(March 29, 2019 at 3:41 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(March 29, 2019 at 3:31 pm)Acrobat Wrote: You're referring to the language used to express such concepts, I'm referring to what the language and symbols represents. If I gave you a pineapple and another pineapple later, you'll have two pineapples, regardless if I expressed this in hindi, or with a series of grunts.

Yes... I already agreed that certain 'Thing's are/might be ubiquitous.

'Splan' 'GLecvk' Splan' 'Spleed' 'Glorf', however, just doesn't have the same ring as some of your other examples now, does it?

We're of the agreement that language is subjective. At a base level. Like, all of it, yes?

Don’t know, haven’t though enough about it to say one way or the other. If I say there’s a cat outside on my porch, I’m describing reality, using terms that are part of the English language, if you’re not sure what my words mean of don’t understand the language you could use a dictionary or some book or program that translates into your language. I’m using word in way that I might use a picture of a cat outside my yard, I’m drawing the reality I see when looking at my porch using words.

Words can be use to describe objective and subjective things like my feeling about the Batman trilogy, etc..

(March 29, 2019 at 5:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: If truth is something pertaining to statements, then, in the absence of statements (which would happen in the absence of consciences), truth is non-existent.

Reality, though, would be what it is, regardless.



No truth pertains to facts about reality. Truth statements are language based descriptions of reality. Truth is no more dependent on our descriptions for its existence, than a mountain is dependent on a topographic map for its existence.

Quote:My question was more in line of what is an addition in the absence of a conscious entity?
Does reality do addition?
Does reality count items?

Reality need not do addition, for 1+1 =2, no more than reality needs to be conscious of the laws of physics, to be subject to it.

Quote:
Possibly... if they extrapolate torture to their own kind...
I don't know how wrong will they consider if it's done to the self species.
Also, you're assuming that a non-human would also categorize things as we do, with a pattern seeking brain. That need not be so.

That wasn’t the question. The question assumes the observers understands human subjective and objective perceptions, views and beliefs perceived as objective truths, like 1+1=2 and that which is perceived as subjective taste and opinions, like Fred’s has the best pizza in town. What an objective observer would recognize is that moral statements are not like subjective statements like the best pizza in town, but resemble the way we speak of objective truths like 1+1 = 2.

Quote: It shouldn't be surprising that our moral perceptions resemble the set of behaviors that lead to a healthy and thriving community. Some of those behaviors have been genetically selected for and are similar to those found in other social species, while other behaviors seem unique to or species and tend to be learned and imposed by society, either by laws and rules, or by peer pressure.

But we’re not talking about human behavior, but about human beliefs and perceptions. Its about the nature of moral beliefs, the ontology of mortality, not about the behaviors that stem from them. A thief can acknowledge that stealing is wrong, while stealing your wallet. A husband can acknowledge it’s wrong to cheat on his wife, while cheating on her.

Quote:It is typically described as something more akin to disgust... not a simple negative feeling, but one of the strongest there is.

Yet claiming something is immoral is not synonymous with claiming some thing is strongly disgusting to me. If you’re telling your children it’s wrong to cheat people, what you’re not saying is that it’s wrong because it disgusts me as a father. Im not telling them that they shouldn’t do wrong things, because it disgusts me.



Quote:Wrong. Psychological phenomena needs such an account.
You easily acknowledge that you have morals, that within you is a sense of a moral reality... but you can't bestow that moral reality upon the rest of the world.



The wrongness of torturing innocent babies, isn’t a psychological phenomena it’s an objective observation, like the laptop it front of me. Now, the question of why and how our minds perceive the laptop or the wrongness here, may be described psychologicaslly. But acknowledging the existence of things outside our mind, is not dependent on how well we understanding psychology or the origins of the things we’re perceiving. We experience it as self-evident, as self-evident as the existence of other minds outside our own, etc..

