For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I brought it on. Due to gaps in your understanding you missed it.
As with any good maths problem, you should now be able to show us your workings.
What are you even asking?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 6:33 pm As with any good maths problem, you should now be able to show us your workings.
Give us some numbers please.
This implies it is highly-subject to revision should better interpretations come along in time. What is good enough for scientists - regarding the latest and best formulation of reliable knowledge - ought to be good enough for the rest of us. And their so-called objective correlations are all hypothetical. I agree with Hume's view 'there can be no ought from is' but that is a limited view and it is not based on a matter of fact that Hume accused of the theists and rationalists during his time [1700s]. But note what Hume wrote;Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:45 amNo, you make the same mistake over and over again. Even if it is a fact that humans have the programming or potential to behave in a certain way, that fact can't entail the moral conclusion that we ought to behave in that way.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:26 amYou are too arrogant with your ignorance.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 8:52 am
Pay attention, and try to think very, very hard. It's because there are physics facts - physical features of reality - that the physics FSK is credible. The physics FSK doesn't create those physical features of reality. How hard is this to understand?
Note this from the horses mouth of physicists, Hawking for example,
The above imply what is true of physical facts is only dependent on the model used, i.e. the physics FSK.
- Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
Implication is reality only emerge out of some specific human entangled FSK
There is no real physical reality preceding any model of physics, i.e. model-dependent-realism.
The famous Physicist who think like you was Einstein a philosophical realist, but his physic is outdated by Quantum Physics which rely on Model-dependent realism.
You cannot be that arrogant based on archaic knowledge of Physics.
You need to update yourself on the latest knowledge on physics.
I understand and agree re your perspective from Hume, i.e. there can be no direct 'ought' from 'is'.Yes, you have argued that, and your argument is fallacious. You've failed to demonstrate any connection between a scientific fact and a moral conclusion. And that's for the inescapable logical reason that a factual assertion - such as 'humans must breathe or they die' - can't entail a moral conclusion.
There is no 'near equivalence' between non-moral and moral assertions. They're chalk and cheese, either side of the is-ought barrier. So invoking factual 'credibility' begs the question. A moral assertion has no factual truth-value, so all we can do is accept it or not.
I still wonder at how long it will take for the penny to drop for you - and at the impenetrability of the block in your reasoning.
What Hume stated was there can be no rules of ought from is to be imposed on any individual via an external authority. But this is based on very limited knowledge of reality.
As I had stated elsewhere, Hume was ignorant of the moral potential of oughtness from within the individual that spontaneous execute this ought voluntarily without any external compulsion.
This is the point you are ignorant of but rather prefer to be dogmatic with your archaic thinking.
Yes, the scientific fact 'humans must breathe or they die' - cannot entail a moral conclusion [rule, etc.] that should be imposed on individuals from an external authority.
However the above scientific fact within all humans is combined with the moral potential within an internal moral FSK where the individual [when morally matured] will spontaneously execute this ought voluntarily without any external compulsion.
You don't seem to be able to see the difference but keep sticking to your strawman [archaic thinking], i.e. moral statements are descriptive and cannot be imposed on any individuals from an external authority.
I have not argued on such a basis at all, thus you forever strawman!
You agree that a fact can't entail a moral conclusion. And that strikes me as progress. Now, hold on to that and stick to it consistently. What the fact is makes no difference.
And the stuff about imposition by an external authority is utterly irrelevant. That's a red herring.
Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
1. those of SENSATION and
2. those of REFLEXION.
The first kind [sensation] arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
Book I, Part I, SECTION II.: Division of the Subject
As I had argued,Even if it is a fact that humans have the programming or potential to behave in a certain way, that fact can't entail the moral conclusion that we ought to behave in that way.
As I'm sure I've pointed out already, your mistake comes from an equivocation fallacy, to do with the word ought. Here are two of your arguments.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:44 amI agree with Hume's view 'there can be no ought from is' but that is a limited view and it is not based on a matter of fact that Hume accused of the theists and rationalists during his time [1700s]. But note what Hume wrote;Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:45 amNo, you make the same mistake over and over again. Even if it is a fact that humans have the programming or potential to behave in a certain way, that fact can't entail the moral conclusion that we ought to behave in that way.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:26 am
You are too arrogant with your ignorance.
Note this from the horses mouth of physicists, Hawking for example,
The above imply what is true of physical facts is only dependent on the model used, i.e. the physics FSK.
- Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
Implication is reality only emerge out of some specific human entangled FSK
There is no real physical reality preceding any model of physics, i.e. model-dependent-realism.
