Philosophy Now Forum

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=497777 time=1613834573 user_id=15099]
If we cut open and examine a brain, among the many things we won't find in it are oughts. But, because we suffer from an ancient metaphysical delusion, we could rummage around in search of other supposed abstract things: thoughts, ideas, concepts, propositions, feelings, desires, intentions, consciousness, a mind. After all, why abandon magical thinking?
[/quote]

Appeal to ignorance. We just started understanding the brain. That doesn't mean all the things we're talking about don't reside there.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:00 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:22 pm If we cut open and examine a brain, among the many things we won't find in it are oughts. But, because we suffer from an ancient metaphysical delusion, we could rummage around in search of other supposed abstract things: thoughts, ideas, concepts, propositions, feelings, desires, intentions, consciousness, a mind. After all, why abandon magical thinking?

Appeal to ignorance. We just started understanding the brain. That doesn't mean all the things we're talking about don't reside there.

I'm not appealing to ignorance. What evidence do you have for the existence of non-physical things anywhere, let alone in the brain? Absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false, but it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:41 pm I'm not appealing to ignorance. What evidence do you have for the existence of non-physical things anywhere, let alone in the brain?

So you randomly slip in the category of "non-physical things" (a non-existent category as far as any physicalist is concerned) and you demand that they provide evidence for the existence of a non-existing things that YOU believe in?!?!?!

What fucking clown show is this?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:41 pm Absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false, but it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

If you say that I am irrational then I am irrational.

It's a problem for you, way more than it's a problem for me.

I require absolutely no evidence that my thoughts exist. Apparently you aren't convinced that yours do *shrug*

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:22 pm If we cut open and examine a brain, among the many things we won't find in it are oughts. But, because we suffer from an ancient metaphysical delusion, we could rummage around in search of other supposed abstract things: thoughts, ideas, concepts, propositions, feelings, desires, intentions, consciousness, a mind. After all, why abandon magical thinking?

Do you not think that thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc.--including "oughts" are physical processes in someone's brain? (I'm just trying to clarify just what you're saying here.)

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=497856 time=1613853682 user_id=15099]
I'm not appealing to ignorance. What evidence do you have for the existence of non-physical things anywhere, let alone in the brain? Absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false, but it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.
[/quote]

A thing is a set of attributes and boundary conditions, without regard for whether they have an external correlate. I'm not making a claim. I'm describing reality. My answer does all the necessary things. What does yours do?

Also, absence of evidence, as if that were the case (100% of all possible cases of existing things are accounted for and may be understood as patterns in the mind) is evidence of absence in any case where you'd otherwise expect to find some.

If you own a used car lot and come back and can't see any cars, isn't that evidence they're gone?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:00 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:50 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:36 am
Can I take it from your evasion that you don't know which sort of statement that P2 was either?

Nope! I am very determined to settle the point.
That is why I am reading Rorty per your challenge and to throw back his views [if any] to counter your views.
If I missed your point, its your miscommunication.

Note my argument;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
  C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

So P2 is an empirical statement that oughtness is observed by empirical means to exist as something empirically observable is it?
But not through any "FSK" of course, because the FSK is theoretical and it can only inherit any claim it has to truth from this argument.
And THAT would be a circular.

So how exactly are we, empirically, observing any quantitative units of ought?

Nope, an FS of Knowledge or FS of Reality refer to a Framework and System that can cover both theories, the empirical, principles and practical.
As I had stated many times, the most credible FSK or FSR is that of the scientific FSK/FSR.

The moral FSK or FSR [as near credible as the scientific FSK] will cover both theories, truths, knowledge and facts as verified and justified empirically and philosophically for the main purpose for practices that will continually optimize the well being of the individuals and humanity.

WHY must 'ought_ness' be in quantities? i.e. physical units?
"Oughtness" is qualitative but in can be quantified in degrees relatively.

The representation of 'oughtness' is like that of 'anger'.

