Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

[Terrapin Station]

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't bother. I'm saying that the issues he's bringing up with measurement devices are irrelevant. We can accept those issues. The task is simply to show an extramental measuring device that's somehow registering/reacting to whatever the extramental moral whatevers are supposed to be.

Skepdick could start a fight in an empty room. I think the grown ups know no such device exists.

Right, and realizing that we have no idea how to even begin building one, even hypothetically, or the fact that we have no idea what we'd even begin to look at to produce a response/measurements on such a hypothetical device should be the end of the dispute here.

No one is disagreeing that people react to behavior with moral responses, or that they have moral dispositions, whether confronted with behavior or not. That's not at issue.

[tillingborn]

Bit of a fuck up.

[tillingborn]

Whoops.

You have me figured backwards. Skepdick keeps pointing out that the majority of Philosophical disagreements are about denotation.

Those are precisely the disagreements which are trivially resolvable. And yet Philosophers choose to continue playing that silly language game.

That hasn't even been arguable since Quine's Two Dogmas, a paper, by a philosopher, that anyone with a serious claim of being a philosopher will have read. The logical atomist/positivist linguistically pure pursuit of philosophy is over. Has been for years. The only people keeping it alive are those who insist that Analytic Philosophy isn't Medieval Scholasticism trying to prove God exists, because there is no evidence; and dicks who insist that's all any philosopher is.

[Terrapin Station]

As I understand him, Terrapin Station is saying there are features of the world that are independent of human experience, but that we nonetheless experience in human ways.

Exactly. At what's at dispute here is whether moral whatevers (judgments, maxims, edicts--whatever we'd want to call them) are among those features of the world that are independent of human experience.

[Skepdick]

That hasn't even been arguable since Quine's Two Dogmas, a paper, by a philosopher, that anyone with a serious claim of being a philosopher will have read. The logical atomist/positivist linguistically pure pursuit of philosophy is over. Has been for years. The only people keeping it alive are those who insist that Analytic Philosophy isn't Medieval Scholasticism trying to prove God exists, because there is no evidence; and dicks who insist that's all philosophers is.

You are mixing up words/terminology from different vocabularies and you think you are saying something coherent. So it takes a dick to point it out to you.

You have no "evidence" for gravity. Not unless you specify what evidence is before any further discussion takes place.

[Skepdick]

Exactly. At what's at dispute here is whether moral whatevers (judgments, maxims, edicts--whatever we'd want to call them) are among those features of the world that are independent of human experience.

Seeming as ALL measurements in physics explicitly require interaction (information transfer), the answer is decidedly "Nothing is independent of human experience!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Red isn't red anymore when you close your eyes! Connection terminated.

[Skepdick]

Ah, you're one of those who thinks emojis make things true. I don't know about the machine, you are quite right that it is a black box, but I can imagine that it could be rigged to print out 'red', if there were any reason for you to know in advance what colour you are about to experience.

Such a machine would be broken beyond repair.

The human eye is capable of distinguishing something like 10 million colors. We don't even have that many words in English.

But we don't even have to go that far, I'll simply ask "How many different colors can your machine detect?"

[tillingborn]

That hasn't even been arguable since Quine's Two Dogmas, a paper, by a philosopher, that anyone with a serious claim of being a philosopher will have read. The logical atomist/positivist linguistically pure pursuit of philosophy is over. Has been for years. The only people keeping it alive are those who insist that Analytic Philosophy isn't Medieval Scholasticism trying to prove God exists, because there is no evidence; and dicks who insist that's all philosophers is.

You are mixing up words/terminology from different vocabularies and you think you are saying something coherent. So it takes a dick to point it out to you.

Tell me which bit is incoherent, and I shall try to put it in terms you can understand.

You have no "evidence" for gravity. Not unless you specify what evidence is before any further discussion takes place.

It has been done. Everyone knows what evidence is. Everyone knows what E,G,m and r are. The whole point of a language is that you don't have to start every experiment and every conversation with first principles. You are not saying anything we don't all know.

[Skepdick]

Tell me which bit is incoherent, and I shall try to put it in terms you can understand.

I understand all of your terms.

It's incoherent because you are mixing up two frameworks.

The language of "proof "(logic and Mathematics) with the language of "evidence" (empiricism).

It has been done. Everyone knows what evidence is. Everyone knows what E,G,m and r are.

Those are symbolic representations. How is it quantized?

The whole point of a language is that you don't have to start every experiment and every conversation with first principles. You are not saying anything we don't all know.

Great. So you know what evidence is, now tell us how much evidence a proof makes.

I am not disputing anybody's knowledge. I am pointing out all the hand-waving that takes place to bridge the symbolic and empirical universes.

[tillingborn]

"How many different colors can your machine detect?"

