Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 4:53 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 4:49 pm I've answered the question, Pete.

Beg to differ. And I'm wondering why you won't say the argument is invalid. What's the problem? To me, it's obviously invalid.

And to me it is valid, for the subjectivist. So, why is it invalid, to you, a subjectivist?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 4:57 pm And to me it is valid, for the subjectivist. So, why is it invalid, to you, a subjectivist?

Why for the subjectivist only?

It's valid for everyone. It's the reflexivity relation. A premise implies itself. It's not possible for the premise to be true AND the premise to be false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_relation

Henry, do you think this argument is valid?

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong.

See, I got the impression that you think there (at least some) moral facts - so that what I, we. or all of us think about them is irrelevant.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:04 pm See, I got the impression that you think there (at least some) moral facts - so that what I, we. or all of us think about them is irrelevant.

Yes, so for me, a moral realist, this...

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong.

...is invalid.

But, you, a moral subjectivist, say it's invalid too.

Why?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:04 pm See, I got the impression that you think there (at least some) moral facts - so that what I, we. or all of us think about them is irrelevant.

And I got the impression that you think there (at least some) facts about what is allowed and disallowed by a rule - so that what I, we or all of us think about them is irrelevant.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 4:43 pm The assertion of a rule - 'X is the rule' - is not an imperative. It's a declarative, with a truth-value. This is grammar 101. There's no oppressive conspiracy.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:09 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:04 pm See, I got the impression that you think there (at least some) moral facts - so that what I, we. or all of us think about them is irrelevant.

Yes, so for me, a moral realist, this...

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong.

...is invalid.

But, you, a moral subjectivist, say it's invalid too.

Why?

It's invalid because the premise doesn't entail the conclusion. And the nature of the premise - moral or non-moral - is irrelevant. Thinking or saying something is so doesn't make it so. And agreement on the use of signs makes no difference.

And in this case, non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:52 pm It's invalid because the premise doesn't entail the conclusion.

Idiot-philosopher doesn't even understand basic logic.

If the argument is invalid then it necessarily entails the possibility of the premise being true and the conclusion being not true.

¬Valid(Argument) → True(Premise) ∧ ¬True(Conclusion)

But the premise is the conclusion and it entails itself!

Premise ↔ Conclusion ∧ Premise → Premise.
∴ ¬Valid(Argument) → True(Premise) ∧ ¬True(Premise)

If the argument is not valid it would entail a true contradiction which is absurd!

Therefore the argument must be valid.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:52 pm And in this case, non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.

A moral premise can and does entail itself as a moral conclusion. This is valid because everything entails itself!

Rejecting the validity of the above is equivalent to rejecting non-contradiction. As proven.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:52 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:09 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:04 pm See, I got the impression that you think there (at least some) moral facts - so that what I, we. or all of us think about them is irrelevant.

Yes, so for me, a moral realist, this...

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong.

...is invalid.

But, you, a moral subjectivist, say it's invalid too.

Why?

It's invalid because the premise doesn't entail the conclusion. And the nature of the premise - moral or non-moral - is irrelevant. Thinking or saying something is so doesn't make it so. And agreement on the use of signs makes no difference.

And in this case, non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.

Just to be clear: matters of right & wrong are, to the subjectivist, matters of opinion. That is: morality is just moral opinion.

This...

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong

...seems to say just that.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 15, 2023 2:54 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:52 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:09 pm

Yes, so for me, a moral realist, this...

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong.

...is invalid.

But, you, a moral subjectivist, say it's invalid too.

Why?

It's invalid because the premise doesn't entail the conclusion. And the nature of the premise - moral or non-moral - is irrelevant. Thinking or saying something is so doesn't make it so. And agreement on the use of signs makes no difference.

And in this case, non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.

Just to be clear: matters of right & wrong are, to the subjectivist, matters of opinion. That is: morality is just moral opinion.

This...

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong

...seems to say just that.

The problem is that you don't understand what the word "therefore" does in an argument.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 9:26 am VA, try again with the following argument.

I/we/all of us think that X is the case; therefore, (within a framework and system of knowledge, it's a fact that) X is the case.

I assume you understand why this is a fallacy. But please say if you don't think it is, and explain why.

Strawman again! the 100-millionth time!

My principle is this'
All facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.
Upon the entanglement, emergence and realization [within 13 billions of physical history of evolution and a 4 billion years of history of organic evolution] a fact emerged from a specific human-based FSK.
It is only after the above there is a thought of what is that fact and therefrom described via the linguistic FSK.

Example,
Upon and from within 13 billions of physical history of evolution and a 4 billion years of history of organic evolution, animals experience, cognized and perceived something-X that on a post hoc basis, that is a liquid that has critical survival values.
In this phase there is merely entanglement, emergence and realization of that something-X and its reality.
Note this something-X is not an independent objective reality, post-hoc it is at most an intelligible something.

1. At this point what is reality is conditioned upon the specific FSK of whatever the animal.
Example a fully sonar-bat will realized and cognized that something-X in sonar images.

2. Homo-sapiens will realized and cognized that something-X as conditioned to a human-based FSK, initially based on common sense, thus common sense reality.

3. With the advent of language capabilities, a priori linguistic elements are imputed in that something-X which is label as 'water' in English within the human-based linguistic FSK. In this case, we have a common-sense linguistic based reality.

4. With the discovery of atoms and atomic particles, then Chemistry, that liquid labelled as water within the human-based linguistic-FSK is not subsumed within the human-based science-chemistry FSK.
In this case, we have a common_sense linguistic-science-chemistry human-based reality.
This is not a macro-based reality but rather a micro-based reality.

Note the above 1 to 4 are 4 different paradigm of reality relative to their specific human-based FSK; there is no independent objective reality therein nor any essence, substance, etc.

So, where's is the fallacy?

Note again;
Your version of 'what is fact' is illusory and delusional.
My what is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
There are prior processes to the realization of a fact before it is known and described.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:04 pm Henry, do you think this argument is valid?

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong.

See, I got the impression that you think there (at least some) moral facts - so that what I, we. or all of us think about them is irrelevant.

Strawman again. You as usual is trying to be deceptive.

In Henry's case, it is;

I/we/all of us intuit within a human-based intuition-FSK within the common-sense FSK, X is morally wrong;
therefore X is morally wrong as conditioned within human-based intuition-FSK

This is confirmed by the claimant his intuition is true based on consensus amongst many others, but the intuitive-FSK approach has limitations.

The limitation is, an intuition-FSK is not reliable and credible.
What is needed is for the intuition to be abducted as a hypothesis,
the hypothesis should then be subjected to a credible and reliable human-based FSK, e.g. the science-FSK or a reliable moral FSK in this case.

In Henry's case, he has moral luck, i.e.
his intuition, that "slavery is an objective moral fact" thus 'ought not to enslave humans' is on target to be objectively true within a credible human-based moral FSK which is reducible to its physical neural correlates.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 15, 2023 3:46 am The problem is that you don't understand what the word "therefore" does in an argument.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

The word "therefore" functions as the reflexive relation in the argument "X therefore X"

Every premise entails itself as a conclusion, and since it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false the form of the argument "X therefore X" satisfies the criterion for validity.

It's 2023 for fuck's sake! This knowledge is freely available on the internet. Learn about satisfiability or something.

Elsewhere, VA has plugged Hawking's so-called model-dependent realism. And, from elsewhere, here's a response. (Ffs, this is 2023, not 1950.)

If we don't or can't know what reality really is - or if there's no such thing as reality as it really is - then we don't or can't know what reality is not. For example, we don't or can't know that reality is mind-dependent or mind-independent - given that those descriptions are coherent.

And that's the end of so-called anti-realism and constructivism and model-dependent realism, and all the other fashionable isms - all of which depend on realist assumptions. For example, the supposed dichotomy between mind-dependence and mind-independence is itself a realist distinction.

In the same way, all uses of language depend on agreement on the use of signs. Or what the hell did I just write?

