It is really only Boris here who is morally culpable. — Andrew M

Oh dear. What's he gone and done this time? First that thing with the bus, now he's been messing with trains. I predict that Theresa will make him the new Transport Secretary once failing Grayling has been given the boot.

If someone thinks it's not conceivable that there's a sheep in a field without it being painted blue, I wouldn't say that they're making an assumption. — Terrapin Station

But it is conceivable, just like it's conceivable that it would continue to be the case that planets exist, even if we all died in an hours time, without the addition of nonsensically wondering where what's the case is located. That's as nonsensical as wondering what speed angry tastes like. Tell me, Terrapin! I cannot conceive of angry without it having a speed that tastes a certain way.

Perhaps it be better put a bit differently.

That which already exists in it's entirety prior to our account/report of it, is not existentially dependent upon our recognition of it's existence.

Goodness is one such thing. — creativesoul

Goodness is just a concept we use for judging morality. What of it?

Monetary. Alice values the ring at a few dollars but it is worth thousands. — Andrew M

Ok, then analogously, you're merely talking about what's conventional with regards to morality. The ring is worth thousands and murder is immoral, but trivially, this is only so in accordance with a convention that we made up. To say that murder is immoral ultimately boils down to "murder is unconventional". What's more, there's much variation, at least on the finer points, of moral conventions between different cultures. And the finer points can and do matter a great deal. What's conventional in one place might not be so in another.

Your talk of a "natural" standard here is obviously inappropriate, as it is the opposite of that. It is an artificial standard.

If someone were to come to me, in some hypothetical scenario, and tell me that what I'm seeing is not green, but red, I'd tell them that what I am seeing is green even if the nanometers of the wavelength of light happened to roughly correspond to what most people call red. — Moliere

Good for you. :grin:

The only possible contradiction will arise when I derive congruent moral *and* immoral judgements simultaneously, which is quite impossible. But never from making a claim of morality *or* immorality with respect to observation of a determination I did not myself make. — Mww

I missed a bunch of posts, but re the above, (logically problematic) contradictions require that we're not equivocating --it needs to be the same exact claim, in the same respect, etc. that's being both asserted and denied at the same time. Different people having different beliefs is not a (logically problematic) contradiction. — Terrapin Station

In other words say the claim is "The cat is on the mat (and necessarily at time Tx, in regard y, from perspective z, etc.)" We can call that claim P.

A contradiction only obtains when we say both P and not-P. The claim, P, can't change, it can't be equivocated in any regard. We need to both assert (P) and deny (not-P) the same claim (the claim is P), at the same time, in the same regard, etc. — Terrapin Station

@creativesoul, now do you believe me? Or do you think that all three of us are wrong, and you're right?

I hate to say I told you so, but...

Even if you see green? — Banno

What of it? Cut to the chase, would you?

It doesn't make sense to feel such that you judge it to be blue, because, unlike moral judgement, that sort of judgement isn't typically made based on how we feel. That would make you very peculiar.

Your turn. What scientific test can be performed to determine whether something is immoral, if I don't feel such that I judge it to be immoral?

Answer the question, please.

Is it special pleading when the realist says we have evidence of material things but not of magic or the supernatural? — Michael

It was only a suspicion. I could not at that time think of a way in which they would go about that without letting material objects slip in, but that's because I have a bad habit of thinking about things reasonably. You've since explained that they'd settle for a bad argument which leads to further problems of an overwhelming nature. Well, you didn't explain all of that, but I'm connecting the dots.

They can argue that we have evidence of things other than one's self (as the realist does) but also that the notion of material things is nonsense, whereas things like consciousness and sense-data are immediately apparent. — Michael

Okay. So they can made a bad argument which leaves a lot of stuff that wouldn't make sense.

My point is just that one can claim that only mental phenomena exists without having to believe that only one's own mental phenomena exists, and that one can claim that there is direct (or indirect) evidence of other minds without having to believe that there is direct (or indirect) evidence of something like the material things the realist believes in. — Michael

The idealist would have to explain what kind of evidence would be evidence of other minds, but not also evidence of material things. I would suspect special pleading.

