Yeah, I'm familiar with that. I'm asking you about the word "sub" in this context. I'm not familiar with "sub" here. Where does that come from and what does it refer to, exactly?

They're rooted in genetics ultimately. As I said, they're built into our biology--it's a way our brains work, because we're a species where survival was aided by empathy, by having opinions about how other members of the species should and shouldn't be treated.

Environment influences them, too, though.

So, how do I get at your meaning, if all I can get at is my own? — Harry Hindu

You'd not literally receive my meaning any more than you'd literally receive, say, my desires, or my pains, or anything like that.

I write something--I create a set of marks like this, and I do so largely per conventions of making marks like this (to the extent that I don't do that, this whole process becomes much more difficult), and you then have to assign meanings to it when you read it. You might be able to do that in a manner that makes sense to you, and you might not. When you do not, you say that you do not "get my meaning," you ask questions about it, etc.

But if you can assign meanings especially so that extended text from me makes sense to you, so that no matter how much I write and you read it, things keep rolling along coherently, consistently, etc., for you, then you say that you "get my meaning."

Meanings wouldn't just be "patterns of behavior," which I agree can be objective. Meanings are mental associations that you make. It can be an association of a pattern with something else--the pattern signifies such and such to you. The act of taking something to be a signification is the meaning part--neither the signifier nor the signified are the meaning. The association, so that the signifier is taken to point at the signified, is the meaning part.

Why would you ask the question if you didn't assume that I misinterpreted something you said? — Harry Hindu

Because I'm genuinely curious why you'd think that I believe there are no objective processes. I'm literally hoping for an answer, hoping you'll tell me why you think that. It could be because you misinterpreted something I said, but I don't know.

It's possible I missed it. Can you re-quote, please? — Harry Hindu

I did. At any rate, it was similar to what I wrote above.

It's either we're talking past each other when it comes to what we're pointing at when we say "the same", or "same" is meaningless. — Harry Hindu

I'm just clarifying that on my view, no two things (so no numerically distinct things) are literally the same--the identical whatever. Things can be similar, but not literally the same.

If I can't help how I feel, how can I purposefully change it through introspection? — Artemis

I'm not saying anything about changing how you feel.

Your moral dispositions are "deep" or "gut-level" dispositions that may not be immediately obvious.

You can also have shallower feelings that may be reactionary and that are far more fleeting. For example, you might do something out of anger.

To know your moral view about something, you often have to engage in introspection, or what's sometimes called "hard" or "deep" thinking, where you're trying to intuit how you feel about something on a gut level.

Sometimes those gut-level feelings emerge naturally in the wake of something you or someone else did that you wind up regretting or resenting.

The reason that you bother, which is why you asked me, is that you can't help but have these sorts of states--the gut-level moral stances, for example. And most people are uncomfortable being inconsistent--so, for example, they might be uncomfortable with something they did out of anger, in a reactionary, fleeting moment, where that doesn't match their gut-level disposition about that sort of behavior.

Again, you can't help but feel the way you do. That's built into our biology.

For example, you beat up someone for no reason today. Well, a couple days later, you might realize that you don't really feel comfortable with beating up someone for no reason. Why? It's simply a way that you feel. A disposition you have.

So then you feel regret that you did something you don't now feel comfortable with. Your think that your previous actions are inconsistent with how you really feel--especially if you simply didn't think too much about it when you beat up someone for no reason.

So you decide that you're going to try to figure out how you really feel about these sorts of things.

But why? What's the point? — Artemis

Well first you can't help but feel that some behavior is okay and not other behavior. That's built into us.

Why do people do "hard thinking" about it? Because we also have an inbuilt tendency to want to be consistent, and if we don't think about our moral dispositions very much, we're less likely to be consistent in our reactions. That particularly bothers us in moral situations as long as we have empathy, because we'll wind up doing things that we're not comfortable with on reflection.

:up:

You intuit what your dispositions or "gut feelings" are. Basically, you do "hard thinking" to discover how you really feel about things.

