Sober: Refutation of Hume No Ought From Is

[Harbal]

Where is the line between here and NOT-here?

The answer is in the question. The line is between here and not here.

Where is the line between now and not-now?

Take a wild guess.

[Skepdick]

Where is the line between here and NOT-here?

The answer is in the question. The line is between here and not here.

Where is the line between now and not-now?

Take a wild guess.

How far from here is it?

The universe is non-local (says quantum physics) where does locality end?

[Harbal]

Where is the line between here and NOT-here?

The answer is in the question. The line is between here and not here.

Where is the line between now and not-now?

Take a wild guess.

How far from here is it?

It's a hop, skip and jump away.

The universe is non-local

Nonsense, it's right on our doorstep.

says quantum physics

Quantum physics doesn't speak to me, so I wouldn't know.

where does locality end?

It ends immediately before none locality begins, I imagine.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophy is a problem if we do qualify whatever is claimed to a specific human-based framework and system [FS].

Rinse. Repeat.

Take my analogy. Make the black half of the paper "Philosophy is a problem". Make the white half of the paper "Philosophy is not a problem".

Who decided that and how? And now you gotta tell me about the nature and color of the line again.

You have to provide a philosophical answer to a philosophical question from a philosophical.

So the philosophy you are operating from. Where is it located on the piece of paper? Is it the white part; black part - or the line itself?

Newton's Third Law
"for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Antinomy (Greek ἀντί, antí, "against, in opposition to", and νόμος, nómos, "law") refers to a real or apparent mutual incompatibility of two notions.[1] It is a term used in logic and epistemology, particularly in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy

For every Yin there is a Yang; but a Yin is also a Yang.

So dualism is natural within human experience and human conditions [the human mind].

Thus "Philosophy is a problem" will be validly countered with "Philosophy is not a problem" by humans [never by non-humans].

I believe we agree with Model Dependent Realism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

But as I has stated, one must always qualifies one's claim to a specific human-based FS with its specific constitution, assumptions, processes, definitions, terms, etc. This is equivalent to a model.

Depending on how the definition and terms of how 'philosophy' is defined within a specific philosophical FS [model], philosophy [FS-x] is not a problem if philosophy is interpreted and practiced accordingly to the specific definition within that philosophical FS, i.e. FS-x.

There is no absoluteness, so there is no absolute answer is either 'philosophy is a problem' nor 'philosophy is not a problem'.

There should only a serious consideration is whether a specific philosophical FS views should be rejected is when it generate evil acts with fatalities and serious harms.
Another consideration of whether a specific philosophical FS is based on its credibility and objectivity rated based on Critical and Rational thinking.

In the case of Hume's No Ought from Is, his philosophical FS is grounded on philosophical realism, i.e. the external world exists absolutely independent of the human mind. Since 'ought' is only from the human mind, logically it cannot be from "is" i.e. that which is independent from the human mind.

But Hume's philosophical FS is flawed i.e. not rational if we think critically; Hume did not take into account the human mind is also an "is". Thus, "ought" [mind-based] can come from a "is" [mind based].
Therefore, Hume's philosophy is a Problem in this case when contrasted with a philosophical antirealist [Kantian] FS [model].

[Skepdick]

Newton's Third Law
"for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Antinomy (Greek ἀντί, antí, "against, in opposition to", and νόμος, nómos, "law") refers to a real or apparent mutual incompatibility of two notions.[1] It is a term used in logic and epistemology, particularly in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy

Yes... I know what an antinomy is. Hence the piece of paper analogy.

For every Yin there is a Yang; but a Yin is also a Yang.

So dualism is natural within human experience and human conditions [the human mind].

Thus "Philosophy is a problem" will be validly countered with "Philosophy is not a problem" by humans [never by non-humans].

And you've already forgotten about the line...

But as I has stated, one must always qualifies one's claim to a specific human-based FS with its specific constitution, assumptions, processes, definitions, terms, etc. This is equivalent to a model.

