Page 53 of 682
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 6:24 pm
by henry quirk
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 5:40 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 4:16 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:55 pm
How could you possibly hear anything? The stuff in your head doesn't exist.
hollow
an echo chamber
My head contains my brain, and both exist. But my brain doesn't contain abstract things. What sort of idiot would think it does, or that abstract things exist somewhere, somehow? Ah - a deluded metaphysician, furkling down a rabbit hole.
from a purely materialistic position: your thinkin' is measurable, it's real
countless electro-chemical actions and reactions
when you think
I don't wanna die, this thinkin' is
real, as real as a table or apple or platypus
note: I'm not talkin' about moral facts (which we will forever disagree on)
I'm sayin' your thinkin' is real, is a fact; the contents of your thinkin' are real, are facts
so: to say
My willingness to not be murdered is not a fact is an error, you're wrong
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:04 pm
by Peter Holmes
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 6:24 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 5:40 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 4:16 pm
hollow
an echo chamber
My head contains my brain, and both exist. But my brain doesn't contain abstract things. What sort of idiot would think it does, or that abstract things exist somewhere, somehow? Ah - a deluded metaphysician, furkling down a rabbit hole.
from a purely materialistic position: your thinkin' is measurable, it's real
countless electro-chemical actions and reactions
when you think
I don't wanna die, this thinkin' is
real, as real as a table or apple or platypus
note: I'm not talkin' about moral facts (which we will forever disagree on)
I'm sayin' your thinkin' is real, is a fact; the contents of your thinkin' are real, are facts
so: to say
My willingness to not be murdered is not a fact is an error, you're wrong
Did I really write such an ugly sentence? Did I really split that infinitive? Do you have the actual passage where I wrote it? If so, I'm ashamed.
Does a brain scan show thinking, or does it show synaptic firing, blood flow, and so on? We call it thinking, but a thought isn't a real thing, like a synapse firing. We say we have minds, but what and where are they? Are they real things, like brains - only different?
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:21 pm
by henry quirk
Did I really write such an ugly sentence? Did I really split that infinitive? Do you have the actual passage where I wrote it? If so, I'm ashamed.
here's where I got it...
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 10:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
My willingness to not be murdered is not a fact.
mebbe I've been hoodwinked?
mebbe skep made a mockery of us both?
Does a brain scan show thinking, or does it show synaptic firing, blood flow, and so on? We call it thinking, but a thought isn't a real thing, like a synapse firing. We say we have minds, but what and where are they? Are they real things, like brains - only different?
accordin' to the materialist: thinkin' is nuthin' but synapses firin', that is: action of the brain
no so long ago, when I was a strict materialist and moral anti-realist, I declared
mind as nuthin' but the action of the brain, the same way
walkin' is the action of the legs
so: is action
real?
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:25 pm
by Skepdick
skep, where'd you pull pete's quote from?
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:40 pm
by henry quirk
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 10:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
My willingness to not be murdered is not a fact.
Re: skep, where'd you pull pete's quote from?
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:41 pm
by Skepdick
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:40 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 10:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
My willingness to not be murdered is not a fact.
I paraphrased him.
Either it is a fact that Peter Holmes wills to be murdered; or it is a fact that Peter Holmes doesn't want to be murdered.
If he feels he is being mis-represented he can always choose the correct fact.
But since he keeps insisting that his thoughts are not real/factual, I really think my paraphrasing accurately represents his stupid.
pete
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:59 pm
by henry quirk
skep sez: I paraphrased him.
paraphrased, not quoted
sorry, pete, I was hoodwinked
Re: pete
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 9:00 pm
by Skepdick
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:59 pm
skep sez:
I paraphrased him.
paraphrased, not
quoted
sorry, pete, I
was hoodwinked
The words are paraphrased.
The meaning is quoted.
Peter Holmes keeps insisting his thoughts aren't factual/real. Therefore his willingness to not be murdered (which is a thought) is not a fact.
