SEP: Supervenience in Ethics

[Iwannaplato]

That's a very narrow response compared to my broader perspective. I asked chat gpt and it says:

The universe is an intricate dance.

This is a very nuanced topic. I suggest you read the CPR at least 10 times.

Can't get any broader than that.

Broadness is one of the categories of mind. It isn't real in an absolute sense.

[Flannel Jesus]

That's a very narrow response compared to my broader perspective. I asked chat gpt and it says:

The universe is an intricate dance.

This is a very nuanced topic. I suggest you read the CPR at least 10 times.

Can't get any broader than that.

Broadness is one of the categories of mind. It isn't real in an absolute sense.

It's the most real because realism is unrealistic. That means that what I say is realistic.

[Iwannaplato]

That's a very narrow response compared to my broader perspective. I asked chat gpt and it says:

This is a very nuanced topic. I suggest you read the CPR at least 10 times.

Can't get any broader than that.

Broadness is one of the categories of mind. It isn't real in an absolute sense.

It's the most real because realism is unrealistic. That means that what I say is realistic.

Strawman.

[Flannel Jesus]

Strawman.

touché

[Flannel Jesus]

Shit, did I break character? I admitted someone else made a good point...

[FlashDangerpants]

Even when it does. But I'm sure that 'supervenience will, in the end, should he continue to use it, tease out more of the problems with his 'oughtnesses'. Give us new ways to describe the problems at least.

He's always had the problem that he is creating his argument backwards. The whole and only real point was for him to be in charge of ordering and sorting everything in the world. This entire sub is now defined by one man's autistic sorting obsessions. Except the other bits which belong to a relgious maniac.

If you mean he has a conclusion so he tries to find what might either 1) justify (what 'has to be' true) 2) somehow undermine opponents, I think that's common. I've done that. It's not a bad practical strategy either. I have to get out of this room. There seems to be no exit. I will assume there is an exit. I think those people will get out more often. I would say the problem is not being able to see the forest for the trees. There are all these inconsistent temporary fixes. Which is also fine, in and of itself, but it's not a coherent position.

You are writing from the perspective of somebody who understands that contradictions stand in need of eventul resolution, but you are not writing about somebody who understands that.

[Iwannaplato]

You are writing from the perspective of somebody who understands that contradictions stand in need of eventul resolution, but you are not writing about somebody who understands that.

To be charitable, I would say 'doesn't notice contradiction when cognitive dissonance is at the door knocking.'

[Iwannaplato]

Strawman.

touché

This one might be realizing 'that' was just a False belief and a False claim that you human beings were holding onto, expressing, and sharing among each other.

Due to the parts that revolve around dasein let's say.

[Flannel Jesus]

Strawman.

touché

This one might be realizing 'that' was just a False belief and a False claim that you human beings were holding onto, expressing, and sharing among each other.

Due to dasein.

But how can you prove you were ever able not to say that, in the days when this was written?

[Iwannaplato]

touché

This one might be realizing 'that' was just a False belief and a False claim that you human beings were holding onto, expressing, and sharing among each other.

Due to dasein.

But how can you prove you were ever able not to say that, in the days when this was written?

It's entirely a judgment call derived from any number of conflicting moods. When I feel that someone is making me the issue, they become a Stooge.

In my head, in other words. You are being a Stooge and a human being at the time this was being written.
LOL.
LOL.
LOL:

[Flannel Jesus]

This one might be realizing 'that' was just a False belief and a False claim that you human beings were holding onto, expressing, and sharing among each other.

Due to dasein.

But how can you prove you were ever able not to say that, in the days when this was written?

It's entirely a judgment call derived from any number of conflicting moods. When I feel that someone is making me the issue, they become a Stooge.

In my head, in other words. You are being a Stooge and a human being at the time this was being written.
LOL.
LOL.
LOL:

People would go straight to insults instead of asking back then.

Shameless.

[Iwannaplato]

People would go straight to insults instead of asking back then.
Shameless.

Assuming that my behavior is autonomous and I can be held responsible for my 'shameless' actions. All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

What I would be far more intrigued regarding is for you to bring all of your intellectual assumptions above down to Earth and note how, in regard to Mary and Jane and issues like abortion, human interactions either are unequivocaslly autonomous or compelled.

