Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:42 pm
You can redefine anything in Python, you can make yes mean no, equality mean inequality or the square root of fairy dust or anything else. Skepdick thinks that this has major implications for the universe. I guess when he was little he smashed his head into a concrete wall, another sad story..
You appear to be confused. I don't believe that. The moral subjectivists believe that.
It's just a choice. If morality is not objective then what's "wrong" with making the choice?
It has exactly zero implications for the universe.
It has infinitely many implications for how and why humans define anything in any particular way.
What are the constraints exactly?
Like I said... It's argument by making "subjective moralists" deeply regret having lied about their epistemic position in the first place.
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:42 pm
You can redefine anything in Python, you can make yes mean no, equality mean inequality or the square root of fairy dust or anything else. Skepdick thinks that this has major implications for the universe. I guess when he was little he smashed his head into a concrete wall, another sad story..
You appear to be confused. I don't believe that. The moral subjectivists believe that.
It's just a choice. If morality is not objective then what's "wrong" with making the choice?
It has exactly zero implications for the universe.
It has infinitely many implications for how and why humans define anything in any particular way.
What are the constraints exactly?
Some day you'll have to explain the gap to us lowly mortals how you get from Python tricks to subjective morality.
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:51 pm
Some day you'll have to explain the gap to us lowly mortals how you get from Python tricks to subjective morality.
I am not talking to "lowly mortals". They understand that morality is objective just fine, because they haven't over-intellectualized themselves into stupidity just yet.
It's idiot-philosophers who need convincing...
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:45 pm
Like I said... It's argument by making "subjective moralists" deeply regret having lied about their epistemic position in the first place.
Holy shit. Say u had a rule in a code language that allowed A=A for every instance unless A had a certain feature that allowed it to change. How would that special instance of A be expressed in the code. Ah, it couldn't be, because the rules would be changed. The new A, call it A1 (the special A that changes) could not function in the code unless it meant and commanded the same executive action as the other kind of A that doesn't change. The Turing machine would recognize it in the same way. Ergo, identity can involve change without changing identity.
Last edited by promethean75 on Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:51 pm
Some day you'll have to explain the gap to us lowly mortals how you get from Python tricks to subjective morality.
On second thought, maybe you are an over-intellectualized idiot...
If morality is not objective, then there is no objectively correct answer to the evaluation A=A.
And if you think there's such a thing as "subjectively correct" answer, the you have to explain to me why you think that answer is "A=A is True", and not "A=A is False"; or why you even think the computation will ever halt.
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:56 pm
Holy shit. Say u had a rule in a code language that allowed A=A for every instance unless A had a certain feature that allowed it to change. How would that special instance of A be expressed in the code. Ah, it couldn't be, because the rules would be changed. The new A, call it A1 (the special A that changes) could not function in the code unless it meant and commanded the same executive action as the other kind of A that doesn't change. The Turing machine would interpret it in the same way. Ergo, identity can involve change without changing identity.
Great! Nothing anywhere in computation says that the rules can't be changed - it's just self-modifying code.
So now tell me what algorithm you will use to determine whether any given change changes the identity of an entity?
What determines if it's "the same" Turing machine or a "different" Turing Machine?
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:51 pm
Some day you'll have to explain the gap to us lowly mortals how you get from Python tricks to subjective morality.
I am not talking to "lowly mortals". They understand that morality is objective just fine, because they haven't over-intellectualized themselves into stupidity just yet.
It's idiot-philosophers who need convincing...
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:45 pm
Like I said... It's argument by making "subjective moralists" deeply regret having lied about their epistemic position in the first place.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:06 pm
What do you mean by "lying" in a subjective moralist paradigm?
lying = not telling the truth
What's subjectively "wrong" with anything?
That depends on which subjectivist you ask. Some will say that it's 100% arbitrary. I'm of the opinion that those guys are morally wrong and should be punished in some way.
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:18 pm
A=A evaluates to True by at least 95% consensus of humanity, in order to avoid chaos. Your version is BS.
I think you are lying and we should just behead you tomorrow morning.
To avoid chaos.
You may think that, but I'm pretty sure that 95%+ of humanity will agree that discarding the basic laws of thought would lead to pure chaos. So they won't agree with you and won't behead me. A few of them may punch you in the face though if you push it too far.
