Philosophy Now Forum

10010011

-Imp

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 6:35 pm The burden of proof is with you. Prove that a computer can understand.

But I already gave you the proof - you didn't understand it.

So rather than wasting my time explaining the proof to you, first prove that you can understand.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 6:56 pm 10010011

-Imp

147

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 7:14 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 6:35 pm The burden of proof is with you. Prove that a computer can understand.

But I already gave you the proof - you didn't understand it.

So rather than wasting my time explaining the proof to you, first prove that you can understand.

I was programming computers when you were just a spunk bubble.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 7:52 pm I was programming computers when you were just a spunk bubble.

And how exactly did you do that if the computer didn't understand the language you were speaking to it?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 5:01 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 2:56 pm A train on train tracks is a deterministic algorithm.
A self-driving car is a non-deterministic algorithm.

This is just an abuse of language
"non-deterministic" is still wholly deterministic in the philosophical sense, otherwise you could never trust a self driving car. The only thing that is not determined is the INPUT. The program that drives a car has fully determined responses OUTPUT.

You are right, Sculptor. It's pretty hard to argue with that kind of equivocation, though.

No matter what it's called, a computer program is deterministic. Even when it fails to do what it is meant to do, a bug is deterministic, else it could never be fixed. You certainly wouldn't want to be in a car controlled by a program that could change its mind about whether to break or not before hitting the pedestrian or going off the bridge.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 8:29 pm No matter what it's called, a computer program is deterministic. Even when it fails to do what it is meant to do, a bug is deterministic, else it could never be fixed.

That's not even remotely true. Which is why debugging deep learning networks is so bloody hard.

It's also why quantum error correction is hard.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 8:29 pm You certainly wouldn't want to be in a car controlled by a program that could change its mind about whether to break or not before hitting the pedestrian or going off the bridge.

You certainly wouldn't want to be in a car where the human does the same thing.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 8:29 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 5:01 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 2:56 pm A train on train tracks is a deterministic algorithm.
A self-driving car is a non-deterministic algorithm.

This is just an abuse of language
"non-deterministic" is still wholly deterministic in the philosophical sense, otherwise you could never trust a self driving car. The only thing that is not determined is the INPUT. The program that drives a car has fully determined responses OUTPUT.

You are right, Sculptor. It's pretty hard to argue with that kind of equivocation, though.

No matter what it's called, a computer program is deterministic. Even when it fails to do what it is meant to do, a bug is deterministic, else it could never be fixed. You certainly wouldn't want to be in a car controlled by a program that could change its mind about whether to break or not before hitting the pedestrian or going off the bridge.

I've had skep DICK on ignore for a while.
Once in a while I look back to see if they are redeemable; he ain't.
I let myself get drawn by this fool.
Nuff said.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 10:10 pm I've had skep DICK on ignore for a while.
Once in a while I look back to see if they are redeemable; he ain't.
I let myself get drawn by this fool.
Nuff said.

Can you put the ad-hominems aside for a minute and focus on the task at hand.

Please prove that you understand.

You've been programming since I was a spunk bubble. Surely you know what a proof is?

Beside the problems already explained here;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29390

Another problem with Peter Holme's OP,
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

is he jumped in and presented the discussion topic without defining
'What is Morality'

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

Moral philosophy includes meta-ethics, which studies abstract issues such as moral ontology and moral epistemology, and normative ethics, which studies more concrete systems of moral decision-making such as deontological ethics and consequentialism.
An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states that: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

-wiki

The above definition and details of morality is quite sufficient except 'religion' should be independent of morality-proper.

To be more sufficient and thorough, the following should be included in what 'morality' entails which should include the following;

• 3 Evolution
  4 Psychology
  • 4.1 Moral cognition
  5 Neuroscience
  • 5.1 Brain areas
    5.2 Mirror neurons

It is from the above that one can access empirical evidences that will justify what are Justified True Moral Facts [JTmB] that will determine whatever 'objectivity' is related to morality [as defined], i.e. the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 6:03 am Beside the problems already explained here;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29390

Another problem with Peter Holme's OP,
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

is he jumped in and presented the discussion topic without defining
'What is Morality'

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

Moral philosophy includes meta-ethics, which studies abstract issues such as moral ontology and moral epistemology, and normative ethics, which studies more concrete systems of moral decision-making such as deontological ethics and consequentialism.
An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states that: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

-wiki

The above definition and details of morality is quite sufficient except 'religion' should be independent of morality-proper.

To be more sufficient and thorough, the following should be included in what 'morality' entails which should include the following;

• 3 Evolution
  4 Psychology
  • 4.1 Moral cognition
  5 Neuroscience
  • 5.1 Brain areas
    5.2 Mirror neurons

It is from the above that one can access empirical evidences that will justify what are Justified True Moral Facts [JTmB] that will determine whatever 'objectivity' is related to morality [as defined], i.e. the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.

Not one of the facts you refer to has a moral implication, let alone entailment.

And look again at the definition you quote:

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]

This does not state that the differentiation of proper from improper behaviour is factual - and therefore objective - or that we should distinguish between proper and improper behaviour, how ever defined.

