this is garbled nonsense.

Take care.

Thank you; appreciate that and the link-to-post.

I have never encountered someone who believes it is rationally justifiable to impose tastes. — Leontiskos

This question isn't a piggy-back, its totally askance from the thread - Are you using the word 'impose' here to include 'encourage', or is it more definite?

It matters not, it was just a function of Quoting and bad organization, move it to the correct spot, as I did in my post. Which weighs nothing on my argument. — Vaskane

I allowed for that possibility - thanks for confirming.

If you don't think moral anti-realism lost the day in this thread, then you simply don't understand the OP or the purpose of this thread. — Leontiskos

Or, and forgive me for this, you're wrong.

In either case, it appears you've made your conclusions and that's fine :)

Not quite sure what that means? — Vaskane

It's a known turn of phrase. I'm sure you can clarify for yourself ;) .

You've quoted my first response, and your second response, in reverse order. Whether that matters, I don't know, but it's incorrect.

To which you even admit that you're too afraid to venture into using your own judgement because you're afraid to convey your own solipsistic machinations: — Vaskane

Nothing in the quoted piece suggests anything of the sort.
And in fact, I feel no need to clarify as the comment stands on it's own.

You've not shown me any reasoning for hte quote I questioned.

Your quote/s from Bob don't touch what i've said.

adjust one's position for new objections isn't a failure, nor is refining ones position or language. Neither of us have ceded the ground of anti-realism. We've just come up against the same problem with new words or objections every time - but the problem amounts to just saying 'It's true, give up'.

That's much better! Why didn't you talk about that in the first place? — Alkis Piskas

It was my intention (as noted, right there) - I'm just not yet that good at writing what I think. This has, and i imagine, will lead to many weird disagreements that don't actually exist between myself an other posters so i apologise in advance for anything points in future this happens between us again. I think it'll be an issue for some time, given my wet-behind-the-earsness.

Now, I don't know what does sentience mean to you. You can tell me next time — Alkis Piskas

My understanding of sentience is that it is held universally apart from consciousness in that it requires the further fact of 'feeling'. Subjective experience+feeling (hedonic).

In this way, I have no problem talking about the two separately. A VFT would have no sentience, but would have consciousness.

Hi mate,

Suffice to say nothing there has an effect on what i've said. I think it's far more to do with your affectations than much else. Shall leave this one be :)

In this thread I'd say we see a large number of failed attempts to establish moral anti-realism, and a large number of failed attempts to overthrow moral realism. — Leontiskos

From Bob and I's perspective, the exact opposite is true.

That's kind of the entire point of our lines of questioning. Nothing, whatsoever, has been presented to support moral realism. The closest anyone has got is Banno's weirdo move of just claiming 'brute fact' without anything whatsoever to establish that claim.

You've not done anything more. Sorry to say. But this is the nature or differing perspectives. I just can't grasp why anyone is being a dick about it (Banno's obtuseness mainly, but you've devolved a couple of times too).

In fact you're attempting to use my very argument against you against me. — Vaskane

It is not my problem if the emperor has no clothes, Vaskane.

That you can't shows you're probably being dishonest about something. — Vaskane

Bizarre. Can you let me know your reasoning for this? Rather htan your claim?

ust say the other possibilities out loud. — Vaskane

I have. Multiple times. But your job here, it seems, is ignoring everything relevant to maintain a position of both superiority, and aloofness which allows you to avoid, altogether, speaking without extreme affectation.

Again, Not my vibe. Enjoy :)

That you don't understand that is because of exactly as what Bella says, Your perception bars your perception of other perceptions. — Vaskane

It appears you are firmly incapable of considering other, polite, possibilities.