Yes... The line.

Depending on how the definition and terms of how 'philosophy' is defined within a specific philosophical FS [model], philosophy [FS-x] is not a problem if philosophy is interpreted and practiced accordingly to the specific definition within that philosophical FS, i.e. FS-x.

You can define terms however you want to. Even the term "problem".

There is no absoluteness, so there is no absolute answer is either 'philosophy is a problem' nor 'philosophy is not a problem'.

Not interested in the answer. I am interested in the line that separates the two possible answers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Newton's Third Law
"for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Antinomy (Greek ἀντί, antí, "against, in opposition to", and νόμος, nómos, "law") refers to a real or apparent mutual incompatibility of two notions.[1] It is a term used in logic and epistemology, particularly in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy

Yes... I know what an antinomy is. Hence the piece of paper analogy.

For every Yin there is a Yang; but a Yin is also a Yang.

So dualism is natural within human experience and human conditions [the human mind].

Thus "Philosophy is a problem" will be validly countered with "Philosophy is not a problem" by humans [never by non-humans].

And you've already forgotten about the line...

But as I has stated, one must always qualifies one's claim to a specific human-based FS with its specific constitution, assumptions, processes, definitions, terms, etc. This is equivalent to a model.

Yes... The line.

Depending on how the definition and terms of how 'philosophy' is defined within a specific philosophical FS [model], philosophy [FS-x] is not a problem if philosophy is interpreted and practiced accordingly to the specific definition within that philosophical FS, i.e. FS-x.

You can define terms however you want to. Even the term "problem".

There is no absoluteness, so there is no absolute answer is either 'philosophy is a problem' nor 'philosophy is not a problem'.

Not interested in the answer. I am interested in the line that separates the two possible answers.

Line?? I am not sure what you meant by 'line' in this case?

There is no separate "line" between two separate parts [two separate views] unless one invent the 'line'.
The point is each part has its specific boundary.

Depending on the solidity of the two parts, when they meet each other, there is either a space of air between them or they merged at the boundary like when dense black water meet with lesser dense bluish water.



You seem to be looking for absolutely-absolute where there can never be.
Whatever the issue, critical analysis of the situation will reveal to open up the alternative views for one to accept conditionally.

[Skepdick]

Line?? I am not sure what you meant by 'line' in this case?

1. Take a piece of white paper and paint half of it black.
2. The white par is Truth. The black part is "Falsehood".

What's the color of the dividing line and what is it made of?
This is a (met)cognitive process - it's priori ALL deductive reasoning.

All philosophy reduces to this nonsense.

There is no separate "line" between two separate parts [two separate views] unless one invent the 'line'.
The point is each part has its specific boundary.

Line. Boundary. Divisor. Separator. If there's no separation between "True" and "False" then why are they separate?

Depending on the solidity of the two parts, when they meet each other, there is either a space of air between them or they merged at the boundary like when dense black water meet with lesser dense bluish water.

What parts? if there's no line - then there are no parts.

You seem to be looking for absolutely-absolute where there can never be.
Whatever the issue, critical analysis of the situation will reveal to open up the alternative views for one to accept conditionally.

In the absence of a line there's no difference between the absolute and the non-absolute.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Line?? I am not sure what you meant by 'line' in this case?

1. Take a piece of white paper and paint half of it black.
2. The white par is Truth. The black part is "Falsehood".

What's the color of the dividing line and what is it made of?
This is a (met)cognitive process - it's priori ALL deductive reasoning.

All philosophy reduces to this nonsense.

There is no separate "line" between two separate parts [two separate views] unless one invent the 'line'.
The point is each part has its specific boundary.

Line. Boundary. Divisor. Separator. If there's no separation between "True" and "False" then why are they separate?

True or false is only separated if it is by consensus agreed to be separated within a framework and system, in this case, classical logic and the Law of the Excluded Middle. [LEM]

Most of the time there is an agreement with the LEM especially within basic survival scenarios and common sense.