I'm just trying to clarify your definitions here: if not-P is inconceivable to S, is P an "assumption" on S's part? In other words, for any claim where we can't conceive of an alternative, are we making an assumption? — Terrapin Station

Without assuming what you do about location, then I don't understand what the problem is. There isn't one as far as I can tell. That assumption seems to be the only thing causing a problem. It's just like someone saying something like, "I don't understand how there can be a sheep in a field without that field having been painted blue in its entirety". The obvious problem here is the assumption that there can't be a sheep in a field without that field having been painted blue in its entirety. Now, would this be your problem or theirs?

Assuming your definition of "an hour", then unless there is someone to count those periods of radiation, and determine whether there is that designated rock at this precise moment, the question is completely nonsensical. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is genuinely very funny. But what's interesting is that you don't mean it to be. Do you know that there actually exist driverless cars now? Imagine if a driverless car was set on a course to travel from Manchester to Exeter, and then we all died before it reached its destination. It wouldn't continue to travel in miles per hour? It wouldn't be going, say, 30 miles per hour in an easterly direction? Even if the speedometer displayed "30mph", and even if the needle on the compass was pointing towards "E"? What about the windshield? Would it not be 1.5m2, even though it was made to that specification? What about the clock? When enough time has passed that the time displayed changes from "18:00" to "19:00", would an hour not have passed?

You're either talking dumb or you're thinking dumb or both.

Actually, you don't seem to have tried very hard, just asserting over and over, that the burden is on me to prove that what you are saying is nonsense. But in reality the burden is on you to demonstrate how your so called thought experiment makes any sense at all. and that you are not just asking us to imagine an impossible scenario. I've shown you why it is an impossible scenario and you seem to have no rebuttal for that, only more nonsense, claiming that something could have a measurement without being measured.

My failure to understand why what I am doing is fallacious is a product of your inability to explain why what I am doing is fallacious. And your inability to explain why what I am doing is fallacious is due to the fact that it is not fallacious. Oh well, so be it. — Metaphysician Undercover

One. More. Time.

You must either demonstrate an internal contradiction or you must argue in support of your key premises. Why the hell should I care if you're committed to a certain definition and to certain premises which I am not committed to? I simply do not care, unless and until you give me a reason to. You cannot just assert that this is how it is or that I'm not making sense or some shit. You keep going about this in the wrong way - in a way that is fallacious. But if you can demonstrate otherwise, then that would be worth my time. However, I've given you plenty of opportunities, and you keep on failing, so I don't have high hopes.

What the idealist is taking issue with, is the notion that an unconceived object is conceivable. Consequently, your question cannot be constructed in any way acceptable to the idealist, since the idealist will interpret the question as being self-refuting. — sime

Then the idealist is simply wrong. One can demonstrably conceive of an unconceived object. I can, at least. Why should I believe that anyone else is so different from me in this respect?

I can also predict where this is going to go, and that the idealist will make an error in his or her reasoning here. "But you're conceiving of it!". Yes. Yes I am.

Again, I'm not saying that anything is a contradiction. I'm saying I can't make any sense of it. If you don't care to try to explain it so that I could make any sense out of it, then we're just stuck. It's not going to make sense to me, and you aren't going to bother to try to explain it. — Terrapin Station

It only doesn't make sense to you because of your assumption that everything must have a location. That's not my assumption, and you haven't justified it. So it's not my problem, it's yours. You're the one who isn't making sense whenever you make your location category error.

Re the other part, that's what I'm talking about in all of this--what things are ontologically. If you're not interested in that, then again, a conversation probably just won't get started. — Terrapin Station

It's not so much that I'm not interested, it's that it's a separate issue, and off topic here.

Ontic simple = basically it doesn't reduce to something else ontologically. An ontic simple is an "elementary particle" of sorts for ontology in general. — Terrapin Station

Okay. I still don't care whether it's that or something else. This seems like a diversion.

For example, the idea of existents that have no location makes no sense in my view. Everything extant has some (set of) location(s). — Terrapin Station

Yes, in your view.

If the idea of existents with no locations makes sense to you, okay, you say it does, but I can't do anything with it unless you'd be able to explain how any existent could obtain without having a location. — Terrapin Station

This is that same unreasonable request. There's no internal contradiction, so it's possible in my model. That's explanation enough. You'd have to argue that it's impossible without begging the question.