The famous Physicist who think like you was Einstein a philosophical realist, but his physic is outdated by Quantum Physics which rely on Model-dependent realism.
You cannot be that arrogant based on archaic knowledge of Physics.
You need to update yourself on the latest knowledge on physics.
I understand and agree re your perspective from Hume, i.e. there can be no direct 'ought' from 'is'.
What Hume stated was there can be no rules of ought from is to be imposed on any individual via an external authority. But this is based on very limited knowledge of reality.
As I had stated elsewhere, Hume was ignorant of the moral potential of oughtness from within the individual that spontaneous execute this ought voluntarily without any external compulsion.
This is the point you are ignorant of but rather prefer to be dogmatic with your archaic thinking.
Yes, the scientific fact 'humans must breathe or they die' - cannot entail a moral conclusion [rule, etc.] that should be imposed on individuals from an external authority.
However the above scientific fact within all humans is combined with the moral potential within an internal moral FSK where the individual [when morally matured] will spontaneously execute this ought voluntarily without any external compulsion.
You don't seem to be able to see the difference but keep sticking to your strawman [archaic thinking], i.e. moral statements are descriptive and cannot be imposed on any individuals from an external authority.
I have not argued on such a basis at all, thus you forever strawman!
You agree that a fact can't entail a moral conclusion. And that strikes me as progress. Now, hold on to that and stick to it consistently. What the fact is makes no difference.
And the stuff about imposition by an external authority is utterly irrelevant. That's a red herring.
Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
1. those of SENSATION and
2. those of REFLEXION.
The first kind [sensation] arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
Book I, Part I, SECTION II.: Division of the Subject
Note it is implied Hume was ignorant of the matter of fact of sensations related to moral issues.
As I had argued,Even if it is a fact that humans have the programming or potential to behave in a certain way, that fact can't entail the moral conclusion that we ought to behave in that way.
all facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK,
legal facts are conditioned upon the legal FSK,
X-facts are conditioned upon the X-FSK,
therefore moral facts are conditioned upon the moral FSK.
I have claimed my proposed moral FSK relied heavily on facts from the scientific FSK.
So "if it is a fact that humans have the programming or potential to behave in a certain way"
when validly inputed into a credible moral FSK, then we have moral facts.
As such there is an oughtness or ought-not-ness of behavior which is a moral fact as a matter of fact which is represented by the relevant physical referent of neural correlates in the brain.
So it is a moral fact of the existence of such moral oughtness or ought-not-ness of moral behavior, but there is no forcing of anyone to behave in accordance to such oughtness, but it is undeniable such moral facts exist within all individuals as potentials [active in some and less active in the majority at present].
For example there is the oughtness to eat due to the hunger potential which is a matter of fact, but it does not follow one must eat whenever such oughtness is activated. Some people voluntarily fast which is against such a natural fact of the hunger potential and drive.
So it is it is undeniable such moral facts [matter of fact] exist within all individuals as potentials, compliance to such moral oughtness will depend on the activeness, less active or dormancy of such moral potential in each person.
You are making a lot of noises and is too arrogant when you are so ignorant of the matter of fact existing as moral potentials within all humans.
As a personal experience which can be self-verified and justified your moral potentials [matter of fact] are already working, assuming you are not one who will merely run out to kill anyone in sight.
Obviously you did not read my post thoroughly.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 6:36 amAs I'm sure I've pointed out already, your mistake comes from an equivocation fallacy, to do with the word ought. Here are two of your arguments.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:44 amI agree with Hume's view 'there can be no ought from is' but that is a limited view and it is not based on a matter of fact that Hume accused of the theists and rationalists during his time [1700s]. But note what Hume wrote;Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:45 am
No, you make the same mistake over and over again. Even if it is a fact that humans have the programming or potential to behave in a certain way, that fact can't entail the moral conclusion that we ought to behave in that way.
You agree that a fact can't entail a moral conclusion. And that strikes me as progress. Now, hold on to that and stick to it consistently. What the fact is makes no difference.
And the stuff about imposition by an external authority is utterly irrelevant. That's a red herring.
Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
1. those of SENSATION and
2. those of REFLEXION.
The first kind [sensation] arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
Book I, Part I, SECTION II.: Division of the Subject
Note it is implied Hume was ignorant of the matter of fact of sensations related to moral issues.