When the issue is more refined as in this case, the LEM does not apply and what we have is a continuum of greys, and fuzzy logic.
If there is to be a line, then it would be of some degrees of greys.

Depending on the solidity of the two parts, when they meet each other, there is either a space of air between them or they merged at the boundary like when dense black water meet with lesser dense bluish water.

What parts? if there's no line - then there are no parts.

You are the one who introduced the 'parts' i.e. on part black and one part white.
If there are millions of parts, i.e. molecules of white dye and black dye, the question of line or separator, dichotomy is a question of which framework and system of logic or knowledge is agreed upon to be used.

You seem to be looking for absolutely-absolute where there can never be.
Whatever the issue, critical analysis of the situation will reveal to open up the alternative views for one to accept conditionally.

In the absence of a line there's no difference between the absolute and the non-absolute.

It is a question of which FS to be agreed upon;
if we agree classical logic applies, i.e. LEM, then there is a separator,
if we do not agree classical logic applies but fuzzy logic or paraconsistent logic applies, then there is no separator.

So, in the case of the OP, the assumption is classical logic and LEM is applied, thus the dichotomy between 'is' and 'ought' is valid.
In principle, if one is a human being [normal], then one ought to breathe, eat, drink and avoid threats of fatalities.

[Iwannaplato]

1) why put 'unobservables' in quotes? 2) I think you must mean 'real' not 'true'. It would be weird to say an electron is true. Statements on other hand.....

"unobservables" means that confined to science not the supernaturals or God and the like.
It is 'quarks exists as real' it true as conditioned upon the science-physics FSERC.

So, is the moon, even when not looked at, is there in its orbit as considered real in the astronomy FSERC and was there before humans existed, also considered true and conditioned the astronomy FSERC.

The earth also formed before humans and, as far as we know, being watched by anyone as conditioned on the geology FSERC. And so on back in time.

There is no such assumption within the scientific antirealism FSERC which is merely a conjecture-polishing-machine based on empirical evidences.

Possibly that's true, though there may be other assumptions that realists do not need to have to explain the ontology of things not persisting when not viewed/experienced. Since we haven't seen this ontology fleshed out, while we have seen the realist ontology fleshed out, we have no idea, yet, which ism has nor assumptions and what they are and are not justified by.

Further you have assumed that there is nothing there, which goes beyond epistemic anti-realism, unless you have changed your mind.

Science in reality and practice is not serious about what could be out there existing as absolutely mind-independent, but the focus is the predictability of its optimal polished conjectures.

So the best FSERC is pragmatic/pragmatist, not needing, actually to weigh in on whether there are mind independent things.

Oh, yes, if any of the answers are something along the lines of 'the earth when it was forming was not absolutely mind independent 1) there were no minds then, in your model, and 2) but that's true for everything (in your model), so there's no need to say it with emphasis for anything in particular.

But perhaps you whole Moon thing has changed, without letting us know. Perhaps what once needed to be experienced to exist, now merely needs to be conceived to exist and this works retroactively.

The whole shebang with the reality [philosophical realism] vs philosophical antirealism is because philosophical realists driven by an evolutionary default and existential crisis dogmatically cling to the ideology of an absolutely mind-independent external world.
As I had stated, philosophical realists [many, at least a %] had condemned, are intellectually violent to or even killed [theists and others] those who oppose or are against their ideology.

So far, none of this has anything at all to do with what I wrote.

Nevertheless the truth always prevail, and philosophical anti-realists upon realizing the higher truth cannot accept the philosophical realists' claim of an absolutely mind-independent external world, i.e. it [e.g. moon] exists regardless of whether there are human or not.

Nor, does your conceptions of what antirealists in general will do or accept have anything to do with what I wrote.

Philosophical realists cannot justify their claim of absolute mind-independence but merely claim it based on common sense [not credible].

Nor does this respond to any of the points I made.

