Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

[Skepdick]

Again, I'm a nominalist. But nominalism doesn't imply that there are no things that are the same: namely, something is the same as itself (at a particular "point" in time, at least).

So did you notice how you moved your own goal posts?

First you said "there are no things that are not the same". You used the word "things" in its plural form implying more than one thing.
Then you said "something is the same as itself...". You used the word "something" which is singular implying only one thing.

The same() function/operator/assertion is Binary. It takes TWO parameters (see arity if you are unfamiliar with this concept).
But any "something" is a SINGULAR entity, so you are talking about a Unary sameness, NOT Binary sameness.

So in your world-view would you say that the unary-same and binary-same are the same?
Asked another way: in your mind does this expression evaluate to True or False?

binary-same(unary-same, binary-same)

That's what I'm talking about here--what's known as "numerical identity" in philosophy. In other words, just one whatever, at a particular spatiotemporal location.

Yeah, but Philosophers don't know their heads from their ass. When people assert sameness they have a Binary operation in mind, not a Unary one.

In what practical situation/use-case have you ever found yourself needing to assert a thing's own sameness?

And THEN you are also assuming a "spatiotemporal location" which implies global (universal?) time coordinates. Your system of thought/logic (whatever it is) does not localise time. The implication of which is that all you can ever express in such a logic is causes and effects, but you can never express concurrent interactions.

And addressing a question like whether in Gewirth's argument X and P can be the same shouldn't require a diversion like this.

Translation: I insist that you accept my axiomatic truths so we can proceed the discussion from MY reference frame.

At first, I thought your framing was deliberate. Now it seems you aren't even aware that you are imposing your frame on the discussion. Or are you aware and am I underestimating my interlocutor?

[Terrapin Station]

So did you notice how you moved your own goal posts?

First you said "there are no things that are not the same". You used the word "things" in its plural form implying more than one thing.
Then you said "something is the same as itself...". You used the word "something" which is singular implying only one thing.

That would be called you not being able to read in a non-Aspie way; it's not moving goalposts.

I don't know where "there are no things that are not the same" is from, but if I wrote that, it would have been saying that there are no things that are not the same as themselves (at a particular spatiotemporal point).

The reason this sort of thing would go on so long is that you're only concerned with arguing.

[Skepdick]

That would be called you not being able to read in a non-Aspie way; it's not moving goalposts.

That would be called unable to express yourself without equivocating yourself.

But, of course, like every uncharitable douchebag you need a crutch to attack me instead of my position.

Good thing you are using the crutch I gave you, so I know when my programming works

I don't know where "there are no things that are not the same" is from, but if I wrote that, it would have been saying that there are no things that are not the same as themselves (at a particular spatiotemporal point).

You keep saying that.

You keep ignoring that time is not absolute. And the very concept of "particular spatiotemporal point" requires absolute time.

I guess you don't know a damn thing about temporal/linear logic? It localises time. Each "thing" has its own clock. Each "thing" IS a clock - amongst other things.

The reason this sort of thing would go on so long is that you're only concerned with arguing.

I told you that I am not. I am concerned with agreement/consensus.

That you cannot find an interpretation in which you can resolve your own doubts is only demonstrating that you are uncharitable; ignorant or both.

[Terrapin Station]

That would be called unable to express yourself without equivocating yourself.

You have to be able to read normal language usage, which is often not "literal." "Literal" is in quotation marks there because that's a wonky notion in the first place, because it assumes just one transparent definition (or "meaning") for things, which isn't actually how language works. So what Aspies take to be a "literal" meaning is often not what anyone else would have in mind. Hence there are communication problems that can't be overcome, at least not aside from a lot of familiarity with a particular Aspie to know how they're likely to interpret the text at hand. Then you can cater your expression to them.

[Terrapin Station]

And this has what to do with my question about what Gewirth is saying?

Which part of the relation between the above and what Gewirth is saying do you not understand?

All of it. You need to say, "What this has to do with the question you're asking about what Gewirth is saying is ______" and then fill in the blank.

[Skepdick]

You have to be able to read normal language usage, which is often not "literal." "Literal" is in quotation marks there because that's a wonky notion in the first place, because it assumes just one transparent definition (or "meaning") for things, which isn't actually how language works. So what Aspies take to be a "literal" meaning is often not what anyone else would have in mind. Hence there are communication problems that can't be overcome, at least not aside from a lot of familiarity with a particular Aspie to know how they're likely to interpret the text at hand. Then you can cater your expression to them.

You think I don't know that? Or are you just putting out there for your own benefit?

Seeming as what I am doing is explaining precisely why there's problems in your communication

[Skepdick]

All of it. You need to say, "What this has to do with the question you're asking about what Gewirth is saying is ______" and then fill in the blank.

It has to do your misinterpretation of what Gewirth is saying.

Seeming as you demonstrate constant inability to infer and adopt alternative semantics, while at the same time all you are attacking is precisely semantics and not the actual content.

You fool yourself into "being able to understand natural language" and then you don't understand why you don't understand.

"To understand" is to recover the author's original intent. That's why you think I am an Aspie... because intent-recovery is what I do.