Here 'we' can see another prime example of another way these adult human beings, back in 'the olden days' when this was being written, to use to try to 'justify' the 'wrongness' that they each 'knew' that they were doing, all driven by an evolutionary default. Primitive AND primal.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are writing from the perspective of somebody who understands that contradictions stand in need of eventul resolution, but you are not writing about somebody who understands that.

To be charitable, I would say 'doesn't notice contradiction when cognitive dissonance is at the door knocking.'

Proof, were any, needed that you are a much more charitable man than I am.

The root of all his moral arguments is that stupid "oughtness to breathe" thing. That's an inherent moral property of oughtness directly applied to the organism, so at the level of properties he's a moral naturalist and he always has been. It's impossible to have supervenience in this case, as, if he understood what the entailments of his own position are, he would realise he has collapsed the gap between the types of property before beginning the enquiry into how to bridge the damn gap.

But in complete contradiction to this there is his entire aproach to facts and knowlege, which is fictionalism dressed up as constructivism. So at the level of moral facts he's divorced his theory from the properties for no reason, completely undermining his own moral realism. So now he wants to invoke Supervenience to bridge a gap he collapsed, becasue he erased it but it's still there, some sort of Schrödinger's fact/values gap.

This all comes about because he adds any old shit that feels like either moral realism or general antirealism into his gumbo of bullshit and pain that he calls a theory. And he does all that because he has absolutely zero talent.

What he lacks most though is self-awareness, he doesn't have enough of that to experience dissonance. For him, these are all just things that he has found in his "moralty-proper database" so they must be true.

[Peter Holmes]

You are writing from the perspective of somebody who understands that contradictions stand in need of eventul resolution, but you are not writing about somebody who understands that.

To be charitable, I would say 'doesn't notice contradiction when cognitive dissonance is at the door knocking.'

Proof, were any, needed that you are a much more charitable man than I am.

The root of all his moral arguments is that stupid "oughtness to breathe" thing. That's an inherent moral property of oughtness directly applied to the organism, so at the level of properties he's a moral naturalist and he always has been. It's impossible to have supervenience in this case, as, if he understood what the entailments of his own position are, he would realise he has collapsed the gap between the types of property before beginning the enquiry into how to bridge the damn gap.

Spot on. VA's 'moral theory' boils down to: 'A machine ought to perform according to its design specification. For example, a human ought to breathe.'

Here, the 'ought' has no moral significance - no sense of rightness or wrongness. So there is no is/ought problem - and VA's is not a moral theory. His so-called moral facts and moral objectivity are nothing of the sort. He just layers on a 'moral FSERC', as though that does the job.

But then, why ought a machine to perform according to its design specification? For example, why ought a human to breathe? VA: because otherwise it will die. So: why ought a human not to die?

And on and on.

[Iwannaplato]

Proof, were any, needed that you are a much more charitable man than I am.

I fluctuate between charity (for me) and lack of charity. I am bipolar when it comes to this.

The root of all his moral arguments is that stupid "oughtness to breathe" thing. That's an inherent moral property of oughtness directly applied to the organism, so at the level of properties he's a moral naturalist and he always has been. It's impossible to have supervenience in this case, as, if he understood what the entailments of his own position are, he would realise he has collapsed the gap between the types of property before beginning the enquiry into how to bridge the damn gap.

But in complete contradiction to this there is his entire aproach to facts and knowlege, which is fictionalism dressed up as constructivism. So at the level of moral facts he's divorced his theory from the properties for no reason, completely undermining his own moral realism. So now he wants to invoke Supervenience to bridge a gap he collapsed, becasue he erased it but it's still there, some sort of Schrödinger's fact/values gap.

This all comes about because he adds any old shit that feels like either moral realism or general antirealism into his gumbo of bullshit and pain that he calls a theory. And he does all that because he has absolutely zero talent.

What he lacks most though is self-awareness, he doesn't have enough of that to experience dissonance. For him, these are all just things that he has found in his "moralty-proper database" so they must be true.

I could mull and likely come up with more contradictions and certainly other ways of framing them. But I agree.

I suppose most people are a mish mash of philosophies, including contradictions. Listen to anyone over a week and they will seem like advocates for both free will and determinism and not in any way that some compatibilist could present as 'working' somehow. But that's not presenting what is supposed to be a cohesive position and resisting criticism of it in a philosophy forum.