(March 5, 2017 at 12:56 am)Jesster Wrote: Yeah, I'm done with your insistence on over-complicating every little thing with pseudoscience and woo. Have fun with this one. I think you're way off the mark, especially with your twisting of very basic definitions, but I am remembering very clearly now why I shouldn't bother arguing with you. I don't have the patience for this. If you can't pick between "A" and "not A" by now, I'm out.

QM isn't pseudoscience.  Nor is establishing that people are objective mechanisms as well as subjective agents woo.  But maybe we can play a game-- how many times will you keep saying how much you hate talking with me and that you're out before you actually stop posting?

---

(March 5, 2017 at 4:40 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: You are looking at the difference between subjectivity and objectively from a false standpoint, it is about dependency of propositions, what we think of as truths. 
If morality is subjective, it is dependent upon personal conception, if morality is objective, it is independent of personal conception and would still be true even if humans and their conceptions went extinct.

It is objectively true that some people have blue eyes, and this would no longer be true if humans were extinct. We would have to speak of blue eyes in the past tense: "Some people HAD blue eyes." Similarly, we can say objectively that at moment X in human evolution, the prevalent moral ideas were Y and Z, as observed in written and video records, in laws, and so on.

Morality is an interaction among DNA, its physical expression in the human brain, and the environment, as all ideas are. That the machine experiences some of the formation of ideas does not separate it from the unity of the single objective reality that Jesster posits. If you had access to enough of the world, you could say, "This was the brain structure of person X at moment Y, this was the totality of the physical process of the brain, and this was the resultant idea." Unless you are asserting that there is something about human experience which goes beyond the function of the brain, then it should be pretty obvious that all "subjective" ideas are objective, and that we make a distinction due only to our interest in the experience of qualia.

(March 5, 2017 at 6:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: QM isn't pseudoscience.  Nor is establishing that people are objective mechanisms as well as subjective agents woo.  But maybe we can play a game-- how many times will you keep saying how much you hate talking with me and that you're out before you actually stop posting?

(March 5, 2017 at 6:28 am)Jesster Wrote:

(March 5, 2017 at 6:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: QM isn't pseudoscience.  Nor is establishing that people are objective mechanisms as well as subjective agents woo.  But maybe we can play a game-- how many times will you keep saying how much you hate talking with me and that you're out before you actually stop posting?

. . . and yet you keep posting.

(March 5, 2017 at 6:34 am)bennyboy Wrote: . . . and yet you keep posting.

Only because it's much more fun to laugh at you now.

(March 5, 2017 at 6:36 am)Jesster Wrote:

(March 5, 2017 at 6:34 am)bennyboy Wrote: . . . and yet you keep posting.

Only because it's much more fun to laugh at you now.

So we've officially arrived at the "fuck the OP, I'd rather troll" part of the thread?

Okay, let 'er rip.

PS you spelled "who's" wrongly. So you are all of wrong, unoriginal, AND a bad speller!

(March 4, 2017 at 11:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The experience of ideas is certainly subjective and not objective.  However, that's from inside the system.  For anyone outside you, everything you think and do is 100% objective.  They can see your facial movements, watch your brain blood flow in an fMRI, stick electrodes on your head and so on.

So are you arguing that a moral system is only an idea to be experienced subjectively, and not more than that?

The existence of thoughts is objective fact.

The value system defined by those thoughts also has objective existence, inasmuch as any concept does. The opinions offered by this value system remain subjective, because whether or not they are "true" depends on whether or not you share the same basis for making value judgments.

Moral systems have objective existence; it is objectively true that someone has thought of them. The opinions contained within that moral system are only subjectively true; whether or not you agree with them is contingent on you sharing the same basis for value judgment. In the same way, it is objectively true that I have opinions on which movies I consider "good", but whether or not you agree with those opinions is subjective, because it depends on whether or not you have the same criteria for defining what a "good" movie is.

This is not complicated.

(March 5, 2017 at 10:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: So we've officially arrived at the "fuck the OP, I'd rather troll" part of the thread?

Okay, let 'er rip.

PS you spelled "who's" wrongly.  So you are all of wrong, unoriginal, AND a bad speller!  

Nope. The OP is fine. I'm saying "fuck you and your inane philosophical crap."

PS I didn't make that meme or its bad spelling. I'm throwing bad memes at you until I think you are worthy of better (or until you move on). I am simply unoriginal, as is the nature of memes.

RE: Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

A:  Oh yeah, absolutely.

(March 5, 2017 at 6:10 am)bennyboy Wrote:

---

(March 5, 2017 at 4:40 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: You are looking at the difference between subjectivity and objectively from a false standpoint, it is about dependency of propositions, what we think of as truths. 
If morality is subjective, it is dependent upon personal conception, if morality is objective, it is independent of personal conception and would still be true even if humans and their conceptions went extinct.

It is objectively true that some people have blue eyes, and this would no longer be true if humans were extinct.  We would have to speak of blue eyes in the past tense: "Some people HAD blue eyes."  Similarly, we can say objectively that at moment X in human evolution, the prevalent moral ideas were Y and Z, as observed in written and video records, in laws, and so on.

Morality is an interaction among DNA, its physical expression in the human brain, and the environment, as all ideas are.  That the machine experiences some of the formation of ideas does not separate it from the unity of the single objective reality that Jesster posits.  If you had access to enough of the world, you could say, "This was the brain structure of person X at moment Y, this was the totality of the physical process of the brain, and this was the resultant idea."  Unless you are asserting that there is something about human experience which goes beyond the function of the brain, then it should be pretty obvious that all "subjective" ideas are objective, and that we make a distinction due only to our interest in the experience of qualia.

Again, objective moral values would mean morality is independent of human conception, subjective moral values would mean morality is dependent upon human conception. Humans have the ability to develop ideas (or truths) about the world, whether they correspond with the world or not, hence the terms "objective" and "subjective" are classifications. Ideas and the natural world are separate. 

What you say doesn't go against my point at all. If person A strongly asserts that an omnipotent and immaterial God exists, it would be objectively true that the state of the physical processes of the brain hold to this, but the truth of the world independent of our brains (which is objective reality) may not have this God.
Is this conception of God dependent upon the brain and the concepts perceived by it or independently exists from it? That would be the objective/subjective question. 

Yes, I am taking logical truths and propositions into account.

I think it would be more accurate to say that since both God and morality represent ideas, they are both made by the interaction between the human brain and its environment. You could say that one individual's ideas about morality are subjective TO HIM, but the cultural or species-wide mores are not.