Still, don’t we need conventional language for truth tables to have any meaning? — Mww

You don't need the formal logical structures in natural language.

You do need to talk "around" them in natural language. We need to be able to say, "This is a conditional" for example.

As tools, they've turned out to be most useful for computer science applications, probably. Logic gates for example.

The advances we make for space travel are ultimately useful for more practical purposes on Earth.

The challenges of space travel fast-track these developments--it's a very focused problem-solving environment, with financial incentives behind it, and it can sometimes not be immediately obvious what the practical benefits of the technological advances will be, but there has almost always turned out to be practcal benefits to them.

But then you said there's nothing else available. — Artemis

Nothing else available for what morality ultimately depends on than subjective dispositions.

"this is ultimately what everyone does" is what I said. Nothing else is available for what everyone ultimately does when it comes to morality.

There has to be. Or else everyone would respond to all situations like a toddler.

I'm not saying intuition doesn't play a role. But there are other elements to decision making. — Artemis

Hence the word ultimately. That wasn't just there for decoration.

First off, obviously we don't stay emotionally the same as toddlers as we age.

But other than that, we already said that you can use various stances as foundational stances on a given occasion (and some people can decide to far more consistently use the same foundation(s)). And then you can reason from those foundational stances. But ultimately, which means when we go back to the foundational stance(s), it's simply how someone feels, what their dispositions are.

Yes--as in the first post, where there's an attempt to compare it to "If it rains tomorrow, then I will go jogging."

So, if you're just having a particularly bad "body day" you might actually beat up the kid in the alley? — Artemis

Is it a possibility? Sure. There's no way to rule out that being a possibility for anyone.

Nope. — Artemis

It is, because nothing else is available. I'm not saying that it's what others necessarily believe that they're doing. But it's what they're doing nonetheless.

How should we carry out punishment?

Your intuition must be based on something, — Artemis

Yeah, on my body. How I feel about the situation at hand/what my natural disposition is.

Again, this is ultimately what everyone does.

Do you stand on natural language being a bar to understanding that which does not have it's original expression in natural language? — tim wood

I wasn't saying something without context, so that I'd say it about any and every arbitrary thing.

Specifically with formal logic, it's important to not try to translate things like conditionals into natural language in order to grasp/remember the truth tables, because they don't work well with conventional natural language semantics. The first post in this thread is a good example why.

Seems to me you yourself still fall back on them, even if you're just doing it "intuitively." — Artemis

I don't though. I intentionally try to intuit how I feel about a particular situation, simply as that particular situation. I particularly have a distaste for what I consider overreactions, and those tend to follow from people relying on a principle-oriented approach.

When I'm talking about your personal moral maxim, it doesn't matter what other people consider these terms to mean. — Artemis

The problem is that I don't frame anything in terms of "suffering." (Or any sort of unqualified "harm" even.) "Suffering" is not a term that I normally use in any context, unless someone else is using the term.

And your example about offense simply implies that sometimes you think offense is a necessary thing. — Artemis

Again, in my view, that would have to hinge on wants/desires. But understanding that, sure.

Would you beat up a small child in an alleyway if you knew you could get away with it and suffer absolutely zero social or financial or other external consequences? — Artemis

I wouldn't beat up anyone "out of the blue," where it's not in response to something. That's not my personality.

How then are we to proceed? — tim wood

You proceed by understanding the conditional truth table as the conditional truth table. Just take it for what it is.

Wait, are you saying that your words have meaning independent of how I interpreted their meaning? — Harry Hindu

Sure, insofar as other people are applying meaning to them. That would be independent of the meaning you're assigning.

What does this response have to do with the question I asked you, though?

Are you saying that I am wrong in how I interpreted the meaning of your words? — Harry Hindu

Wtf? I'm asking you a question re why you'd think I'd not believe that there are objective processes. What's the answer to why you'd think I'd not believe that there are any objective processes?

Asking you a question isn't saying something. It's asking you a question.