I doubt both.

If you ask my opinion I'd prefer to be a realist but there seems no way of proving realism. I'd have to demonstrate that a stone exists even in the absence of anyone perceiving it. That is impossible because existence is proven by being perceived; at least that's the gold standard. People put it succinctly as ''seeing is believing''. If then someone asks you to believe without seeing then that's self-refuting no? — TheMadFool

If the alternative to my position which you describe above logically leads to consequences which are far more absurd, which it does, then you should reject or at least revise the premise or premises which lead there.

Now idealism. How am I to prove everything is in the mind? I'd have to show that objects cease to exist when not perceived. This is exactly where realism hit rough weather. — TheMadFool

That objects cease to exist when not perceived is implausible. Why would any reasonable person believe that?

So, we can't prove either realism or idealism. We can only make an educated guess on the issue and I would prefer realism because idealism seems more complex. Occam's razor? — TheMadFool

We can prove realism, just not in accordance with a standard which sets the bar impossibly high, which is unreasonable to begin with. So it's down to you.

Sorry to disappoint you, but a tautology provides the most reliable premise. That's why it's as you've admitted, a "knock down argument". — Metaphysician Undercover

Learn to sarcasm. And learn to read what I said properly: "...like a tautology which completely misses the point...".

Ironically, you're missing the point about missing the point! :rofl:

I've demonstrated the contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah, just as I suspected. You don't understand why what you're doing is fallacious. Maybe one day you'll learn why, but I'm done trying.

I was using "argue" informally there. I just meant "If you want to say that they're not abstracts."

Re "they are what they are," that's what I'm getting at--exactly what they are ontologically. Are you claiming that systems of measurement and rules are ontic simples? — Terrapin Station

Great, more philosophy jargon. Please translate that.

I don't know how to be more specific about something not making any sense. If it makes sense to you, that's fine, but what am I supposed to do with that? — Terrapin Station

If you can't explain what it is about it which doesn't make sense to you, then your claim can simply be dismissed as unwarranted. I'm speaking in English in a way that makes sense, and in a way that other people can understand. I'm not saying anything like "fribgfh cgjjdfk hjkkfdf vhh" or "hat the field flying at to was".

I'm saying that a system of measurement and rules are abstracts. If you want to argue that they're not abstracts, that's fine, but I'd just ask what particular, concrete thing(s) they are then. — Terrapin Station

Firstly, I wouldn't even need to argue that they're not abstracts, if that's what I thought, if you're only making a claim without any supporting argument. A claim without any supporting argument can simply be dismissed.

Secondly, I don't really care what you call them. And, like I said before, I would rather avoid going down that route of whether they're abstracts or not. For starters, it isn't even clear to me what's meant by that. They are what they are. We don't need to call them anything extra.

Re coherence, I'm not talking about contradictions. I'm talking about not being able to make any sense out of it whatsoever. We'd need to be able to make sense out of it to claim a contradiction. We can't get a proposition and its negation out of something we can make no sense of. — Terrapin Station

Okay, then you should have just said it that way to begin with instead of using philosophy jargon. It's clearer and more easily understood that way. Now, you're going to have to be way more specific here and go into further detail about that, because it makes sense to me. It should make sense to anyone who speaks English. What exactly is your problem?

If it's the location thing, then it's just your weird view about that which is the problem. Unlike you, I recognise that it's a category error, remember?

A realist must prove that a stone exists even when it's not being perceived by any mind. Can you do that? Please explain to me how this can be done? — TheMadFool

That's tantamount to proving that a stone exists, and simply pointing out that the assumptions of idealism are unwarranted. You doubt that a stone exists? Or you doubt that the assumptions of idealism are unwarranted? If the latter, then show me why the assumptions of idealism are warranted.

Try to understand that what you're expecting of me is unreasonable.

Ok
How does one prove that objects exist when not being perceived? In a very crude sense we'd need eyes in the back of our heads. See, we still need eyes. — TheMadFool

Again, why wouldn't they? There's no contradiction. I can't do this for you, you know? This is down to you. In this situation, I'm right by default unless you can demonstrate a contradiction.

Obviously you are going by a hidden premise that you've not argued in support of. I don't accept this hidden premise. You'll have to give me a good enough reason for me to accept it.