As I had argued,Even if it is a fact that humans have the programming or potential to behave in a certain way, that fact can't entail the moral conclusion that we ought to behave in that way.
all facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK,
legal facts are conditioned upon the legal FSK,
X-facts are conditioned upon the X-FSK,
therefore moral facts are conditioned upon the moral FSK.
I have claimed my proposed moral FSK relied heavily on facts from the scientific FSK.
So "if it is a fact that humans have the programming or potential to behave in a certain way"
when validly inputed into a credible moral FSK, then we have moral facts.
As such there is an oughtness or ought-not-ness of behavior which is a moral fact as a matter of fact which is represented by the relevant physical referent of neural correlates in the brain.
So it is a moral fact of the existence of such moral oughtness or ought-not-ness of moral behavior, but there is no forcing of anyone to behave in accordance to such oughtness, but it is undeniable such moral facts exist within all individuals as potentials [active in some and less active in the majority at present].
For example there is the oughtness to eat due to the hunger potential which is a matter of fact, but it does not follow one must eat whenever such oughtness is activated. Some people voluntarily fast which is against such a natural fact of the hunger potential and drive.
So it is it is undeniable such moral facts [matter of fact] exist within all individuals as potentials, compliance to such moral oughtness will depend on the activeness, less active or dormancy of such moral potential in each person.
You are making a lot of noises and is too arrogant when you are so ignorant of the matter of fact existing as moral potentials within all humans.
As a personal experience which can be self-verified and justified your moral potentials [matter of fact] are already working, assuming you are not one who will merely run out to kill anyone in sight.
1 Humans must breathe, or they die; therefore, humans ought to breathe.
2 Humans are programmed (with the potential) to behave in certain ways; therefore, humans ought to behave in those ways.
The 'ought' in both conclusions is instrumental, and has no moral implication. Leaving aside other questions - why ought humans to stay alive? and why ought humans to follow their programming? - there's no implication that it's morally wrong not to breathe, or not to follow programming. The conclusions are not moral assertions at all, so they can't be moral facts.
You don't recognise the difference between the non-moral and moral uses of 'ought'.
Don't straw man me. I said nothing about imposition. And you obviously ignore or don't understand my point about your equivocation on the word 'ought' - that it has two different uses, moral and non-moral (instrumental). You just mindlessly repeat your dogma that oughtness and ought-not-ness are facts about humans, and that those are moral facts - when they are not. It's not morally wrong not to breathe. Why should it be?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 7:15 amObviously you did not read my post thoroughly.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 6:36 amAs I'm sure I've pointed out already, your mistake comes from an equivocation fallacy, to do with the word ought. Here are two of your arguments.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:44 am
I agree with Hume's view 'there can be no ought from is' but that is a limited view and it is not based on a matter of fact that Hume accused of the theists and rationalists during his time [1700s]. But note what Hume wrote;
Note it is implied Hume was ignorant of the matter of fact of sensations related to moral issues.
As I had argued,
all facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK,
legal facts are conditioned upon the legal FSK,
X-facts are conditioned upon the X-FSK,
therefore moral facts are conditioned upon the moral FSK.
I have claimed my proposed moral FSK relied heavily on facts from the scientific FSK.
So "if it is a fact that humans have the programming or potential to behave in a certain way"
when validly inputed into a credible moral FSK, then we have moral facts.
As such there is an oughtness or ought-not-ness of behavior which is a moral fact as a matter of fact which is represented by the relevant physical referent of neural correlates in the brain.
So it is a moral fact of the existence of such moral oughtness or ought-not-ness of moral behavior, but there is no forcing of anyone to behave in accordance to such oughtness, but it is undeniable such moral facts exist within all individuals as potentials [active in some and less active in the majority at present].
For example there is the oughtness to eat due to the hunger potential which is a matter of fact, but it does not follow one must eat whenever such oughtness is activated. Some people voluntarily fast which is against such a natural fact of the hunger potential and drive.
So it is it is undeniable such moral facts [matter of fact] exist within all individuals as potentials, compliance to such moral oughtness will depend on the activeness, less active or dormancy of such moral potential in each person.
You are making a lot of noises and is too arrogant when you are so ignorant of the matter of fact existing as moral potentials within all humans.
As a personal experience which can be self-verified and justified your moral potentials [matter of fact] are already working, assuming you are not one who will merely run out to kill anyone in sight.