I haven't built one yet. What are your specifications?

[Skepdick]

I haven't built one yet. What are your specifications?

Make it measure "red".

A boolean response would satisfy me.

[tillingborn]

It's incoherent because you are mixing up two frameworks.

The language of "proof "(logic and Mathematics) with the language of "evidence" (empiricism).

You apparently don't understand that many of the constants used in physics are empirically derived. If mixing up frameworks is incoherent, most of science is incoherent.

It has been done. Everyone knows what evidence is. Everyone knows what E,G,m and r are.

Those are symbolic representations. How is it quantised?

They're not; like most science gravity is not understood at the quantum level.

The whole point of a language is that you don't have to start every experiment and every conversation with first principles. You are not saying anything we don't all know.

Great. So you know what evidence is, now tell us how much evidence a proof makes.

I am not disputing anybody's knowledge. I am pointing out all the hand-waving that takes place to bridge the symbolic and empirical universes.

Then it is scientists you should be arguing with.

[Terrapin Station]

If you're using something like the Pantone Ci7800, it can not only tell you that something is red, if it's analyzing a painting, say, it can tell you exactly what paints were used to create a particular red, and it can do this with a lot more nuance than the human eye. They're handy in doing art preservation/restoration, for example.

[Skepdick]

You agree with me at least as far as if one of us is right then the other is wrong.

What? Lol!

That's zero-sum thinking. That's precisely the dichotomised bullshit I am talking about.

Seriously, dude. You should consider that the only way you actually now how to conduct discourse is in a confrontational/mutually-exclusive manner.

I could make some inferences about the size of your manhood, but hey...

you can fantasise about some alternate world where I need to explain rightness and wrongness for you to understand that sentence as much as you like.

Don't worry about me. You can't even fucking explain it to yourself. Your stupid goes something like this.

1. Equivocate moral wrongness with all other kinds of "wrongness".
2. Gradually begin shifting your own semantics (gradually enough so you can at least pretend you didn't notice)
3. Begin correcting people's spelling and grammar in a discussion about morality.

Spelling! WRONG!

Me: I keep pointing out that there's nothing wrong with being wrong.

Is there a "fullest extent" for relativism? That sounds a bit absolutist tbh.

Look! A Philosophical red herring! Quick! Muddy the waters! Obscure and deflect! Least we arrive at pointing out that the speed of light is absolute!

And a long philosophical pontification will follow on whether the "relativity" in "General Relativity" is an actual misnomer.

FleshDoodyPants is a moral skeptic, moral relativism is merely the formalisation of failed attempts to apply certainty in error as far as FuckDiddlyPiss is concerned.

There are no fucking moral skeptics! You can talk about it intellectually. You can play the dumb thought experiments. You can describe yourself in those terms, but if you actually practiced "moral skepticism" you'd die in exactly the same manner as Buridan's ass.

I would only bother doing that if you weren't a relativist. To work out whether to do so, I would have to take you seriously enough to think it mattered whether you believe in moral factual relativism

That would be a stupid game indeed, since relativist have no problem asserting absolutes! That's the whole damn point about constant speed of light.

Unless you are going to tell me that you mean something entirely else by "relativism", but hey... I can't be bothered to listen to you.

Ihave consulted my ego and it wasn't aware it even needed to wake up for this conversation. It doesn't care what a context-free language is.

Sounds like you are comfortable with your current level of ignorance then.

I am using a language where my tea is cold, but a bath of the same temperature would be hot. I am doing that without the slightest concern for whether a scientist would or would not approve of such usage.

But just an hour ago you said you use machines to make judgments about "hot" and "cold"?!?!?

I bet you'll end up with some burns in some uncomfortable places if you jumped into a "hot" bath measured with your tea thermometer.

But I only apply that context in ... a context. What I don't do is that context universally to tell people that they don't even know what "hot" means. That's the sort of behaviour I leave to you.

But you just said that you don't care about the difference between context-sensitive and context-free languages?!?

And now you are trying to accentuate the very fucking difference you don't care about.

Bored

You always seem to get "bored" when your house of cards is on the verge of collapse.

[Skepdick]

If you're using something like the Pantone Ci7800

I am not using anything like the Pantone Ci7800. That is a Controlled vocabulary.

It is a discrete measurement scale. It's just one opinionated standards (of many).

it can not only tell you that something is red, if it's analyzing a painting, say, it can tell you exactly what paints were used to create a particular red , and it can do this with a lot more nuance than the human eye. They're handy in doing art preservation/restoration, for example.

Create a particular red?!?! What on earth are you talking about. Red is a primary color! It has no composites.

I think you've confused the world of synthetics with the world of light.

For starters if you mix red, green and blue paint you get BLACK.
What color do you get when you mix red, green and blue light?