Philosophy Now Forum

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 7:38 pm You need to question the reasoning. I am not a big computer fan, could we stick to biology? The computer is the biological extension of human biology and, as such, more complex.

The sense I was using "computer" is in Mathematics. Not the domain of physical things. With thinking our minds biological you are discussing hardware used to implement/emulate a neural net, not the neural net itself (something abstract). Our physical computers are hardware on which run software.

See, I am accessing this forum using an application of type browser. It is running under some operating system, and that is running on some particular physical computer. You are accessing this forum using a browser, might be different than the one I am using, your operating system might be different, your physical computer might be different. I suggest you DON'T want to describe the words you are writing, their meaning, as something taking place in terms of electronics.

I agree, the neural nets that are our minds are being run/emulated by a biological brain, and the signals being received or sent are coming from and going to nerves in our biological bodies. I am simply saying wrong/meaningless/misleading to try to describe in terms of the underlying biology because NOT relevant to what the neural net is doing. THAT depends only on the geometry of connections between the nodes, the values stored to act as thresholds and signal strength modifiers. The value 17 is the same whether written in symbols, the number of coins in a stack, the strength of a salt solution, etc. Get it. You are sort of saying 17 is different if stored biologically (say the concentration of some salt in a cell).

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 12:17 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 7:38 pm You need to question the reasoning. I am not a big computer fan, could we stick to biology? The computer is the biological extension of human biology and, as such, more complex.

The sense I was using "computer" is in Mathematics. Not the domain of physical things. With thinking our minds biological you are discussing hardware used to implement/emulate a neural net, not the neural net itself (something abstract). Our physical computers are hardware on which run software.

See, I am accessing this forum using an application of type browser. It is running under some operating system, and that is running on some particular physical computer. You are accessing this forum using a browser, might be different than the one I am using, your operating system might be different, your physical computer might be different. I suggest you DON'T want to describe the words you are writing, their meaning, as something taking place in terms of electronics.

I agree, the neural nets that are our minds are being run/emulated by a biological brain, and the signals being received or sent are coming from and going to nerves in our biological bodies. I am simply saying wrong/meaningless/misleading to try to describe in terms of the underlying biology because NOT relevant to what the neural net is doing. THAT depends only on the geometry of connections between the nodes, the values stored to act as thresholds and signal strength modifiers. The value 17 is the same whether written in symbols, the number of coins in a stack, the strength of a salt solution, etc. Get it. You are sort of saying 17 is different if stored biologically (say the concentration of some salt in a cell).

Sorry, we are not on the same wavelength!

My apologies, Popeye. You asked, leave computers out of it. So let me try over again from the start to explain appropriate and inappropriate levels of description and and meaning.

Imagine you and I are trying to communicate a hundred years ago, To transmit meaning back and forth. So I take a piece of paper and an implement that dispenses ink. I make marks on the paper. I then fold and wrap that paper in in another, seal it, apply more ink marks, and stick on a little piece of paper with fancy colors. I take it out to my mailbox, put it in, and raise the flag. At some later time this appears through a slot in you front door. You open it up and look at it.

Will it be of any use in understanding chemical knowledge to identify the ink, understand how paper with this chemical on it reflects light differently than paper without. No, useless for understanding the meaning. You recognize that the pattern of one of those marks is a physical representation of the character "C'". Now that character, and the others you recognize are not marks on the paper. They are abstract symbols simply in THIS case being represented by ink marks on the paper, but could just as well have been represented by smears of graphite (I wrote in pencil) or 2000 years ago scratches in a layer of wax on thin wood boards. The postal system was a significant part of the process, but again, knowing how that operated, why a stamp necessary, etc. not useful in understanding the meaning of my letter. The symbols being transmitted, how they together represent words in some language, knowledge of the language, THOSE are the levels of understanding that would be useful

I went down to visual representation of the symbols because while 200 years ago would need tp be written, 100 year old technology allowed an alternative. Assuming both you and I were amateur radio buffs, I could have used my fingers on a key making and breaking a circuit, which, were your radio on and you listening, you might have heard as tones, short and long. Now these patterns of sound also were representations of the characters for numbers and letters. You might have heard the sounds for the characters of my call sign (my user name K3ODI) CQ the chracters of your call sign << or is it the other way around, more than 60 years since I've done it >> The CQ the accepted abbreviation for "I want to talk". If I just sent CQ DX (not sending your call sign) those sounds mean "I want to talk to somebody (anybody) at a long distance from me (the K3 in my call sign identified where in the world I was).

Again, knowledge of electronics, how radios worked, not helpful to understand meaning. Knowledge of what sound patterns stood for what symbols useful. Besides knowledge of the language of the body of the communication useful, the special radio language, abbreviations with special meaning. Some went back to the days of telegraph. 73 best regards or 88 love and kisses. The 30 you used to sometimes see at the end of newspaper articles because they used to send stories in over the wire and 30 meant end of transmission (news articles being long messages in the days of telegraph). Others not before radio QSO conversation/comunication or QRM interference.