To be is to be perceived? Um, no.

I think the only "argument" we need is that there's no empirical evidence of, and otherwise no good reason to believe, that there are any real (that is extramental) abstracts. — Terrapin Station

I'm going to try to avoid playing this category game with you, but if you categorise my claim in that way, then yes there is a good reason, as per my argument.

And not only that, but the idea of extramental abstracts can't even be made coherent. — Terrapin Station

Of course it can, if that's what you're calling what I've implied. It is so under my position. Do you think that you can demonstrate an internal contradiction for my position? If so, go ahead. Without a contradiction, it's logically possible. There's no contradiction.

(Since nonphysical existents can't be made coherent; the notion of existents without any location can't be made coherent, etc.) — Terrapin Station

That's a bare assertion. Do you have an argument relevant to my position?

This is a situation that can't be resolved to any degree of satisfaction. — TheMadFool

It can for me. If it can't for you, maybe you're setting the bar too high.

The only way to confirm existence of things is by observation and mental perception. — TheMadFool

Obviously I don't agree if that rules out my claim, although I'm not sure it actually does. To clarify, the claim is that there would exist a rock.

Anyway, feel free to present an argument for your above claim. Otherwise I'm doing nothing wrong by rejecting it.

How can a realist prove objects exist independently of observation then? — TheMadFool

There's no contradiction there. Not under my position of realism. So why wouldn't objects exist independently of observation?

Also how can an idealist prove objects exist only in the mind? — TheMadFool

That's their problem.

It's a catch 22 situation and I see no way out of it. — TheMadFool

If you hold my position, then there's a way out. Or rather, there's nothing to get yourself out of to begin with. This is a problem of your own making.

“The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” tacitly presupposes a third party observer outside the parameters of the thought experiment constructed from moving trains and stationary platforms. So it is possible to view your experiment from both inside as participant and outside as mere observer. It seems to me, therefore, to say one perspective is irrelevant defeats the experiment. — Mww

Why do you think it defeats the experiment? From my point of view, it's irrelevant to point out that you wouldn't be able to think about anything or see anything and so on in the thought experiment, because I agree with that, but it doesn't logically lead to any relevant conclusion. It might be different for you if you're going by some hidden premise that I don't accept. If so, what's that premise, and why should I believe that it's true?

And obviously I'm not asking you to imagine what it would be like to think about something or see something and so on if you didn't exist. That should go without saying, but I'm wondering out loud whether you're making this kind of mistake here.

But I will admit to stamping your experiment with my thought, so we have, like, one of those toys where the head goes on upside down and a foot faces backwards....Mr. Potatohead on acid. — Mww

Wtf? :chin:

I hadn't noticed that comment, but I don't agree that a system of measurement exists when we do not exist. Neither do rules. Clocks exist, but clocks are not the same thing as a "system of measurement."

A system of measurement is an abstract idea, which also doesn't amount to anything without a semantic component, and nothing abstract exists without minds thinking abstractly. — Terrapin Station

That doesn't come as much of a surprise. Okay, so you've told me your position. I don't accept it, of course. You can attempt to argue in support of it if you want to.

The fact is that an act of measurement is required in order that something has a measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Knock down argument! You win.

Nothing has actually measured your sticks so obviously they do not have a measurement. Clearly nothing has a measurement without having been measured. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is hilarious, because you probably don't realise that, when analysed, that will be found to say either nothing of any relevance, like a tautology which completely misses the point, or something obviously mistaken. And of course, you don't provide any argument at all in support of this, as expected. Well, except the above "argument", of course, which is clearly just a bare assertion.

The burden is on you here, not me. You need to demonstrate a contradiction if that's what you're suggesting - and no, not by begging the question or making a number of bare assertions, as obviously that's fallacious. Given that it's you, however, this is probably asking the impossible.

I don't know what you'd reasonably expect of me here. My position is internally consistent, so I don't have any problem with the contradiction you suggest, but you probably won't understand that.

Sure, carry on with your vicious circle. An hour is a certain period of time, and that certain period of time is an hour. Okee dokee bro. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh man.

What I said is that the rule is that an hour has passed if a certain period of time has passed. Then I said that if that certain period of time has passed, then an hour has passed.