[Sculptor]

So far I have raised about 13 threads to support the points,

• - one can derived ought from is.

You are clueless about this problem.
Hume's point was that there is NEVER a necessary connection, and that moralists tend to assume a connection between is and ought without thinking they need to make the connection explicit.
Everything you have typed on this topic is null and void because you do not get that.
You have here, nothing more than a pathetic strawman.

- the is-ought problem is trivial upon words

Only because you are clueless.

- the collapse of the fact-value dichotomy
- Hume the originator of the is-ought problem is inconsistent[/list]

Only because you are clueless.

In addition to the above, one of the strongest argument against the is-ought problem and its resolution is from Alan Gerwith's;

• The “Is-ought” Problem Resolved
  Alan Gewirth
  Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association
  Vol. 47 (1973 - 1974), pp. 34-61 (28 pages)
  Published By: American Philosophical Association
  https://www.jstor.org/stable/3129900

• CONTENTS:
  # Introduction -35 – The Real ‘Is’-Ought' Problem has not been Resolved
  # Section I -35 - The Real ‘Is’-Ought' Problem – 5+1 Characteristics
  # Section II -38 - Three External Arguments to Close the Gap
  # Section III -46 - 4 Steps Deriving Ought-Judgment [5 Conditions] from Empirical Facts
  • 1st Step – action, purposive, evaluative -51
    2nd Step – justifications and right-claim -52
    3rd Step – right claim universalized -54
    4th Step – universalized right-claim to correlative ‘ought’-judgment -57
  The Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC) -57
  Summation
  Review of the Derivation with the 5 Characteristics -60
  Objection
  # Summary of Argument -61

Gerwith's claimed his argument which is based on The Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC) has zero possibility for anyone to raise the usual 'begging the question' counter.

I read the paper months ago, so I don't have an immediate grasp of the argument on my finger tips at present. [will need to refresh if anyone want to challenge his argument].

For those interested check the link above to download.

[Terrapin Station]

You have to be able to read normal language usage, which is often not "literal." "Literal" is in quotation marks there because that's a wonky notion in the first place, because it assumes just one transparent definition (or "meaning") for things, which isn't actually how language works. So what Aspies take to be a "literal" meaning is often not what anyone else would have in mind. Hence there are communication problems that can't be overcome, at least not aside from a lot of familiarity with a particular Aspie to know how they're likely to interpret the text at hand. Then you can cater your expression to them.

You think I don't know that? Or are you just putting out there for your own benefit?

Seeming as what I am doing is explaining precisely why there's problems in your communication

By not catering to the particulars of your condition . . . okay.

[Skepdick]

Hume's point was that there is NEVER a necessary connection, and that moralists tend to assume a connection between is and ought without thinking they need to make the connection explicit.

Dear [redacted]

[FlashDangerpants] has recently conceded (reluctantly) that oughts are recovered from goals, perhaps at my suggestion that he ought to start with the solution and work back towards the problem.

Now I am not saying it's the same thing, but damn it if there's no pattern here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics
Reverse mathematics is a program in mathematical logic that seeks to determine which axioms are required to prove theorems of mathematics. Its defining method can briefly be described as "going backwards from the theorems to the axioms", in contrast to the ordinary mathematical practice of deriving theorems from axioms. It can be conceptualized as sculpting out necessary conditions from sufficient ones.


[Edited by iMod]

[Skepdick]

By not catering to the particulars of your condition . . . okay.

The condition that I don't have?

You do realise it's a skill/deliberate choice, right?

[Terrapin Station]

All of it. You need to say, "What this has to do with the question you're asking about what Gewirth is saying is ______" and then fill in the blank.

It has to do your misinterpretation of what Gewirth is saying.

Seeming as you demonstrate constant inability to infer and adopt alternative semantics, while at the same time all you are attacking is precisely semantics and not the actual content.

You fool yourself into "being able to understand natural language" and then you don't understand why you don't understand.

"To understand" is to recover the author's original intent. That's why you think I am an Aspie... because intent-recovery is what I do.

All of that crap you were writing wasn't anything about interpretation of Gewirth, though. So it didn't actually have anything to do with that.

Okay, so what specifically re Gewirth's argument would you say I'm misunderstanding?

[Terrapin Station]

By not catering to the particulars of your condition . . . okay.

The condition that I don't have?

You do realise it's a skill/deliberate choice, right?

Yeah, I'll buy that right after I buy that bridge from you.

[Skepdick]

All of that crap you were writing wasn't anything about interpretation of Gewirth, though. So it didn't actually have anything to do with that.

Okay, so what specifically re Gewirth's argument would you say I'm misunderstanding?

You don't get specifics - I am not in your head.

I am generally observing that what you are attacking is the structure fo Gewirth's argument, not the content.

And you show no hint of understanding the intent behind the words.

Your are challenging style, not substance.

[Skepdick]

Yeah, I'll buy that right after I buy that bridge from you.

On a balance of probabilities you've already bought a bridge from me.

Of course, that's a metaphorical, not a literal bridge. You are probably using the stuff I built/sold.