Just like these examples (did they help), I was saying understanding at the level of a neural net useful, at the level of the underlying biology not.

It is very informative, but not really on topic. My premise can be understood without knowledge of the brain's wiring. You sound more like a tech person than someone who has been involved with philosophy. My premise states in a nutshell that all meaning is a biological experience, and the property of the subject and not the object. It doesn't look like we can communicate on this one.

Age wrote:1. It is your personal, and subjective, view that the word, 'objective', means 'existing independently of minds', in the so-called 'ontological sense'.

Well, I wouldn't say so.

Take a look at what dictionaries say.

Google
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
"a matter of objective fact"

Merriam-Webster
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

Dictionary.com
of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Collins Dictionary
1. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions
are there objective moral values?

3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc

Britannica
philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 2:48 am It is very informative, but not really on topic. My premise can be understood without knowledge of the brain's wiring. You sound more like a tech person than someone who has been involved with philosophy. My premise states in a nutshell that all meaning is a biological experience, and the property of the subject and not the object. It doesn't look like we can communicate on this one.

We are having trouble communicating, but it's not a matter of "tech" << only a couple hundred years ago philosophy, mathematics, natural sciebce, etc. united and the expectation one would be versed in all (think of Newton). Computer Science (as opposed to IT) is an area of mathematics. Thus Alan Turing's "Bomb" was a physical device but his "Turing Machine" not.

"without knowledge of the brain's wiring"
We agree! But then you persist in falling back to "biological"

" My premise states in a nutshell that all meaning is a biological experience,
I "hear" that as "all meaning is in how light reflects from graphite smears on the paper" while I say it is in the symbols those pencil marks represent (symbols are not physical).
" and the property of the subject and not the object"
I "hear" that as you feeling the "subject" is a blob of living biological tissue while I say the subject is something being done by a neural net (an abstract entity) which is being implemented by that blob of living biological tissue. Now I am arguing someething "tech" here, though really math and theoretical.

This is NOT possible at our current level of technology, but suppose we were able to map the network of neurons, measure the threshold of each neuron, measure the signal strength modifiers of all axon channels. And suppose we then used that information to "build that neural net", this time by emulation done by a computer program. Now MATH tells me doing the same thing, being the same "subject" but with no biology involved.

<< at that instant the same, But again in theory could be monitoring a the input signals to the biological brain and feeding the same input values to the electronic emulated one.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 6:22 pm "Morality is objective" is to be interpreted to mean "Morality would continue to exist even if all minds ceased to exist". That's what we're talking about here. That's the subject of this thread.

Correct.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 6:22 pm Morality is about behavior, actions, choices, of a being with a mind. In this case, humans. Morality is how we judge behavior, actions, choices, etc. of humans. And you say could be expressed in terms of objective laws that would hold even were there no humans(and hence no morality since non-existent beings have no behaviors, actions, choices, tc, to be judged)

There is no need for humans to exist in order for morality to exist in the same exact way there is no need for humans to exist in order for the law "If humans don't drink water, they will die" to exist.

Laws deal with possibilities.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 6:22 pm If your laws applied in the absence of beings (of a particular sort) you are claiming that morality does NOT depend on the sort of beings we humans are, that we are social animals, omnivores, long lived mammals, etc. You are arguing along the lines that would be one morality for sheep as well as wolves (so to speak). In other words, hypothetical "aliens" with minds capable of judging their behaviors, actions, choices, etc.) would not properly have different moral laws (because of their differences from us).

That doesn't really follow.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 3:05 pm There is no need for humans to exist in order for morality to exist in the same exact way there is no need for humans to exist in order for the law "If humans don't drink water, they will die" to exist.

So if unicorns don't drink water, they will die.

And hey, I was not saying morality would not continue to exist, just human morality (rules for humans to judge choice of actions in various situations).

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 11:44 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 3:05 pm There is no need for humans to exist in order for morality to exist in the same exact way there is no need for humans to exist in order for the law "If humans don't drink water, they will die" to exist.

So if unicorns don't drink water, they will die.

And hey, I was not saying morality would not continue to exist, just human morality (rules for humans to judge choice of actions in various situations).

One can indeed see morality in the behavior of other animals besides humans, and the process is the same; it is a matter of degree, not kind. Meaning is an emergent quality and property of biology, and never belongs to the object, but always to the conscious subject. The fact that all meaning is biological means that morality as a meaning belongs to the conscious subject and is its subjective property. The processes involved are the individual's ability to identify with the self in another, from which arises compassion through an expanded concept of the self. Through compassion arises morality as the foundation of societies/ the collective self. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and this occurs because the energies of the cosmos and the earth play upon biology as if it were its instrument, altering the biology of a creature and thus giving it experience; the understanding of the experience is a meaning. This is why biology is the proper subject of any human system of morality, because morality is about the survival and the well-being of the biological subject/s.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 11:44 pm So if unicorns don't drink water, they will die.

Depends on what kind of unicorns we're talking about. If we're talking about unicorns in general, then the answer is, "Some will, some won't". Perhaps most won't. I can't tell. But if we're talking about the kind of unicorns that have the same biological makeup as the kind of horses that exist today, then yes, they will die.

The same applies to humans. If we're talking about humans in general, then some will die but others won't. If we're talking about the kind of humans that exist today, then the answer is, "Yes, they will die."

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 2:34 pm

Age wrote:1. It is your personal, and subjective, view that the word, 'objective', means 'existing independently of minds', in the so-called 'ontological sense'.

Well, I wouldn't say so.

Take a look at what dictionaries say.

Google
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
"a matter of objective fact"

Merriam-Webster
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

Dictionary.com
of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Collins Dictionary
1. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions
are there objective moral values?

3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc

Britannica
philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

So, are you implying, here, that 'objectivity', itself, comes from dictionaries?

If no, then what are you trying to imply, here, exactly?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 10:16 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 11:44 pm So if unicorns don't drink water, they will die.

Depends on what kind of unicorns we're talking about. If we're talking about unicorns in general, then the answer is, "Some will, some won't". Perhaps most won't. I can't tell. But if we're talking about the kind of unicorns that have the same biological makeup as the kind of horses that exist today, then yes, they will die.

I think disingenuous. I think you knew I meant "an animal that does not exist and never existed. I'm asking about what evidence could be presented to answer the question.

In any case, WE are not constant. You would more or less be holding the morality of humans 2 million years ago eternal, of 1 million years ago eternal, of 20,000 years ago eternal (still hunter gatherers), 5000 years ago, farmers, and some urban. All these somewhat similar, somewhat different. But if instead you held "changing with us" (eternally) then we no longer exist has implications. What is the change that matches THAT.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Aug 13, 2025 1:54 am I think disingenuous. I think you knew I meant "an animal that does not exist and never existed. I'm asking about what evidence could be presented to answer the question.

You said "unicorns". You didn't say "non-existent animals". Unicorns are a subset of non-existent animals. And it won't make a difference anyways. The same logic would apply.

Again, laws are about possibilities. They specify what's possible and what's not in the universe. They are not about actualities. A law is something like, "If X then Y". There is no need for X to occur in order for the law to exist. The law simply says, "If a condition is met, then this will follow". The condition does not have to be met.

In any case, WE are not constant. You would more or less be holding the morality of humans 2 million years ago eternal, of 1 million years ago eternal, of 20,000 years ago eternal (still hunter gatherers), 5000 years ago, farmers, and some urban. All these somewhat similar, somewhat different. But if instead you held "changing with us" (eternally) then we no longer exist has implications. What is the change that matches THAT.

That we change is not a strong counter-argument. There is a morality for each type of human and for each type of situation that can be conceived.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 10:54 pm So, are you implying, here, that 'objectivity', itself, comes from dictionaries?

I am implying that the meaning of words is an arbitrary, manmade, thing. Any word can mean anything you want it to mean. That's why we have multiple languages rather than one. It's not like some languages are truer than others. There is no true meaning to the word "tren". In Spanish, it means train. In Slavic languages, it means moment. Which one is the true meaning?

You accused me of holding a "personal, subjective, view" of the meaning of the word "objective".

I took it that you're saying that I misunderstood the normative definition of the word "objective", i.e. the one specified in dictionaries, and possibly also the one that is popular among the philosophers. Another possibility that I had in mind is that you're accusing me of defining the word my own way ( hence, "personal". )

The dictionary definitions were meant to show that the definition that I'm using is both the normative one and the popular one.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 13, 2025 6:40 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 10:54 pm So, are you implying, here, that 'objectivity', itself, comes from dictionaries?

I am implying that the meaning of words is an arbitrary, manmade, thing. Any word can mean anything you want it to mean. That's why we have multiple languages rather than one. It's not like some languages are truer than others. There is no true meaning to the word "tren". In Spanish, it means train. In Slavic languages, it means moment. Which one is the true meaning?

You accused me of holding a "personal, subjective, view" of the meaning of the word "objective".[/quote]

I never ever accused you of any such thing.

And, it appears that you are 'now' just agreeing with what I was just pointing out before anyway

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 13, 2025 6:40 am I took it that you're saying that I misunderstood the normative definition of the word "objective", i.e. the one specified in dictionaries, and possibly also the one that is popular among the philosophers. Another possibility that I had in mind is that you're accusing me of defining the word my own way ( hence, "personal". )

What you 'took', and thought I was 'accusing' you of, here, are both Wrong, in case you were interested.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 13, 2025 6:40 am The dictionary definitions were meant to show that the definition that I'm using is both the normative one and the popular one.

And, a subjective or objective definition?