I'm asking how can we ever not fail to communicate given your claims. — Harry Hindu

I explained this already. You didn't comment on it. That's because you sidetracked with the nonsensical critical comments about the idea of copies, based apparently on a belief that I don't think there are any objective processes, though who knows where you're getting that belief from.

Her was the explanation again: "Practically, it doesn't matter, as long as interaction with someone makes sense to both parties. We communicate via saying things that we each assign meaning to, and as long as the meanings are coherent to each of us, as well as consistent over time, over similar utterances, etc., we consider it successful."

If the information in the CDs is the same, — Harry Hindu

It's not literally the same. Again, I'm a nominalist. I explained this already.

How is it subjective when your experience is part of the world — Harry Hindu

Is there a reason to believe that I'd say that "subjective" implies "not a part of the world"? No. It's subjective because we're talking about a brain functioning in a mental way, and that can only be experienced/observed by the brain in question. It's a phenomenon, in the world, that only occurs from the perspective of being a particular material in particular states.

Both of which aren't conscious-like, so how does consciousness get input from the senses and produce output in our behavior? — Harry Hindu

Your eyes, for example, send information (electrochemical signals) to your brain. Your consciousness is your brain functioning in particular ways. Likewise your brain sends signals to muscles and so on so that you can speak, move your limbs, etc. Why in the world would I need to explain this to you? Are we in kindergarten or something?

Okay, so then you must have some underlying principles you fall back on? — Artemis

No. Because I think that seeing any moral principle as a trump card (so you're falling back on it) always results in ridiculous policies.

Re "unncessary suffering," first, I think that both parts of that--especially the "suffering" part, are very vague with respect to how people use those terms. A lot of things that I see people call "suffering" are not something that I consider morally problematic at all. Some things that almost everyone considers "suffering" I think are either neutral or positive and/or indicative of a problem (like a mental problem) on the sufferer's part.

Re necessity, in this sort of context, I consider necessity/needs to hinge on wants/desires.

So an example is saying something that offends someone else. I not only see that as not morally problematic, I see it as desirable to offend the offendable, and I see it as indicative of a problem on the offendees part that they were offended. Which is a reason that I think this is a good thing--knowing that you're offendable should be a cue to work on yourself and fix those issues.

Conditionals really aren't meant as natural language if-then statements.

How is that an important part of consciousness? — Harry Hindu

Because the whole gist of it is (subjective) experience.

What is a bearer of consciousness — Harry Hindu

A particular person who is conscious/who has experiences. We're talking about their consciousness/their experiences.

and how can something be experientially to it? What does that even mean? — Harry Hindu

They have experiences. Those experiences have properties.

if it's not the same, then how does consciousness and the world interact? — Harry Hindu

Through our senses (for input) and our motor skills (for output).

How do you differentiate that from essentially a moral code? — Artemis

I wouldn't say there's any conventional difference between the two (and I don't use the terms differently . . . well, not that I even use the phrase "moral code").

Seems to me at least any intuition could be formally stated as a type of premise? — Artemis

Sure, it could.

This isn't meant as glib, but this is why we caution that formal logic isn't to be understood by translating it into natural language. Trying to parse formal logic with natural language semantics only creates confusion.

It all is eventually.

LOL. How can there be a copy of anything? Doesn't that require an objective process? — Harry Hindu

Wait--Is there some reason to believe that I do not believe there are objective processes?

This is what we call a failure of communication, by the way.

Could imagines scenarios not fall under the category of social, psychological and linguistic etc empirical data? For example when the imagined scenario is written down and becomes a literary work of fiction or when the imagined scenario is explained to the psychologist and the sociologist is looking for trends and patterns in accounts of people’s imaginings? — Mark Dennis

That's fine, but you could imagine something and keep it to yourself, too.

This is just plain wrong. For example a pragmatist can still be religious and a moral realist. A pragmatist can believe in the concept of pragmatic moral truth and pure yet unknowable moral truth. He just resigns himself to using pragmatic truth in place of pure truth but understands that the drive to find pure truth is what leads to improving pragmatic truth. — Mark Dennis

I don't think you're understanding what I wrote there. For pragmatism to IMPLY a belief in objective morality, that means that one can not be a pragmatist without buying objective morality.