That said:

No, like now, I could have asked you to elaborate, as you did of me, by asking you to clarify what exactly you mean, but instead of being afraid of perhaps embarrassing myself by misinterpreting the definitions of the words used (that's why words have definitions in the first place: for clarity; my apologies for using a combination that appeared like hieroglyphics to you) I merely trust my judgement, and hold my self accountable for any accidental fallacy of equivocation that may occur during the use of words with multiple meanings. I've long overcome the fear and embarrassment that occurs on the route to knowledge. It's as simple as saying "Oh! That's what you meant!" And move on, all the while, I'm continuing the discussion, and even allowing myself to be vulnerable with the other party. — Vaskane

Ignoring your continuous ad hominem,

Fine. Nothing abhorrent about this, but... This is a waste of my time, and I don't have the time to wade through misapprehensions, when you could (if capable) just answer directly what you mean, to avoid putting the other person through a slog that you could have avoided with a modicum of good faith.

Again, if this is your vibe, go for it. It isn't mine and my issue is that you seem to have a pretty deep and untouchable superiority complex, in which i have no interest. But thank you for elaborating, nevertheless.

He's saying someone like me can swear that perceptions can bar perceptions. People can even be saying the same thing from two different perspectives and fight about it until they realize they mean the same damn thing. — Vaskane

Unless you';re claiming to have overcome sense perception, this is built-in to every conversation ever had. Doesn't have a reason to be said here.

Yeah, when you’re strange, in a strange land, that died in mcarthur park in the rain, like the Chevy in the levy, in Paris. — Bella fekete

A wonderful set of references.

"Cause I'm much more fluid than most people here are and am capable of going with the flow quite well. Look how many BSoDs that one simple question caused. "Could not compute must give error report on question asked."

It is more likely you're not groking responses to your ideas adequately, and responding as such.

seein is not necessarily perceiving, sometimes perceptions bar a message, and here is a continuum an autist can swear by. — Bella fekete

Whether it's me or you, I have no idea what you're getting at.

You think imposing tastes is justifiable (when "[You] care about it enough to impose it on other people"). Hence, the conversation is at an end. — Leontiskos

The philosophical one is. Having not resolved anything hehe.

But there's much to be said about that assertion.

I am not looking to stay ten toes down for the sake of dignity or pride: I seek the truth. — Bob Ross

I got the feeling this wasn't on the menu, for this interlocutor. I have a feeling moral realists are necessarily unable to bridge the gap we're genuinely looking to traverse.

LOL.

You're a lawyer, right? What one can readily see in practice is a gross inequality before the law, depending on one's socio-economic status. If one has money for a good lawyer, one can get out of pretty much anything. If one doesn't have such money, even an administrative mistake by a government official can mean the end of one's existence. We're not living under the rule of law; we're living under the rule of money. Money, with which law can be bought. And so for someone who doesn't have much money, dealing with the state really comes down to might makes right. — baker

(I use this list format for clarity only; not at all a function of exasperation or anything like can sometimes be inferred)
1. No. Legal professional - still working my way toward lawyer unfortunately lol but I do work along side lawyers daily and essentially perform their functions without my signature.
2. That's true to a certain extent, and in certain ways. Nominally, the law should not function beyond quality in terms of those disparities. If you have a shitty lawyer, not a lot can be done. But you're right to point out the aggregate reality of that problem.
3. For uneducated people**
4. Yes, but that is misguided and unhelpful to both their case/s and the overarching claim being made.

So what are you really saying? Might makes right? — baker

Given that, even within the quoted passage, i note that these are 'misguided' emotions, I would say it's fairly clear this is not my position personally. It also wasn't actually what i was talking about.

I believe those individuals think they are fighting people who do believe 'might is right'. I make no comment on whether that's the case, other than to say i've seen it manifest by way of a either misinformation or misguidance time and time again. That was all i was commenting on :)

If that’s your vibe /.../
— AmadeusD
I'm high functioning on the spectrum.
— Vaskane — baker

Not quite sure why you've noted these together, but the latter was applied to me for a period of close to eight years.

Vaskane's reply following the above comment makes me less inclined to interact with him. Whether that's his fault or not isn't concerning me.

While a deconstructionist may have 'the group' in mind, it is still an individualized group that follows 'what they think is right,' as you put it. — dani

By 'individualized' are you just speaking to a 'group' adequately delineating itself? I ask, as i don't recognize what you're describing in these movements at all really. The whole 'eating it's tail' trope around identitarian groups having very much gate-keeping qualities about them comes to mind.

I might be over-blowing that particular aspect - but it does seem to me that the Frankfurt/Horkheimer origins speak to a very distinct flavour of anti-individualism, essentially replacing individual conceptions with group-accepted ones, in turn attempting to pit these against the conceptions and gate-keeping of other groups in a 'power struggle'. This is never done on the individual level, so i guess I'm wanting a bit more to understand the position that deconstructionist thought has any focus on individuation beyond lip-service?

Well, you did use Nagel line. In fact, your whole message was based on it. Not only that, you referred me to RogueAI 's question "Do you think there is something it's like to be a Venus Fly Trap?" on the same subject — Alkis Piskas

Not quite. I delineated sentience from consciousness (or that was my intention). Because your definition to my mind (and maybe RogueAIs) doesn’t rise to sentience and therefore there would be nothing it’s like to be a vft on that account. I can’t see the problem. The Nagel line was a useful way of outlining why I see a disconnect between conscious experience viz. sentience and consciousness per se. It was about what you’d said.

↪Christoffer you only think that because you're biased and probably evil — flannel jesus

Definitely Hitler

he argument in question (that moral statements are truth apt) just has no force to persuade. If you're a moral realist, it's probably because it fits your psychological makeup. There is no argument for it. — frank

:ok:

All you seem to be saying here is that you're not a moral realist. Obviously moral realists disagree with you; that one ought not X isn't malleable to opinion and there is something that makes "one ought not X" true if no one believes it: that one ought not X. — Michael

Well yes and no - yes; that’s right, but no I was attempting to explain why. Their claim of truth doesn’t amount to anything.

And perhaps some moral realists explain moral realism by positing the existence of abstract moral objects. — Michael

Perhaps they do. I can’t bring myself to ascribe a defence I’ve never seen to them though. But more than this, you can verify that equation with objects. The equation works with any two objects you like. Morality isn’t open to this verification. As stated.

b) it is impossible to verify or falsify this sentence — Michael

I only really agree with this part (which seems the most important anyway).

My only argument here is to refute the suggestion that all brute facts must have something to do with physical (or abstract) existence. — Michael

I don’t really think that works. Morality isn’t maths. It talks about behaviour which are actual events in the world so I personally think there needs to be a connection. But that’s an immature and undeveloped idea about it.

I should also be clear here I’m
Merely discussing these positions. Not holding you to any of them. Your comments elsewhere seem to agree with my overall position.

, altering the physical state of the brain would automatically alter what that brain comprehends. — RussellA

Yeah for sure it boils down to this. I think there are certainly novel ways of thinking not available to that everyday normal consciousness. I think we’ve been robbed of decades of potentially very fruitful work with altered states by the drug war and social mores. Tsk tsk. That said, it’s clearly a tool and guarding against overzealousness in many forms is important. You are after all, out of your mind

Moral realists claim that some sentence "one ought not X" is true, and is so even if everyone believes that one ought X. If everyone believes that one ought X then everyone is wrong. "One ought not X" is non-subjectively true. — Michael

I would agree(with this description of the position). But I do have a problem equating something which can be necessarily inferred from a state of affairs, to something which truly is malleable to opinion (that one ought not x). There is nothing that makes this true if no one believes it. I think that’s probably a fairly comprehensible difference. I know that may not be your position - just giving my position on that, given we appear to have come to terms.

The non-subjective truth of "one ought not X" does not depend on the existence of anything — Michael

This seems, too, to be both a bit silly given the kind of claim it is, but more interestingly a stark difference - where the object can be inferred to not exist from a state of affairs we have some reason to take it seriously. In the moral realist case (and this seems plainly evident with a fellow such as Banno) the claim is made…. And that’s it. It’s not inferred or exemplified or entailed by or understood in relation to anything which does exist. As much as it can be stated that its “the way things are” so to speak, that is incoherent as there’s zero evidence for it let alone good evidence.
It’s the norm. That’s it.

You can verify the equation. You can’t verify a moral claim.

there is no objective.

Objective means with respect to the object rather than the subject.
If there is no object to refer, where’s the objectivity? The “fact” that Santa doesn’t exist is a product of your subjective imagining that Santa could exist (well, that’s one path).
But it doesn’t refer to anything in the world. The objectively true thing is the state of affairs which excludes Santa.

- it's clearer to say these are the parts of your body you use to see rather than that saying that they produce the image you see, as if they were seperate from you. — Banno

No it isn’t.

This forum certainly makes me feel as if philosophers maybe are redundant but not philosophy. We just need to do better at it.

Oh, I see - taking the turn of phrase literally. — Banno

No. Asking you to clarify yourself
I see you’ve answered a question with a question. Neato

I've no idea what that might mean. — Banno

You've claimed it 'gives every appearance' to have truth in it.

I disagree (but that's probably already known, and isn't too relevant here - it just explains why im asking).

You must be perceiving that status of 'being true' viz. it 'appears' to be true to you. I am asking whether your point is that your perception of it's truth is what grants its truth-evaluative power or whether you're trying to suggest you are merely making observation of it, grounded in something other than your perception.

Who's to say the conscious experience of a vft catching a fly is less than my conscious experience of seeing a sunrise? — RogueAI

I think thats what's at stake

First, it seems that they do have truth value. So "one ought not kick puppies for fun" is a valuation. And it gives every appearance of being true. Therefore there are true valuations. — Banno

Is the point here that you are perceiving truth in it, therefore it is a truth-evaluative statement? As my previous question, im not objecting, just want to clarify what you're saying.

Swell. Your zealous defense of your honor hath succeeded. I concede all points. I surrender. You win.

Now go do some actual philosophy. — Leontiskos

I'm sorry, why are you being a dick?

I'm trying, very politely, to assist you to understand that I did not ever hold the view you're saying I had to walk back. That is the case. Why has this descended into you making insulting quips?

Maybe more information systems within one entity give the proto-consciousness more to experience, and, therefore, greater consciousness. Like ours. — Patterner

So, i'm not entirely sure I'm grasping what you mean, but taking a stab:

Yes, i would think if there are multiple systems interacting that would constitute a network, right? So that's just a more complex system which, to my mind, comports with the theory in the sense it would give rise to higher levels of consciousness.

Ye doth protest too much, methinks. — Leontiskos

Yet, the case is that i made a mistake in replying to fast. My position hasn't changed one iota. I'm really not understanding what you're not getting here... *shrug*.

IF nothing else, you're being wrong here is unhelpful to me because i now do not know if you intended the lesson that i've actually learned (to read more closely to ensure i don't represent a view i don't hold) or that you think I actually held a different view between the start and end of the substantive exchange?

No, the point is that it is not about you. It's not personal. <This post> was meant to convey something other than personal culpability. I don't count it an error to claim that we should not torture babies. At worst it is an understandable mistake from a moral non-realist. — Leontiskos

I have no idea why you're saying this.

I made an error of laziness by not reading adequately closely, the statement you made. Therefore, my response was incoherent in light of my actual position. There was no mistake in my claim(position, that is - I never intended for the claim you're talking about to be made from my mouth(to use metaphor)), there was a mistake in my words. Which is absolutely a personal mistake on my part for not reading adequately and responding hurriedly without considering the actual words used.

Like, dude, what's not getting over the line here?

Well, if it was purely accidental then my point remains instructive. — Leontiskos

This is absolutely the case. And i've certainly learnt to be far more careful. I've cleaned a fair bit of egg from my face.

There you claimed that it was justifiable to get angry at others who behave in a way you deem incorrect — Leontiskos

Not really. I queried why it would be senseless. I can see where you've gone with that, though.

In that case it was also obvious that we were talking about the behavior of other people. — Leontiskos

In that case, yes, but for the above (in regard to your take on my position).

One might apprehend the flower as having three petals, despite it having four. In which case, the flower has four petals regardless of what is supposed. — Banno

Hmm, i tend to feel this is the case, but isn't there a good argument that since there is literally no other source of data (i.e, no matter how many people apprehend something, that potential for error remains), that this can't reallly be concluded?