Realism does not entail essentialism. And essentialism is what the fashionable isms are designed to refute.

Here are some thoughts for the week.

There is no separate, non-physical substance which is 'mind' or 'the mind'. So talk of mind-dependence is incoherent. In other words, the claim that reality is mind-dependent - or mind-independent - is non-sensical.

But then, the fall-back claim that, instead, reality is brain-dependent is also incoherent - as is the claim that reality is 'dependent on the human conditions' - whatever that means. (It could mean anything - a pretty good sign that it's mystical woo.)

Does reality depend on cockroach, hamster or doggy conditions? Do two cockroaches live in different realities, because cockroach experience is necessarily first-person? Why should empiricism - an epistemological foundationalism - stop at humans? Whence this anthropocentrism - this exceptionalism?

Here's an interesting sentence from elsewhere.

'It doesn't matter that the world is independent of human minds, because all knowledge of the world is always a human, social construction.'

Notice the casual realism, the legacy-religious human exceptionalism - don't dogs have brains? - and the consequential intellectual contortion required to turn the actual situation inside out: reality is human knowledge of reality. Time to strop Occam's razor?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 6:39 am Here are some thoughts for the week.
There is no separate, non-physical substance which is 'mind' or 'the mind'. So talk of mind-dependence is incoherent. In other words, the claim that reality is mind-dependent - or mind-independent - is non-sensical.

Your thoughts merely reflect your low level intelligence, narrow, shallow, dogmatic kindergartenish thinking.

It is strawman from your own desperation; show me evidences who has been posting on Descartes' dualism in this thread or section that claim there is an independent mind [soul] from the body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism#:

Generally, it is accepted that from the perspective of common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian sense, Einsteinian sense, there is an external objective world out there, but this cannot be claimed as absolute. It is different with QM, Eastern philosophy, idealism where there is a more realistic view of reality.

But then, the fall-back claim that, instead, reality is brain-dependent is also incoherent - as is the claim that reality is 'dependent on the human conditions' - whatever that means. (It could mean anything - a pretty good sign that it's mystical woo.)

Again it is another strawman from your own desperation; show me evidences who has been using the term, i.e. exact words 'brain-dependent' or "the claim that reality is 'dependent on the human conditions' "

I am the only one who has been using the term 'human conditions' and it is always used in the sense that reality is entangled, interacted with or related to the human conditions.
I have NEVER used the term 'reality is dependent on the human conditions' which can be very misleading.

Note this argument;

• Reality-as-supposed to be is all-there-is.
  All-there-is includes you and all humans alive at present.
  Therefore reality is entangled, interacted with, related and realized relative to the human conditions of you and all living humans.

How can the above argument be woo? ... you are insulting your own intelligence.

Does reality depend on cockroach, hamster or doggy conditions? Do two cockroaches live in different realities, because cockroach experience is necessarily first-person? Why should empiricism - an epistemological foundationalism - stop at humans? Whence this anthropocentrism - this exceptionalism?

Strawman again!
No one has claimed an absolute anthropocentrism reality as the only reality there is.

Here's an interesting sentence from elsewhere.

'It doesn't matter that the world is independent of human minds, because all knowledge of the world is always a human, social construction.'

Notice the casual realism, the legacy-religious human exceptionalism - don't dogs have brains? - and the consequential intellectual contortion required to turn the actual situation inside out: reality is human knowledge of reality. Time to strop Occam's razor?

I read the above as, it is only humans who philosophize and has knowledge [epistemology] - justified true beliefs - of its world.

Animals realized and cognized their own version of reality but they don't have 'knowledge' philosophical epistemology like humans do.
A fully sonar bat will cognized and realized a sonar-based reality.
Every organism from one-cell things to the most complex humans will have their specific realization of reality out of the primordial soup of suppositions of whatever [nothingness].
None can claim the reality they realized is THE OBJECTIVE REALITY independent of themselves.

This why the more mature philosophers [Eastern philosophers, Protagoras, Heraclitus, Kant, Hawking, and others ] will insist the idea of an independent reality is a non-starter for any sense of a really real reality.