Nothing objective here. As usual.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 7:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 6:03 am Beside the problems already explained here;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29390

Another problem with Peter Holme's OP,
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

is he jumped in and presented the discussion topic without defining
'What is Morality'

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

Moral philosophy includes meta-ethics, which studies abstract issues such as moral ontology and moral epistemology, and normative ethics, which studies more concrete systems of moral decision-making such as deontological ethics and consequentialism.
An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states that: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

-wiki

The above definition and details of morality is quite sufficient except 'religion' should be independent of morality-proper.

To be more sufficient and thorough, the following should be included in what 'morality' entails which should include the following;

• 3 Evolution
  4 Psychology
  • 4.1 Moral cognition
  5 Neuroscience
  • 5.1 Brain areas
    5.2 Mirror neurons

It is from the above that one can access empirical evidences that will justify what are Justified True Moral Facts [JTmB] that will determine whatever 'objectivity' is related to morality [as defined], i.e. the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.

Not one of the facts you refer to has a moral implication, let alone entailment.

And look again at the definition you quote:

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]

This does not state that the differentiation of proper from improper behaviour is factual - and therefore objective - or that we should distinguish between proper and improper behaviour, how ever defined.

Nothing objective here. As usual.

That is your problem, you are so unaware 'what is morality' in this case should be the grounding premise.
Because the Framework of Morality is the primary condition, whatever is justified and derived from the Moral Framework is a moral fact.

• For example, whatever is justified and derived from the Scientific Framework are objective scientific facts and not facts-in-themselves without any qualifications.
  What is objective and fact is always conditional upon the specified Framework of knowledge, in this case, the Scientific Framework.
  Certain religious theists may not recognize scientific facts as 'fact'.
  
  That Tsai Ing-wen is the current President of Taiwan is a political fact grounded upon a Political Framework and the Constitution of Taiwan. China and its close allies would not recognize this as a political fact or 'fact'.

You are like those theists who do not recognize scientific facts as factual, i.e. you do not recognize justified "moral facts" which are derived from justifiable Framework of Moral.
This is because to you, there is only your defined 'facts' merely objectified within your specific Framework, i.e. that of Philosophical Realism and linguistics.
This is bad philosophizing on your part.

To do proper philosophizing in this case, you need to understand there are different types of objective fact justified and derived from their respective defined Framework of Knowledge, e.g. Scientific in general, cosmology, astronomy, historical, linguistic, political, physics, etc. As such you need to recognize a specific Moral Framework will produce objective justified true moral beliefs or moral facts.

The onus is on you to show whether a moral fact as claimed is properly justified in accordance to a defined Moral Framework.

You are so ignorant of the above instead you are stuck with one type of 'fact'.

A Deeper Philosophical Consideration:
Btw, there is a deeper perspective to the above issue, i.e. of the contention;

• 1. the Framework of knowledge justifying objective 'facts' is established by humans, thus subjective and intersubjective.
  2. what is objective fact is thus subjective and intersubjective
  3. there is no independent 'referent' in which the fact is supposed to represent.

The above need to be argued in detail.
From the anti-realists' perspective, your philosophical realist claim of "what is fact" in the ultimate perspective is a falsehood and illusory.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 5:22 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 7:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 6:03 am Beside the problems already explained here;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29390

Another problem with Peter Holme's OP,
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

is he jumped in and presented the discussion topic without defining
'What is Morality'


The above definition and details of morality is quite sufficient except 'religion' should be independent of morality-proper.

To be more sufficient and thorough, the following should be included in what 'morality' entails which should include the following;

• 3 Evolution
  4 Psychology
  • 4.1 Moral cognition
  5 Neuroscience
  • 5.1 Brain areas
    5.2 Mirror neurons

It is from the above that one can access empirical evidences that will justify what are Justified True Moral Facts [JTmB] that will determine whatever 'objectivity' is related to morality [as defined], i.e. the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.

Not one of the facts you refer to has a moral implication, let alone entailment.

And look again at the definition you quote:

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]

This does not state that the differentiation of proper from improper behaviour is factual - and therefore objective - or that we should distinguish between proper and improper behaviour, how ever defined.

Nothing objective here. As usual.

That is your problem, you are so unaware 'what is morality' in this case should be the grounding premise.
Because the Framework of Morality is the primary condition, whatever is justified and derived from the Moral Framework is a moral fact.

• For example, whatever is justified and derived from the Scientific Framework are objective scientific facts and not facts-in-themselves without any qualifications.
  What is objective and fact is always conditional upon the specified Framework of knowledge, in this case, the Scientific Framework.
  Certain religious theists may not recognize scientific facts as 'fact'.
  
  That Tsai Ing-wen is the current President of Taiwan is a political fact grounded upon a Political Framework and the Constitution of Taiwan. China and its close allies would not recognize this as a political fact or 'fact'.

You are like those theists who do not recognize scientific facts as factual, i.e. you do not recognize justified "moral facts" which are derived from justifiable Framework of Moral.
This is because to you, there is only your defined 'facts' merely objectified within your specific Framework, i.e. that of Philosophical Realism and linguistics.
This is bad philosophizing on your part.