What is Anger?
Anger, also known as wrath or rage, is an intense emotional state involving a strong uncomfortable and non-cooperative response to a perceived provocation, hurt or threat.
Etc. etc.

The Physical Referent
Neuroscience has shown that emotions are generated by multiple structures in the brain. The rapid, minimal, and evaluative processing of the emotional significance of the sensory data is done when the data passes through the amygdala in its travel from the sensory organs along certain neural pathways towards the limbic forebrain.

In neuroimaging studies of anger, the most consistently activated region of the brain was the lateral orbitofrontal cortex.[77] This region is associated with approach motivation and positive affective processes.
Etc. etc.

The External Expressions
The external expression of anger can be found in physiological responses, facial expressions, body language, and at times in public acts of aggression. Etc. etc.

Ought_ness [e.g. moral] within the human psyche can be studied like anger and other emotions.
Hume was quite sure the issues of morality originates from sympathy, i.e. empathy which is emotion-like but he [in his time] was fully-ignorant of the more advance knowledge of empathy in terms of neurosciences and the likes.

Thus my P2 is a justified-real-moral fact which is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK/FSR which is of near credibility to that of the scientific FSK.

Note

• 1. "IS" encompasses ALL of that which is real [verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK]
  2. A moral fact [ought_ness] is real [verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK]
  3. Therefore a moral fact [ought_ness] is an "is".

The 'IS' is used here to align with Hume's "no ought from is" but philosophically "is" is merely a copula that join the object with its predicate.

We can substitute "IS" for existence, all that exists, reality, being, all-there-is-which-is-real.

What is real is represent by the "object is predicate" but if you agree with the later-Wittgenstein or Rorty, what is real should not be dependent purely [ideologically and arrogantly] on the "mirroring" with words, propositions, references but rather on the frameworks in use, thus the FSK, the empirically-based scientific FSK being the most credible.

The moral FSK is of near credibility to the scientific FSK because the moral FSK's inputs are mostly from the scientific FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 3:27 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:00 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:50 am
Nope! I am very determined to settle the point.
That is why I am reading Rorty per your challenge and to throw back his views [if any] to counter your views.
If I missed your point, its your miscommunication.

Note my argument;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
  C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

So P2 is an empirical statement that oughtness is observed by empirical means to exist as something empirically observable is it?
But not through any "FSK" of course, because the FSK is theoretical and it can only inherit any claim it has to truth from this argument.
And THAT would be a circular.

So how exactly are we, empirically, observing any quantitative units of ought?

Nope, an FS of Knowledge or FS of Reality refer to a Framework and System that can cover both theories, the empirical, principles and practical.
As I had stated many times, the most credible FSK or FSR is that of the scientific FSK/FSR.

The moral FSK or FSR [as near credible as the scientific FSK] will cover both theories, truths, knowledge and facts as verified and justified empirically and philosophically for the main purpose for practices that will continually optimize the well being of the individuals and humanity.

WHY must 'ought_ness' be in quantities? i.e. physical units?
"Oughtness" is qualitative but in can be quantified in degrees relatively.

The representation of 'oughtness' is like that of 'anger'.

First, think about how this stuff you are writing relates to your P2 that you are defending. Is any of what you are presenting helping to make it a direct observation?

But secondly, think about what else is happening here. You know that my tactic of choice is to make your own arguments "prove" stupid shit and you just threw fashion back into the mix, which is exactly the sort of thing you were trying to avoid by making that P2 empirical. So now, if you were ever get out the mire with that P2, your argument is available for any range absurd conclusions, with the only limit being how much of a jerk I might be that day....

It doesn't matter though, that P2 you are wielding is really just like that self-ownership principle Henry repeats so often. Not true by observation, not true by definition, just sort meaningless enough for the person who likes it to not know how to doubt it.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:49 pm Anything explained in language will be recursive, and that doesn't matter. Certainty is always of sufficiency toward a particular end, not exhaustive for all possible ends.

