Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,642 - 5,653 of 6,170
Posts 5,642 - 5,653 of 6,170
Bev writes [Message 5640]:
He goes too far in assume it is the same value system and world view in all people (sort of like Irina's objective evil).
What I am saying is somewhat different. I am not saying that we all agree about morals. I am saying that certain things would be true whether we agreed about them or not. Even if no one had even formulated the idea that torturing babies just for fun is morally wrong, it would be. With a tiny number of exceptions, truths are true regardless of who, if anyone, believes in them.
If this were not so, having opinions would be a lot easier. Whatever I believed would thereby be true 'for me', and if there's nothing more to be had than that, I might as well formulate my beliefs in the most labor-saving way possible.
Nor would there be any particular reason for seeking agreement. In fact, diversity is often considered to be a good thing; why should this not apply to diversity of belief? How much richer the world would be if everyone had a different opinion on every subject! One might believe that 2+2=pi, another that 2+2=0, and so on. In each case it would be true 'for him', and, if there's no more to be said, what would be the problem?
If this were not so, having opinions would be a lot easier. Whatever I believed would thereby be true 'for me', and if there's nothing more to be had than that, I might as well formulate my beliefs in the most labor-saving way possible.
Nor would there be any particular reason for seeking agreement. In fact, diversity is often considered to be a good thing; why should this not apply to diversity of belief? How much richer the world would be if everyone had a different opinion on every subject! One might believe that 2+2=pi, another that 2+2=0, and so on. In each case it would be true 'for him', and, if there's no more to be said, what would be the problem?
Irina, I think we had this discussion before. You know I think math is merely an abstract tool that helps us describe and work with the outside word, but that math has no physical existence outside of the way we define and use it. That is not to say math is "subjective" in the sense that if you accept certain premises and primitives, then you logically arrive at certain conclusions. However, change the rules and primitives, we get different results. Change the base of your number system from ten to 2 and there is no 5. Add a few dimensions or curves and Euclid may not be as useful. (Einstein had to use that crazy hyperbolic geometry, didn't he?) Math is a useful tool because of the way we can use it to make deductions about the data we collect, but it is a abstract concept that exists because we made it up. To clarify, we did not make up the physical relationships or the things like physical properties and phenomenon we observe, but we do create ways or organizing the information, setting up rules to help us think about it, and the logical mechanisms for making conclusions such as 2 + 2 = 4 (+ or - 1 if you are an engineer). Math is what I was calling a mental construct till Ulrike made fun of me for overusing the phrase. Still, it's an abstract concept we made up, teach and learn--a big old mind game with practical value when we apply it to data. Only the physical phenomenon studied and measured exists outside our heads.
Human values are abstract like math but the choice of values and definitions remain subjective because you will not get people to agree to use the same definitions and value system--even if you did it would be a convenience, like the definition and primitives in math, and ultimately a dead-end because you would achieve no more than simple logic, social conventions, and the legal system already have. There is no "evil" but what we define as evil--and you and I have different definitions, even if there are many things we end up agreeing on as a practical matter. What makes one definition more "right" or "objective" than another?
Human values are abstract like math but the choice of values and definitions remain subjective because you will not get people to agree to use the same definitions and value system--even if you did it would be a convenience, like the definition and primitives in math, and ultimately a dead-end because you would achieve no more than simple logic, social conventions, and the legal system already have. There is no "evil" but what we define as evil--and you and I have different definitions, even if there are many things we end up agreeing on as a practical matter. What makes one definition more "right" or "objective" than another?
Bev writes:
Change the base of your number system from ten to 2 and there is no 5.
Sure there is. It's just that you would now be calling it "101".
The
numeral "5" would no longer be in use, but the number 5 would still exist, and 2+2 would still equal 4, although we would write that as 10+10=100.
Let's say that everyone on an airplane believes that (in binary) 10+10=111 (i.e., 2+2=7). In fact, the plane's computer is wired in accordance with that idea. That plane is going to crash, even 'for them'.
Sure there is. It's just that you would now be calling it "101".
The
numeral "5" would no longer be in use, but the number 5 would still exist, and 2+2 would still equal 4, although we would write that as 10+10=100.
Let's say that everyone on an airplane believes that (in binary) 10+10=111 (i.e., 2+2=7). In fact, the plane's computer is wired in accordance with that idea. That plane is going to crash, even 'for them'.
Bev writes [message 5643]:
Human values are abstract like math but the choice of values and definitions remain subjective because you will not get people to agree to use the same definitions and value system
You are probably right that people will never completely agree about morals, but then, when I say that there is an objective truth about morals, I mean that certain moral claims are true whether or not anyone believes them. So the fact that people disagree is irrelevant.
Not that I want to ague too much about the meaning of words. If you want to define "subjective" to mean "disagreed about", then fine, I agree that morals is 'subjective' in your sense of the word. I will, however, coin the word "abjective", meaning something whose truth is independent of people's belief in it, and I will claim that moral truths are abjective.