1 Humans must breathe, or they die; therefore, humans ought to breathe.
2 Humans are programmed (with the potential) to behave in certain ways; therefore, humans ought to behave in those ways.
The 'ought' in both conclusions is instrumental, and has no moral implication. Leaving aside other questions - why ought humans to stay alive? and why ought humans to follow their programming? - there's no implication that it's morally wrong not to breathe, or not to follow programming. The conclusions are not moral assertions at all, so they can't be moral facts.
You don't recognise the difference between the non-moral and moral uses of 'ought'.
Suggest you read my post thoroughly else you are constructing strawman again.
I never state,
"humans ought to behave in those ways" as something that is imposed on them.
I have argued instead,
the ought-ness and ought-not-ness exists as a matter of fact as represented by its physical reference of neural correlates.
When the above emerge from a moral FSK, they as matter of facts are moral facts.
Thus the ought-not-ness [noun and referent] to kill another human is a moral fact. It is not prescriptive statement nor a subjective opinion.
So, Humans must breathe, or they die, represent the matter of fact of an ought-ness [noun and referent], i.e. a potential to breathe.
Some people can fight the above matter of fact to commit suicide, that is beside the point and do not obviate the matter of fact of the ought-not-ness [noun and referent] to breathe as represented by its physical reference the specific neural and physical correlates.
Re your points above:Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 7:54 am Don't straw man me. I said nothing about imposition. And you obviously ignore or don't understand my point about your equivocation on the word 'ought' - that it has two different uses, moral and non-moral (instrumental). You just mindlessly repeat your dogma that oughtness and ought-not-ness are facts about humans, and that those are moral facts - when they are not. It's not morally wrong not to breathe. Why should it be?
Explain why you think it's morally wrong not to breathe. What moral rule are you disobeying if you don't breathe? Ffs. Think.
allude to impositions.Leaving aside other questions - why ought humans to stay alive? and
why ought humans to follow their programming?
- there's no implication that it's morally wrong not to breathe, or not to follow programming.
Strawman, see my post above.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:12 am VA's equivocation on the word ought is easy to understand. Here's an example.
If we want want extinguish a fire, then we ought not to throw petrol at it.
That ought not in the consequent has no moral meaning. The claim is not that it's morally wrong to throw petrol at it - only that throwing petrol at it is inconsistent with the goal of extinguishing the fire. This use of the word ought can be called instrumental.
Now, here's VA's equivocation fallacy.
If humans don't breathe, they die; therefore humans ought to breathe.
This is an instrumental use of the word ought. But VA mindlessly calls this a moral fact - that it's morally wrong not to breathe, deaf to the difference between the instrumental and moral uses of the word ought.
A moral assertion - about the moral rightness and wrongness of an action - is completely different from a factual claim about acting consistently with a goal.
In which peer-reviewed publication do we see this scientific fact of oughtness published please?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:16 am there is a matter-of-fact existing as the oughtness-to-breathe which is represented by the physical reference of neural correlates in the brain. This is a scientific fact from the scientific FSK.
As I had stated you are a gnat in terms of such knowledge.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:30 amIn which peer-reviewed publication do we see this scientific fact of oughtness published please?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:16 am there is a matter-of-fact existing as the oughtness-to-breathe which is represented by the physical reference of neural correlates in the brain. This is a scientific fact from the scientific FSK.
That's never true of the scientific FSK. So you don't have anything from the scientific FSK to justify this scientific fact of oughtness that you claim. You are a fraud.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:58 amAs I had stated you are a gnat in terms of such knowledge.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:30 amIn which peer-reviewed publication do we see this scientific fact of oughtness published please?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:16 am there is a matter-of-fact existing as the oughtness-to-breathe which is represented by the physical reference of neural correlates in the brain. This is a scientific fact from the scientific FSK.
The oughtness to breathe else we die is such a basic biological fact and to demand a peer reviewed publication is bothering on stupidity.
WOT.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:21 amStrawman, see my post above.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:12 am VA's equivocation on the word ought is easy to understand. Here's an example.
If we want want extinguish a fire, then we ought not to throw petrol at it.
That ought not in the consequent has no moral meaning. The claim is not that it's morally wrong to throw petrol at it - only that throwing petrol at it is inconsistent with the goal of extinguishing the fire. This use of the word ought can be called instrumental.
Now, here's VA's equivocation fallacy.
If humans don't breathe, they die; therefore humans ought to breathe.
This is an instrumental use of the word ought. But VA mindlessly calls this a moral fact - that it's morally wrong not to breathe, deaf to the difference between the instrumental and moral uses of the word ought.
A moral assertion - about the moral rightness and wrongness of an action - is completely different from a factual claim about acting consistently with a goal.