Philosophical antirealists [Kantian] accept mind-independence, e.g. the moon did exist before there were humans but not on an absolute basis rather they accept [based on rational arguments] it on a relative basis.

Finally, I can see you read my post, thank you.

Why then did you say The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It, when in fact you think it exists relatively, even when no one is looking at it?

Also, as I said here, you do have an assumption....

There is no such assumption within the scientific antirealism FSERC which is merely a conjecture-polishing-machine based on empirical evidences.

Possibly that's true, though there may be other assumptions that realists do not need to have to explain the ontology of things not persisting when not viewed/experienced. Since we haven't seen this ontology fleshed out, while we have seen the realist ontology fleshed out, we have no idea, yet, which ism has nor assumptions and what they are and are not justified by.

Further you have assumed that there is nothing there, which goes beyond epistemic anti-realism, unless you have changed your mind.

You are not simply saying we cannot know, you are saying there is nothing there. Unless you have changed your mind. That a parallel and opposite assumption to that of the realists. Unless you can prove things are not there.

Nor did you responsd to this...

Science in reality and practice is not serious about what could be out there existing as absolutely mind-independent, but the focus is the predictability of its optimal polished conjectures.

Notice that you say here that the best FSERC, according to you is not serious about what might or might not be existing as mind-indepdent. And you present it as intrumental/pragmatic around prediction. I think this is misrepresenting how much scientists and science produces models, not just predictions, but let's accept this for the moment. You are, in contrast with science, serious about this issue and weigh in on the negative. On what FSERC is the conclusion that there are no mind independent things conditioned on. It isn't science, but your own description of science above, so what FSERC is it conditioned on.
Or as I responded in my previous post.....

So the best FSERC is pragmatic/pragmatist, not needing, actually to weigh in on whether there are mind independent things.

Me, again.

Oh, yes, if any of the answers are something along the lines of 'the earth when it was forming was not absolutely mind independent 1) there were no minds then, in your model, and 2) but that's true for everything (in your model), so there's no need to say it with emphasis for anything in particular.

Then also this, it seems that earlier you have talked about thing not existing if not directly perceived. Now it seems like they need not be directly perceiving, in the moment it exists, but need to be conceived of via and FSERC. I understand that they only exist relatively. But still they exist.

It seems it no longer takes the Moon being directly, now, perceived to exist, but as long as it is posited in an FSERC it exists. Why did this shift taek place?

But perhaps you whole Moon thing has changed, without letting us know. Perhaps what once needed to be experienced to exist, now merely needs to be conceived to exist and this works retroactively.

[Iwannaplato]

The whole shebang with the reality [philosophical realism] vs philosophical antirealism is because philosophical realists driven by an evolutionary default and existential crisis dogmatically cling to the ideology of an absolutely mind-independent external world.
As I had stated, philosophical realists [many, at least a %] had condemned, are intellectually violent to or even killed [theists and others] those who oppose or are against their ideology.

Apart from the confused English in the last sentence 1) those theists are moral realists. So, what you are doing here is deciding on the basis of the VA FSERC, that what led them to violence was that they were not antirealists, rather than that they were moral realist. In other words, you show almost no knowledge of separating out variables, which is a fundamental part of scientific methology, the FSERC you consider the best one. 2) You never cite a single study showing that antirealists are less prone to violence. Again, not understanding fundamental logic in attribuing causation.

You are lost and is simply making statements that are not true because it is merely your opinion.

What is true is its alignment with reality which must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence & realization of reality, perception, cognition and description [FSERC]; the most credible and objective FSERC is the scientific FSERC.

So, on what FSERC did you use to draw that conclusion and please link us to the research that backs it up.

Or are you lost and simply making statements that are not true because it is merely your opinion. Your words, aimed at someone who did not insult you, in another thread. Not the ad hom.

This has been pointed out to you before, and yet you continue to contradict your own evaluatory processes and your own methodology.