To do proper philosophizing in this case, you need to understand there are different types of objective fact justified and derived from their respective defined Framework of Knowledge, e.g. Scientific in general, cosmology, astronomy, historical, linguistic, political, physics, etc. As such you need to recognize a specific Moral Framework will produce objective justified true moral beliefs or moral facts.

The onus is on you to show whether a moral fact as claimed is properly justified in accordance to a defined Moral Framework.

You are so ignorant of the above instead you are stuck with one type of 'fact'.

A Deeper Philosophical Consideration:
Btw, there is a deeper perspective to the above issue, i.e. of the contention;

• 1. the Framework of knowledge justifying objective 'facts' is established by humans, thus subjective and intersubjective.
  2. what is objective fact is thus subjective and intersubjective
  3. there is no independent 'referent' in which the fact is supposed to represent.

The above need to be argued in detail.
From the anti-realists' perspective, your philosophical realist claim of "what is fact" in the ultimate perspective is a falsehood and illusory.

Your theory of frameworks doesn't do the work that you think it does.

Agreed, any description - and therefore any truth-claim - is within a descriptive context, with a conventional use of signs. So what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth - and therefore what we call facts.

But 'what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true' is that its truth-value is independent from opinion, given the way we use the signs involved in that context. So what we call truth is very explicitly not a matter of intersubjectve consensus - of collective opinion.

And, for example, natural scientists never never ever say 'we agree that this claim is or seems to be true - so it is true'. They use the word 'truth' and its cognates in the standard way, to mean 'true independent from opinion'.

Your claim that morality is a field or body of knowledge in which, as in other fields, there can be factual assertions - and therefore objectivity - begs the question. It's precisely the radical difference between moral assertions, such as 'slavery is wrong', and factual assertions with truth-value that we're arguing about. Just saying there's no difference gets us nowhere.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 7:20 am Your theory of frameworks doesn't do the work that you think it does.

Agreed, any description - and therefore any truth-claim - is within a descriptive context, with a conventional use of signs. So what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth - and therefore what we call facts.

But 'what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true' is that its truth-value is independent from opinion, given the way we use the signs involved in that context. So what we call truth is very explicitly not a matter of intersubjectve consensus - of collective opinion.

You are still very blind on the truth.

I agree the truth-value of a fact is independent from an individual's opinion and beliefs.
But that objective fact [whilst independent in one phase] and even the referent-of-that-fact cannot ultimately be totally independent from the collective's involvement via emergence and confirmed by intersubjective consensus.

What you are banking on are the principles of Philosophical Realism which is not ULTIMATELY realistic at all.
The fact is the views of Philosophical Realists are not individuals' opinion and belief, but they are nevertheless based on a "collective opinion" based on intersubjective consensus among philosophical realists.
You dispute this??
You cannot.

You are claiming for a 'fact' and 'truth' that are not qualified to any Framework, but you are ignorant you are grounding your 'fact' and 'truth' on some kind of Framework [i.e. Philosophical Realism and linguistics] which ultimately are not realistic but only produce illusions.
You got dig deeply to understand how you are caught in this deep hole and conundrum you are ignorant of.

And, for example, natural scientists never never ever say 'we agree that this claim is or seems to be true - so it is true'. They use the word 'truth' and its cognates in the standard way, to mean 'true independent from opinion'.

What natural scientists claimed as true is always qualified 'true as justified upon the scientific framework, scientific method, peer review and its intrinsic principles."
Scientific facts are only true if and only if they are derived from the scientific framework and no where else.
In this case, it is true as independent of individual scientists and other individual, but not independent of the Scientific Framework.

Your claim that morality is a field or body of knowledge in which, as in other fields, there can be factual assertions - and therefore objectivity - begs the question. It's precisely the radical difference between moral assertions, such as 'slavery is wrong', and factual assertions with truth-value that we're arguing about. Just saying there's no difference gets us nowhere.

Moral facts are the same with scientific facts, i.e. both are justified and derived from their respective Framework.
Point is as long as there is a credible framework, whatever is produced are its relative facts with different degrees of confidence levels for users.
"Slavery is wrong" is an objective moral fact justified and derived from a Moral Framework with its specific requirements and principles.
The requirement here is 'slavery is wrong' must be justified based on empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning just like what Science is doing in producing its objective scientific facts.

Get us nowhere??
Hey.. the recognition, acknowledge and deliberation of justified true moral facts will improve upon the morality of all humans and humanity in the future [not now] toward ensuring the preservation of the human species.

The moral relativism [or moral skepticism] you are banking on could possibly exterminate the human species in the future in the hands of humans.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 7:20 am Your theory of frameworks doesn't do the work that you think it does.

Agreed, any description - and therefore any truth-claim - is within a descriptive context, with a conventional use of signs.

Your theory of "conventional use of signs" doesn't do ANY work. Because it's lacking.

Your theory of utility is lacking too. What do we use signs for?

And your meta-theory of utility. Why do we use signs for whatever we use signs for?