That depends on the kind of problem you are solving.

The traveling salesman problem is NP-complete because you have to examine ALL possible ends to find the "best" end.

If you didn't care about being frugal with your time then any approach is sufficient. Even if it takes you eternity.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:14 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 3:27 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:00 pm
So P2 is an empirical statement that oughtness is observed by empirical means to exist as something empirically observable is it?
But not through any "FSK" of course, because the FSK is theoretical and it can only inherit any claim it has to truth from this argument.
And THAT would be a circular.

So how exactly are we, empirically, observing any quantitative units of ought?

Nope, an FS of Knowledge or FS of Reality refer to a Framework and System that can cover both theories, the empirical, principles and practical.
As I had stated many times, the most credible FSK or FSR is that of the scientific FSK/FSR.

The moral FSK or FSR [as near credible as the scientific FSK] will cover both theories, truths, knowledge and facts as verified and justified empirically and philosophically for the main purpose for practices that will continually optimize the well being of the individuals and humanity.

WHY must 'ought_ness' be in quantities? i.e. physical units?
"Oughtness" is qualitative but in can be quantified in degrees relatively.

The representation of 'oughtness' is like that of 'anger'.

First, think about how this stuff you are writing relates to your P2 that you are defending. Is any of what you are presenting helping to make it a direct observation?

But secondly, think about what else is happening here. You know that my tactic of choice is to make your own arguments "prove" stupid shit and you just threw fashion back into the mix, which is exactly the sort of thing you were trying to avoid by making that P2 empirical. So now, if you were ever get out the mire with that P2, your argument is available for any range absurd conclusions, with the only limit being how much of a jerk I might be that day....

It doesn't matter though, that P2 you are wielding is really just like that self-ownership principle Henry repeats so often. Not true by observation, not true by definition, just sort meaningless enough for the person who likes it to not know how to doubt it.

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
  C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

The moral oughtness in P2 can be inferred from empirical observations and loads of related justified scientific facts.

Here is one rough one [..I will not go into the details] which should be convincing enough.

• 1. ALL humans are "programmed" to kill living things for food.
  2. Some humans do kill other humans but as observed the majority of people do not kill living entities like humans willy nilly.
  3. This is glaringly evident by the increasing trend of population since humans emerged.
  4. Intuitively there must be something that inhibit the majority of humans from killing other humans.
  5. This 'something that inhibit killing of humans' when weakened or damaged will fail to inhibit the natural program to kill humans.
  6. There are various degrees of weakness [due to various reasons] to the inhibitors to kill humans.
  7. The extreme examples are the malignant psychopaths who are very prone to kill humans and scientists has proven this is due to a lack of inhibitors [due to damage] to suppress their natural tendency to kill extending to humans.
  8. Those whose inhibitors are not damage but weaken will engage in less drastic killings of humans. Those inhibitors of 'ought-not-to-kill' can also be weakened and loosen via brainwashing [note soldiers, suicide bombers], hypnosis [possible], drugs, etc.

The above inhibitors that prevent humans from killing humans are the force of ought_ness as an active tension of suppression and inhibition in the brain.

When input into the moral FSK, they are moral facts to be used as standards and guides only.

Note the above is merely general and basic and I believe it is sufficient to enable one to infer the existence of the above ought-not-to_ness within the majority of humans and any normal individual.

I am in the process of reading Rorty's Philosophy of The Mirror of Nature and it would appear Rorty willnot agree with your dogmatism in condemning my P2.
I believe my approach is like those of the Edifying Philosophers Rorty wrote, i.e. those who keep the conversation open not by faith, analytic philosophy elements, rigid classical logic, etc. but rather seeking possible empirical evidences to support my argument.

