Philosophy Now Forum

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:08 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:36 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:30 pm

Then one should be able to show the other, the mind if indeed the mind is an actual object..

You can't experience the properties of being anything if you're not that thing.

Theoretically yes one could, if one were in a state where one existed without things. One can even imagine such a state of being fairly easily. You would be and immaterial 'thing'...a subject without any object in which to reflect off of.. except whatever you then decided to imagine as objects and create on the mind that you are...

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:08 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:36 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:30 pm

Then one should be able to show the other, the mind if indeed the mind is an actual object..

You can't experience the properties of being anything if you're not that thing.

Theoretically yes one could, if one were in a state where one existed without things. One can even imagine such a state of being fairly easily. You would be and immaterial 'thing'...a subject without any object in which to reflect off of.. except whatever you then decided to imagine as objects and create on the mind that you are...you could create a universe, and on one of the planets within that universe, one could create a planet and then one could imbue that planet with one's self in order to experiencing being said planet.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:12 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:08 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:36 pm

You can't experience the properties of being anything if you're not that thing.

Theoretically yes one could, if one were in a state where one existed without things. One can even imagine such a state of being fairly easily. You would be and immaterial 'thing'...a subject without any object in which to reflect off of.. except whatever you then decided to imagine as objects and create on the mind that you are...

Say what?

You can experience the properties of being a rock, say, if you're in a "state where you exist without things"? . . . And then imagining it is going to do something here?

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:17 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:12 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:08 pm

Theoretically yes one could, if one were in a state where one existed without things. One can even imagine such a state of being fairly easily. You would be and immaterial 'thing'...a subject without any object in which to reflect off of.. except whatever you then decided to imagine as objects and create on the mind that you are...

Say what?

You can experience the properties of being a rock, say, if you're in a "state where you exist without things"? . . . And then imagining it is going to do something here?

One would of course have to be the source mind, so yes in theory, if there is a source mind, [a creator] who could then simulate objects in the imagination, and then check out what it would be like to be a rock [planet earth] it would not really be you the source [with no objects] but you the source being a planet...or whatever other object you could create through imagination.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:18 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:17 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:12 pm
Say what?

You can experience the properties of being a rock, say, if you're in a "state where you exist without things"? . . . And then imagining it is going to do something here?

One would of course have to be the source mind, so yes in theory, if there is a source mind, [a creator] who could then simulate objects in the imagination, and then check out what it would be like to be a rock [planet earth] it would not really be you the source [with no objects] but you the source being a planet...or whatever other object you could create through imagination.

A rock isn't the same thing as a simulated rock. You'd have to literally BE a rock (and then somehow also be capable of sentience from that perspective, which would probably mean that you're not a rock.)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:50 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 6:06 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:45 am

Is it a fact that the astronaut pushes a button when they're the lone surviving human or not?

Note the general rule,
whatever is fact is conditioned upon a FSK, implying an existing FSK within a community of living humans.

In this imaginary case of a lone astronaut in another planet, there is no more existing FSK.
But for the astronaut based on his memory it would be a historical FSK.

It is no point asking me whether it is a fact since the astronaut is the only one existing and in that scenario I and everyone will not be around.

If the astronaut pushes a familiar button, we have to presume the astronaut would ask himself that question since there is no one around.
In that case, it would be a fact for himself only as based on the historical FSK in his memory.

Okay, and then if the astronaut died and some non-sentient object fell and hit the button you wouldn't say that's a fact, presumably.

Would you say that it happened that some non-sentient object fell and hit the button, but you just wouldn't award it with the term "fact"? Or would you say that it couldn't even happen?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:58 am Just checking how we got here in answer to the question: is morality objective or subjective? Did it go like this...?

The OP question boils down to asking: are there moral facts? That leads to the questions: what is what we call a fact?; and does such a thing exist independently from any of our (necessarily human) descriptions? (Hence the thought-experiments.)

Is that what this argument is about? Or am I missing something important?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 6:46 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:24 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:56 pm

Do you spend much time with people expressing opinions about music, films, visual art, etc.?

All the time.
And normally all comments have moral content.
I cannot think of an example where they did not.

So take an example of something like Elvis' soundtrack albums of the 60s, many of which a lot of people think are bad. What are some examples of assessments of them being bad where people are saying that they're morally bad? (I'm referring to albums such as Kissin' Cousins, Paradise Hawaiian Style, It Happened at the World's Fair, etc.--you can look at rym reviews for examples of negative comments)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:25 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:24 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:56 pm

Do you spend much time with people expressing opinions about music, films, visual art, etc.?

All the time.
And normally all comments have moral content.
I cannot think of an example where they did not.

Or if the Elvis example seems too cherry-picked for you, do something like this:

Take the top 100-selling artists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... ic_artists

And then take your pick of comments about whatever albums of some of those folks you'd like (again, you can find a bunch of reviews on http://rateyourmusic.com). What are some examples of negative comments about some of those albums, where people are saying something akin to the album or a particular song being bad, where you're taking it to be a moral comment about the album or song? (You can find negative comments about any album, by the way, but you'll find many more on the lower-rated albums.)

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:58 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:58 am Just checking how we got here in answer to the question: is morality objective or subjective? Did it go like this...?

The OP question boils down to asking: are there moral facts? That leads to the questions: what is what we call a fact?; and does such a thing exist independently from any of our (necessarily human) descriptions? (Hence the thought-experiments.)

Is that what this argument is about? Or am I missing something important?

A fact is either a tautology or a probability.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:11 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:58 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:58 am Just checking how we got here in answer to the question: is morality objective or subjective? Did it go like this...?

The OP question boils down to asking: are there moral facts? That leads to the questions: what is what we call a fact?; and does such a thing exist independently from any of our (necessarily human) descriptions? (Hence the thought-experiments.)

Is that what this argument is about? Or am I missing something important?

A fact is either a tautology or a probability.

No. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. Tautologies and probabilities are linguistic expressions - which are, of course, also specific features of reality. A dog is neither a tautology nor a probability. That claim is incoherent.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:27 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:11 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:58 am

A fact is either a tautology or a probability.

No. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. Tautologies and probabilities are linguistic expressions - which are, of course, also specific features of reality. A dog is neither a tautology nor a probability. That claim is incoherent.

Each feature of reality is exclusively either tautological or probable. That particular Jack Russell terrier is probably a Jack Russell terrier if you are not mistaken , which you may be, improbable though it may be that you are mistaken.

If that triangle is a three sided plane figure than it is a triangle; tautologically so.

The use of single brackets indicates discussion of the terms as terms. 'Tautologies' and 'probabilities' are indeed linguistic expressions. However tautologies and probabilities(with no brackets) imply content pertains to the words.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:48 am No. A tautology is a linguistic expression, so outside language there are no tautologies. And a probability calculation is a linguistic exercise.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:48 am And that we may be able to calculate the probability that a thing exists or existed, or an event will occur or occurred, does not mean the thing or the event IS or WAS a probability.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:27 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:18 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:17 pm

One would of course have to be the source mind, so yes in theory, if there is a source mind, [a creator] who could then simulate objects in the imagination, and then check out what it would be like to be a rock [planet earth] it would not really be you the source [with no objects] but you the source being a planet...or whatever other object you could create through imagination.

A rock isn't the same thing as a simulated rock. You'd have to literally BE a rock (and then somehow also be capable of sentience from that perspective, which would probably mean that you're not a rock.)

What if we are experiencing a simulation of the universe as it once was?

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science ... belltitem1