That is not a viscous circle.

It would be wise to study the basics of logic before attempting to make assessments in public relating to logic. Regarding the above quote, I recommend looking up what a straw man is.

See what I mean about your replies almost always committing a fallacy? No, you probably don't. Other people probably do though.

Metaphysician Undercover, do you ever wonder whether you're hopelessly out of your depth here on this forum?

Sure, if I'm claiming to present an argument and I haven't. — Terrapin Station

Sure, but if you've made relevant claims, which you no doubt have, then they carry a burden.

I personally don't care if someone forwards an argument per se or not. But if you claim to, and if you're claiming something like a reductio, then I'll point out if you've not actually forwarded an argument. (I'll also often do that when someone points out that I'm not forwarding an argument--even though I never claimed to--as if I should be forwarding an argument, but they didn't forward an argument, either). — Terrapin Station

Sure. I'm reasonable enough to acknowledge that I haven't presented a fully explicit argument. I am reasonable enough to cooperate where necessary. The question is whether you are reasonable enough to do likewise. And the same goes for Michael.

I'm interested in a genuine discussion. I'm not interested in a mere test as per devil's advocate, or a mere test of my ability to construct a valid argument, of which I am perfectly capable.

Remember....I’m a reductionist. Your parameters are all humans have disappeared. I am human so I’ve disappeared. If I’ve disappeared, even if I exist someplace else, I really can’t say anything with certainty about where I disappeared from. It makes sense to think of things a certain way, that rocks still exist and meanings maintain, but consistency is not the same as certainty. — Mww

I have two points. My first point is that, obviously, you can think about, talk about, etc., the thought experiment now. That this wouldn't be possible in the thought experiment is irrelevant. And my second point is one I've already made, but which apparently needs repeating, namely that certainty isn't necessary.

I still need to answer your earlier post by the way, but re this one, if no statement follows from any other, it's not an argument. We covered that already. Arguments have premises ]and conclusions that follow from the premises. So for something to be an argument, it's a requirement that at least some statement in the set of claims follows from at least one other statement in the set of claims. — Terrapin Station

I understand that already. But you don't seem to understand hidden premises. There are virtually always hidden premises in any argument. In light of these hidden premises, my argument is valid. But it would just mean more work for me to present the entire argument, hidden premises and all. I agreed to go through it step by step wherever you see a genuine problem and to make explicit logical links where necessary, but I'm not willing to present the entire argument in a formal manner without good enough reason to do so. I think that members of this forum such as yourself and Michael are more than capable of figuring this shit out already without my assistance, so give me a reason.

Validity is easy, at least for someone like me. Do you not think that I'm capable of moulding my argument here into a full, formal, valid argument? Soundness is the real issue. You should be thinking about that instead. That means you should be thinking about whether my premises are true or false.

Again, not all arguments are formal, and not all arguments are going to look how you expect them to look. There's this thing called subtlety, and this other thing called informality. Ironically, I feel like I'm talking to an Aspie. Are you trying to knock me off of my thrown? Is this a coop d'etat?

If I understand you correctly, you do not accept my claim that "an hour" is a measurement, just like one degree Celsius is a measurement, and a metre is a measurement. OK, then that explains our difference on this issue. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, of course they are not measurements. They are units of measurement. Something doesn't have to be measured to be such that it conforms within a specific range within a standard of measurement. The contrary is easily lead to absurdity, since, for example, if you and I went camping in the woods and collected a load of firewood, then under your bad logic, the sticks and branches and twigs and so on that we want to use for making the fire wouldn't be of various lengths in centimetres. That would be impossible, because they would need to be measured first. But it's not impossible. If a stick happens to be a metre in length, then it happens to be a metre in length, and that's that. We would only need to measure it to find out what it's length is. That's epistemology! We're not doing epistemology!

Do you understand the difference between epistemology and metaphysics? I'm not sure you do. Either that, or you just draw an irrational link between the one and the other.

Your suggestion is clearly ludicrous, as any logically minded person can see. You're making the fundamental error of idealism, which is to confuse what's necessary to acquire information about the way things are, with what's necessary for things to be the way that they are.