You mentioned Rorty but [it seem] I don't see you adopting his core and critical recommendations. I will have more confidence of Rorty's view when I finish reading the book.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:34 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:22 pm If we cut open and examine a brain, among the many things we won't find in it are oughts. But, because we suffer from an ancient metaphysical delusion, we could rummage around in search of other supposed abstract things: thoughts, ideas, concepts, propositions, feelings, desires, intentions, consciousness, a mind. After all, why abandon magical thinking?

Do you not think that thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc.--including "oughts" are physical processes in someone's brain? (I'm just trying to clarify just what you're saying here.)

There are only physical substances and processes in the brain. But talk of so-called mental things and processes is so deeply ingrained in ordinary language that it makes no sense to try to remove it.

The problem comes when we take the metaphors - the ways of talking - seriously. Then we get mentalism, the absurdity of the so-called mind-body problem: substance dualism. We're down the rabbit hole with Descartes and all stations back to and beyond Plato.

So-called conceptual analysis is a nice example of the metaphysical mess such mentalism causes.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:09 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:14 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 3:27 am
Nope, an FS of Knowledge or FS of Reality refer to a Framework and System that can cover both theories, the empirical, principles and practical.
As I had stated many times, the most credible FSK or FSR is that of the scientific FSK/FSR.

The moral FSK or FSR [as near credible as the scientific FSK] will cover both theories, truths, knowledge and facts as verified and justified empirically and philosophically for the main purpose for practices that will continually optimize the well being of the individuals and humanity.

WHY must 'ought_ness' be in quantities? i.e. physical units?
"Oughtness" is qualitative but in can be quantified in degrees relatively.

The representation of 'oughtness' is like that of 'anger'.

First, think about how this stuff you are writing relates to your P2 that you are defending. Is any of what you are presenting helping to make it a direct observation?

But secondly, think about what else is happening here. You know that my tactic of choice is to make your own arguments "prove" stupid shit and you just threw fashion back into the mix, which is exactly the sort of thing you were trying to avoid by making that P2 empirical. So now, if you were ever get out the mire with that P2, your argument is available for any range absurd conclusions, with the only limit being how much of a jerk I might be that day....

It doesn't matter though, that P2 you are wielding is really just like that self-ownership principle Henry repeats so often. Not true by observation, not true by definition, just sort meaningless enough for the person who likes it to not know how to doubt it.

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
  C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

The moral oughtness in P2 can be inferred from empirical observations and loads of related justified scientific facts.

Here is one rough one [..I will not go into the details] which should be convincing enough.

Nope. What you put there was a mess, but what it definitely doesn't show us what sort of existence an ought might have.
How does 'ought' exist? What does it mean to say it's some sort of thing or stuff that 'exists' like that?

You seem to be trying to measure it like a force the way physicists measure weak atomic forces. And something like that appears to be the analogy that you hope allows for this unrealistic P2 to be "[justified empirically]" but without ever showing itself as an actual empirical claim. But does it make any sense at all for 'oughtness' to be conceived as some sort of force in the Universe?

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:40 pm
A thing is a set of attributes and boundary conditions, without regard for whether they have an external correlate. I'm not making a claim. I'm describing reality. My answer does all the necessary things. What does yours do?

Your answer is useless. What are the attributes and boundary conditions of a so-called abstract thing? Please take any example you like and describe its attributes and boundary conditions. You can't do it. All you can do is claim and assume it's possible. (And btw, any description is a claim: such-and-such is the case.)

Also, absence of evidence, as if that were the case (100% of all possible cases of existing things are accounted for and may be understood as patterns in the mind) is evidence of absence in any case where you'd otherwise expect to find some.

So do you think there should be evidence for the existence of so-called abstract things? Or are they a bit like supernatural things, for which there can't, by definition, be natural evidence?

If you own a used car lot and come back and can't see any cars, isn't that evidence they're gone?

Yes. Not sure what your point is. I said absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false, not that it can't mean it's false. I chose the words very carefully.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:09 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:14 pm
First, think about how this stuff you are writing relates to your P2 that you are defending. Is any of what you are presenting helping to make it a direct observation?

But secondly, think about what else is happening here. You know that my tactic of choice is to make your own arguments "prove" stupid shit and you just threw fashion back into the mix, which is exactly the sort of thing you were trying to avoid by making that P2 empirical. So now, if you were ever get out the mire with that P2, your argument is available for any range absurd conclusions, with the only limit being how much of a jerk I might be that day....

It doesn't matter though, that P2 you are wielding is really just like that self-ownership principle Henry repeats so often. Not true by observation, not true by definition, just sort meaningless enough for the person who likes it to not know how to doubt it.

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
  C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

The moral oughtness in P2 can be inferred from empirical observations and loads of related justified scientific facts.

Here is one rough one [..I will not go into the details] which should be convincing enough.

Nope. What you put there was a mess, but what it definitely doesn't show us what sort of existence an ought might have.
How does 'ought' exist? What does it mean to say it's some sort of thing or stuff that 'exists' like that?

You seem to be trying to measure it like a force the way physicists measure weak atomic forces. And something like that appears to be the analogy that you hope allows for this unrealistic P2 to be "[justified empirically]" but without ever showing itself as an actual empirical claim. But does it make any sense at all for 'oughtness' to be conceived as some sort of force in the Universe?

Note the oughtness to breathe else death.
It is this force that drive normal humans to breathe, else they will suffer terrible pains before the die.
Try holding your breath for 30 seconds, if you have not practice holding your breath it will last perhaps 10-30 seconds whence the terrible pains will set in to force you to breathe.

For information only:
The time you are able to hold your breath indicate the state of your health.
If you can only hold it for 10/20 seconds indicate you are having some trouble.
I have been practicing and can withhold my breath for up to 3 minutes.

Note my response to Terrapin which is relevant to the above point;
viewtopic.php?p=498114#p498114

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:10 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:09 am

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
  C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

The moral oughtness in P2 can be inferred from empirical observations and loads of related justified scientific facts.

Here is one rough one [..I will not go into the details] which should be convincing enough.

Nope. What you put there was a mess, but what it definitely doesn't show us what sort of existence an ought might have.
How does 'ought' exist? What does it mean to say it's some sort of thing or stuff that 'exists' like that?

You seem to be trying to measure it like a force the way physicists measure weak atomic forces. And something like that appears to be the analogy that you hope allows for this unrealistic P2 to be "[justified empirically]" but without ever showing itself as an actual empirical claim. But does it make any sense at all for 'oughtness' to be conceived as some sort of force in the Universe?

Note the oughtness to breathe else death.

That's a hypothetical imperative. And it does nothing to answer the actual question regarding what sort of "existence" you think oughts can be meaningfully said to hold?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:10 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:51 am
Nope. What you put there was a mess, but what it definitely doesn't show us what sort of existence an ought might have.
How does 'ought' exist? What does it mean to say it's some sort of thing or stuff that 'exists' like that?

You seem to be trying to measure it like a force the way physicists measure weak atomic forces. And something like that appears to be the analogy that you hope allows for this unrealistic P2 to be "[justified empirically]" but without ever showing itself as an actual empirical claim. But does it make any sense at all for 'oughtness' to be conceived as some sort of force in the Universe?

Note the oughtness to breathe else death.

That's a hypothetical imperative. And it does nothing to answer the actual question regarding what sort of "existence" you think oughts can be meaningfully said to hold?

The above is not hypothetical which is conditional upon certain specific circumstances.

'The oughtness of breath else it is death' is an imperative to human nature, that is if a person is human, he ought to breathe. No human would want to be otherwise than being human, thus has to be aligned with human nature.

As I had stated, instead of the less intense modal verb 'ought' the more relevant word is an imperative 'must' or 'have to' which is activate from within the person and not imposed by any external authority.