But that's not the case. One can be a pragmatist and either think that morality is subjective or one could remain agnostic about the question.

Then we would all come to different meanings. How is it that we don't? — Harry Hindu

First, literally, we must come to different meanings, because numerically distinct things can not be identical. That's just like saying that two copies of the "same" Beatles CD have to literally be different.

Like the copies of the Beatles CD, though, the meanings we come to could be as similar as those copies are.

The problem is that we don't know, and there's absolutely no way to know, because you can't observe someone else's mind.

Practically, it doesn't matter, as long as interaction with someone makes sense to both parties. We communicate via saying things that we each assign meaning to, and as long as the meanings are coherent to each of us, as well as consistent over time, over similar utterances, etc., we consider it successful.

Often that doesn't go so well, as with just a few posts ago when I said, "I continually need to try to figure out what the f- you're even on about."

What do you use to make these judgements? Your opinions and preferences on empirical data? — Mark Dennis

Not just me, but everyone uses their dispositions/intuitive feelings. It can both be in response to empirical observations and in response to imagining scenarios.

Sure the do have a objective meaning. You typed them, didn't you? — Harry Hindu

You can't literally type a meaning. You can only produce marks on a screen or paper or whatever. Those marks aren't literally meaning. They don't literally contain or encode etc. meaning, either. Meaning isn't a property that we can find in them. Meaning is a way that we think about them.

After thinking it over you realise that the only real conflict there is that Relativists don’t believe their is a objective moral absolute to be found whereas pragmatists do, — Mark Dennis

Pragmatism in no way implies a belief in objective morality (absolutes or not), but sure, it wouldn't preclude them.

Relativism precludes a belief in an absolute objective morality, but not belief in objective morality that's not absolute but relative.

I don't buy any objectivity for moral stances, however.

I'm not sure I understand how you can have an "ethics" of any sort without some principles you fall back on?

Like, you previously stated something along the lines of judging each situation individually, but on what basis do you make a judgement? — Artemis

The basis upon which anyone makes any moral judgment is their dispositions or intuited feelings about interpersonal behavior. That's how people wind up forwarding or buying into moral principles as well.

My ethics is my set of preferences/judgments about interpersonal behavior (more significant than etiquette)

it’s a simple question. Here it is even more simply; Do you believe all moral debate is pointless/useless? — Mark Dennis

I'm very behind in responding. I don't know if I responded to this.

No, I don't think that it's useless. I think that it's pragmatically useful for helping to clarify views as well as for trying to influence others.

Where is your explanation or definition - only in your head, or is it out on the forum right now? When we point to your explanation, do we point to your head, or at the screen? Is the screen or your head existing independent of anyone's view of it? — Harry Hindu

It depends on what you're referring to and how you're referring to it. The marks on the screen are objective, obviously. But they have no meaning objectively. You can refer to the marks on the screen as an explanation--that's a shorthand way of saying "These are the marks that I assign the sort of meaning to that I call an 'explanation'"

What have 'properties' got to do with measures of the degree to which I find a model to be right? — Isaac

There's no way to check anything about any model if there are no objective properties. What would you be checking?

Right. Which is exactly what I'm saying. There is no 'way things are' there's only the 'way things seem from here' or the 'way things seem from there' (where 'here' and 'there' are not here limited to spatial specifications), so where does this leave your "there is a coin"? Only from a certain perspective. — Isaac

That wasn't at all what I was saying though. I'm not talking about seeming first off (or not just about that--again this is not about consciousness). There is a way that things are, but the way that things are is always from some point of reference. Things aren't identical from every point of reference. That's not a seeming. That's a reality.

Why not? What would constrain it? — Terrapin Station


Biology. — Isaac

How if biology is a concept you created and it has no properties independent of that?

Is what you did really the case, independent of what I thought you did? — Harry Hindu

I just wrote: "if I were to give an explanation or definition (per what I consider that obviously)"

How would that be independent of anyone's view?