Re: pete
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 9:09 pm
by henry quirk
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 9:00 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:59 pm
skep sez:
I paraphrased him.
paraphrased, not
quoted
sorry, pete, I
was hoodwinked
The words were paraphrased.
The meaning was quoted.
Peter Holmes does not believe his thoughts are real/factual. He keeps insisting it.
you made it seem that pete said a thing he did not, in fact, say
Re: pete
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 9:11 pm
by Skepdick
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 9:09 pm
you made it seem that pete said a thing he did not, in fact, say
He is saying it!
Read between the lines.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:04 pm
a thought isn't a real thing
^^^ This is a premise which Peter Holmes insists to be true.
IF Peter Holmes does not want to be murdered (and he can correct me here if I am misrepresenting his desires)
It follows that this exact thought exists in Peter's head ----> "My desire to not be murdered is not real."
Therefore this exact thought also exists in Peter's head ----> "My willingness to not be murdered is not a fact"
Which is what I quoted him as saying.
Re: pete
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 12:22 am
by henry quirk
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 9:11 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 9:09 pm
you made it seem that pete said a thing he did not, in fact, say
He is saying it!
Read between the lines.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:04 pm
a thought isn't a real thing
^^^ This is a premise which Peter Holmes insists to be true.
IF Peter Holmes does not want to be murdered (and he can correct me here if I am misrepresenting his desires)
It follows that this exact thought exists in Peter's head ----> "My desire to not be murdered is not real."
Therefore this exact thought also exists in Peter's head ----> "My willingness to not be murdered is not a fact"
Which is what I quoted him as saying.
you paraphrased him but made it appear as a quote...this is dishonest (sumthin' I don't think is your natural bent)
you owe pete an apology
Re: pete
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:32 am
by Skepdick
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 12:22 am
you paraphrased him but made it appear as a quote...this is dishonest (sumthin' I don't think is your natural bent)
you owe pete an apology
Yes, I made it APPEAR as a quote, but the content of that post represents Peter's actual beliefs, so what you are calling "dishonest" is me getting to the truth.
So what is it that upsets you? That my methods for obtaining the truth from an obscurantists is unorthodox?
All's fair in love and war.
Re: pete
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:05 am
by henry quirk
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:32 am
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 12:22 am
you paraphrased him but made it appear as a quote...this is dishonest (sumthin' I don't think is your natural bent)
you owe pete an apology
Yes, I made it APPEAR as a quote, but the content of that post represents Peter's actual beliefs, so what you are calling "dishonest" is me getting to the truth.
So what is it that upsets you? That my methods for obtaining the truth from an obscurantists is unorthodox?
All's fair in love and war.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:31 amBy occam's razor it'd actually be easier for you to admit you are wrong than to double down on your denial.
but: as you like
Re: pete
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:08 am
by Skepdick
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:05 am
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:31 amBy occam's razor it'd actually be easier for you to admit you are wrong than to double down on your denial.
but: as you like
Peter actually believes that him wanting to not be murdered is not a fact.
If I am "wrong" about that then go ahead and correct my misunderstanding.
Perhaps you mean I am "wrong" in the moral sense, but Peter doesn't believe in objective morality either, so lying to Peter cannot possibly be "wrong".
Re: pete
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:40 am
by henry quirk
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:08 am
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:05 am
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:31 amBy occam's razor it'd actually be easier for you to admit you are wrong than to double down on your denial.
but: as you like
Peter actually believes that him wanting to not be murdered is not a fact.
If I am "wrong" about that then go ahead and correct the above.
Perhaps you mean I am "wrong" in the moral sense, but
Peter doesn't believe in objective morality either, so lying to Peter cannot possibly be "wrong".
but I do
pete's subjectivism doesn't remove the onus from the realist
again: we're goin' circular
unless you gut sumthin' new to add: I'm done here