Who knows? If the Nazis had won the war, everyone might eventually have come to believe that the holocaust (which would have been carried out to the last Jew, Slav, etc.) was a good thing. But it would still have been a bad thing.
You are probably right that people will never completely agree about morals, but then, when I say that there is an objective truth about morals, I mean that certain moral claims are true whether or not anyone believes them. So the fact that people disagree is irrelevant.
Not that I want to ague too much about the meaning of words. If you want to define "subjective" to mean "disagreed about", then fine, I agree that morals is 'subjective' in your sense of the word. I will, however, coin the word "abjective", meaning something whose truth is independent of people's belief in it, and I will claim that moral truths are abjective.
Who knows? If the Nazis had won the war, everyone might eventually have come to believe that the holocaust (which would have been carried out to the last Jew, Slav, etc.) was a good thing. But it would still have been a bad thing.
Hey! What happened to all you others? What is this, "High Noon"? You have slunk away with your tails between your legs to let Bev and I battle it out? Cowards! [snorts in disgust]
Irina, you are missing the distinction between the logical tools use to derive sound conclusions from data and the data itself. There is a physical world that is true--objectively true whether people exist or not. That plane will crash if it takes the wrong path. Some algorithms will be useful in determine a good path, but the algorithm is only useful in so far as it has good data fed into it and it describes some sort of relationship to the outside world (physics). "Evil" is not like the plane. It exists only as a concept.
If all sentient beings disappeared, the earth would still be here, existing without anyone to think of 5 or evil. There may still be elements and relationships some people would argue correspond to 5 in some way (or would do if they existed) but there is no physical 5ness. To say 5 exist in another base by another name is to say that the same concepts may be called one word in a given language (hello) and by another word in another languages (hola) but mises the point that both were made up by people. Sure, both terms mean the same thing to the people using them, but without people there would be no hello. Without people there would be no 5. Without people there would be no evil.
At least with math and language, people can agree to certain rules and conventions so that they can both be useful tools in the world. They are only good within the system created, however, and the outcome is only good if the chosen rules correspond to whatever aspect of he physical world we need to apply that tool to in order to use it. "Evil" may have it's uses as a concept, but it is more subjective because there is no logical system within which it operates (such as math or language) and there are many loose and changing definitions and no consistent rules in the study of evil.
If evil physically exists, independently of people or subjective judgments we should eb able to scientifically test it, like physics. What evidence would, in your mind, negate the independent existence of "evil" outside of human existence? How do we test it to reject the null hypothesis?
If all sentient beings disappeared, the earth would still be here, existing without anyone to think of 5 or evil. There may still be elements and relationships some people would argue correspond to 5 in some way (or would do if they existed) but there is no physical 5ness. To say 5 exist in another base by another name is to say that the same concepts may be called one word in a given language (hello) and by another word in another languages (hola) but mises the point that both were made up by people. Sure, both terms mean the same thing to the people using them, but without people there would be no hello. Without people there would be no 5. Without people there would be no evil.
At least with math and language, people can agree to certain rules and conventions so that they can both be useful tools in the world. They are only good within the system created, however, and the outcome is only good if the chosen rules correspond to whatever aspect of he physical world we need to apply that tool to in order to use it. "Evil" may have it's uses as a concept, but it is more subjective because there is no logical system within which it operates (such as math or language) and there are many loose and changing definitions and no consistent rules in the study of evil.
If evil physically exists, independently of people or subjective judgments we should eb able to scientifically test it, like physics. What evidence would, in your mind, negate the independent existence of "evil" outside of human existence? How do we test it to reject the null hypothesis?
[comes onstage with negligee and top hat]
Bev writes:
Without people there would be no 5.
If there were no people, how many legs would a starfish have?
Bev writes:
If there were no people, how many legs would a starfish have?
Irina, if there were no people (or sentient beings) there would be no need to describe the starfish or quantify it. There would be no counting or need for it. It would just be.
Psi, I meant to ask you, in the video, was the bot, remote controlled, running through a preset sequence, or using some sort of algorithm to determine it's next movement? Was there a person playing sounds through it's speakers or was there some speech synthesizer involved? More details!
Psi, I meant to ask you, in the video, was the bot, remote controlled, running through a preset sequence, or using some sort of algorithm to determine it's next movement? Was there a person playing sounds through it's speakers or was there some speech synthesizer involved? More details!
I'm trying to imagine a starfish with no particular number of legs...
If the starfish had the same DNA as starfish have now, and nothing abnormal happened, it would end up with five legs, I should think!
And I would imagine that there would be two kinds of charge, and two magnetic poles...
If the starfish had the same DNA as starfish have now, and nothing abnormal happened, it would end up with five legs, I should think!
And I would imagine that there would be two kinds of charge, and two magnetic poles...
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar