you dump classical logic and move beyond syllogistic reasoning, then fien, deal with the cosequences of that: stop presenting your shit as syllogisms. If your definition of 'facts' is based on constructivist collective opinions, learn to deal with the costs of that which are that you don't get to say anybody is mistaken about anything going forward. You can have your plastic tofurkey-burger of Moral Theory, and try to wash that down with your sugar-free diet bandwagoneered Truth Theory if you can stomach that shit. But anybody else who just doesn't feel like partaking in that disaster of a meal isn't making any mistake by sitting it out. There's no law of excluding middles any more, you gave that away in step one. So there's no claim that if I am right then somebody who says I am wrong is themselves wrong...

VA always thinks he gets everything for free, but he must learn to live within his very limiting means. If he's got what it takes to learn what those are.

[Peter Holmes]

As I had argued, my basis of what is fact and therefrom what is objectivity are both contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS i.e. FSERC] of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard.
Since we can establish a human-based moral FSERC which has near credibility and objectivity to the gold standard, morality is objective [as qualified to the set of specific moral elements].

1 Your FSERC theory of facts can't explain why the natural sciences are 'the gold standard' for objectivity - because you deny the existence of facts outside an FSERC. So the theory is useless.

2 Your claim that there is or can be a moral FSERC begs the question. You answer the question 'What could make morality objective?' by saying 'Morality is objective, because there are moral facts within a moral FSERC' - which is useless.

He just doesn't understand that there's trade-offs when you pull certian manoeuvres. I've seen VA claim he is now operating beyond the scope of outdated logics, fine, but that comes at a cost. And he has his constructivist truth theory where a multitude of hallucinations is the same as a measurement of something in a real world, fine, that comes at a cost too. The main problem really is his refusal to pay these costs, giving him the impression that he's fixed the big problems of moral theory, when all he really did was agressively fail to understand them.

If you dump classical logic and move beyond syllogistic reasoning, then fien, deal with the cosequences of that: stop presenting your shit as syllogisms. If your definition of 'facts' is based on constructivist collective opinions, learn to deal with the costs of that which are that you don't get to say anybody is mistaken about anything going forward. You can have your plastic tofurkey-burger of Moral Theory, and try to wash that down with your sugar-free diet bandwagoneered Truth Theory if you can stomach that shit. But anybody else who just doesn't feel like partaking in that disaster of a meal isn't making any mistake by sitting it out. There's no law of excluding middles any more, you gave that away in step one. So there's no claim that if I am right then somebody who says I am wrong is themselves wrong...

VA always thinks he gets everything for free, but he must learn to live within his very limiting means. If he's got what it takes to learn what those are.

All agreed - and well-put.

VA's P: There are only FSERC facts.

Is that an FSERC fact?

[Iwannaplato]

All agreed - and well-put.

VA's P: There are only FSERC facts.

Is that an FSERC fact?

Similar things have been pointed out to VA a number of times. It's related to 'which FSERC determined that science is the best FSERC and if it wasn't the scientific FSERC then how can we trust it'? And if it was the scientific FSERC, that's pretty circular.

Could you or FDP ask VA about the E part of FSERC? It stands for emergence, but I have no idea what this means in his ever growing acronym?

He's semi-ignoring me and only occasionally responding obliquely.