Like language, systems of measurement are based on rules. The rule is that an hour has passed if a certain period of time has passed. If that certain period of time has passed, then an hour has passed. From that, it does not follow that anyone needs to be standing around measuring the time. It doesn't even follow that anyone needs to exist!

Again, the key point is that rules do not cease to apply just because no one is around, doing something or other.

I do wonder whether it's even possible for me to break through to you logically and get you to change your mind, or whether you are irretrievably stuck in your way of thinking.

What scientific test can be performed to determine whether something is blue, if I don't feel such that I judge it to be blue? — Banno

It doesn't make sense to feel such that you judge it to be blue, because, unlike moral judgement, that sort of judgement isn't typically made based on how we feel. That would make you very peculiar.

Of course, you can parrot that back to me with some key terms switched around, but you'd be wrong. And you can parrot this back as well. And this. And this.

A tool can be used to measure the wavelengths in nanometres. If it has a dominant wavelength between approximately 450 and 495 nanometres, then it's blue.

Your turn. What scientific test can be performed to determine whether something is immoral, if I don't feel such that I judge it to be immoral?

Answer the question, please. Don't just be a parrot. Or a parrot-like dinosaur. :smirk:

So the issue is that we can fail to value what is valuable. For example, Alice owns a diamond ring but thinks it is cubic zirconia. — Andrew M

Valuable in what sense? There's an obvious distinction to be made here between valuable in a variety of senses. Valuable in accordance with monetary value? Valuable in accordance with sentimental value? Valuable in accordance with use as a tool?

There is no simple "valuable" in a non-relative sense.

That's not true, because your premise state distinctly "we all died an hour previously". So you imply that someone has measured an hour after everyone has died, and you posit this point in time. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that doesn't follow from my premises, it follows from yours. That's begging the question until you first argue in support of your premises. How many times? I'm not going to keep going around in circles. This is your last chance. Your illogical ramblings are not my problem. You can assert that there needs to be someone there to measure time, and that an hour is a measurement, and so on, a million-and-one times, but that doesn't do anything at all, logically. These are premises I never accepted, and still do not accept. Anything that follows from them is completely irrelevant. My argument stands unless you can present a proper challenge.

I made this clear from the very start, but you aren't giving me anything new. You aren't giving me what's required. You're just repeating the same problem.

You confuse my logical rejection of your argument for a lack of comprehension. It is you who lacks comprehension. Massively so. I am not being illogical. My argument is valid, and obviously I'm arguing that it is also sound. Your demonstrations that some part of my argument doesn't follow only show that some part of my argument doesn't follow from premises that I've made crystal clear that I don't accept, so your demonstrations can do nothing whatsoever at least until a further argument from you is provided. There's almost always some logical fallacy in your replies to virtually any comment on any topic in philosophy whatsoever on both this forum and the old one. In this case, it is begging the question, and it is the fallacy of drawing irrelevant conclusions.

I really hope that you grasp it this time and don't repeat the same mistake.

And you're being pedantic, too. When you assert things like, "An hour is a measurement!", and, "There needs to be someone there to measure the hours that pass!", I'm going to call that subjective time, for short, whether you like it or not, unless you give me another more suitable name for that position. You simply assume subjective time, point out a few logical consequences, then erroneously think that you've refuted my argument. You need to go back and study Logic 101. Why do some people here rely on others so much to teach them the very basics in philosophy? That's immoral. Teach yourself! I'm getting fed up of those here who keep trying to run before they can even walk. It's actually worse than that with you, because you seem largely unteachable. You just rationalise your errors and repeat them instead of learning and developing. It really is a real pity when you see someone making the same basic logical errors you recall them making in discussions many years ago.

You have to try and seek out reasonable people wherever possible. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, and if that fails, rocks.

An elephant is pretty. Okay, then. Anyway, goodnight.

Ronnie Pickering has a pretty petticoat, and you should have simply provided your full definition, instead of only part of it for some reason.

Wait, is this those damn wriggly goalposts, again?! Why won't they just stay still?!

You're funny, and completely missing the point.

Thank you for the entertainment. Goodnight.

It already happened by the time you wrote what you have. — creativesoul

The fact that I'm presently sitting here has already happened? No. That I'm presently sitting here is happening now, in the present. The present is not the past, obviously. That'd be another contradiction.