Quote:But why do you (and most of us) consider that harming another human being is morally wrong? (see?, it doesn't need to be torture and babies, nor for fun)
I'm certain that such a "rule" is not floating around in the ether and it somehow crystallizes upon most of the human brains…

Because of underlying core moral principles, floating around in the ether, in which all our moral views and perceptions are built and rely on. It’s not because you tell me torturing innocent babies just for fun is immoral, it’s not because I say it, its immoral, and its not because society says its wrong, but reality itself. Now maybe you’ve never actually dealt with immoral people personally. Revealing to someone that something they’re doing is wrong is not like changing their taste in fashion, its akin to revealing truth to someone ignorant or delusional, or taking a blindfold off.

Quote:But, if they perceive a lie to be a truth, then what you consider to be an evil, they consider to be a good.

A nazi might acknowledge that killing innocent people is wrong, but justify killing jews by a delusional belief that they’re not innocent but guilty. In order to scapegoat, murder, and justify their actions they can’t see the jews as innocent. It’s not that they disagree that killing innocent people is wrong, but because they fail to acknowledge that the jews were innocent.

The role of cognitive bias in shaping our morality seems to be missing from this discussion. It is sort of covered by 'false beliefs'. But it is cognitive biases that make us so susceptible to false beliefs. I have been pretty fascinated by how cognitive biases evolved in humanity, right along with morality. Cognitive bias can cause us to completely violate our morality while firmly believing that our morality is completely not compromised. Even if the compromise is pointed out to us, we frequently still can't see it. Entire societies are probably operating under the influence of cognitive bias all the time. But some truly toxic cognitive biases sweep through societies from time to time with atrocious results.

But for what possible reason did we evolve cognitive biases? They must help humanity to survive more than harm it. I guess 'morality' helps us cooperate, and cognitive bias maintains competitive tension between possibly competitive social groups. It allows us to cast aside our morality without feeling that we've compromised our morality. Very useful. Very dangerous.

(March 29, 2019 at 8:29 pm)Yonadav Wrote: It allows us to cast aside our morality without feeling that we've compromised our morality. Very useful. Very dangerous.

This seems important to me.

It means that despite wide variance of morality in different times and places, moral realism may still be true. Because we see how easy it is to overcome moral truths, based on self-interest and propaganda.

(March 29, 2019 at 8:29 pm)Yonadav Wrote: The role of cognitive bias in shaping our morality seems to be missing from this discussion. It is sort of covered by 'false beliefs'. But it is cognitive biases that make us so susceptible to false beliefs. I have been pretty fascinated by how cognitive biases evolved in humanity, right along with morality. Cognitive bias can cause us to completely violate our morality while firmly believing that our morality is completely not compromised. Even if the compromise is pointed out to us, we frequently still can't see it. Entire societies are probably operating under the influence of cognitive bias all the time. But some truly toxic cognitive biases sweep through societies from time to time with atrocious results.

But for what possible reason did we evolve cognitive biases? They must help humanity to survive more than harm it. I guess 'morality' helps us cooperate, and cognitive bias maintains competitive tension between possibly competitive social groups. It allows us to cast aside our morality without feeling that we've compromised our morality. Very useful. Very dangerous.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((90))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

"But some truly toxic cognitive biases sweep through societies from time to time with atrocious results."


Or as I like to call it 'bigotry'

Right now there  are 2 connected cognitive biases in my country, the first of which can certainly be seen in US and Uk, at least. 

The  broader one is what seems to me to be an hysterical anti Islamic bigotry. Close to home too: a certain dickhead here (who I am ignoring)  accused me of being brain washed because I disagree with what I see as his bigotry based on ignorance.  I think my position is informed, based on a combination of the experience of living in a Muslim country and formal study at university.
 
Specific to Oz;  Both major political parties have the policy of detaining refugees who arrive uninvited by boat in offshore detention camps.
Ignoring the fact that it is not an offence to simply arrive at a country's border and ask for refuge. Human right's watch dogs agree; Australia is in breech of the Human Rights Convention we signed, and we have been criticised by amnesty international
 for this practice. The Oz government has ignored all criticism.

In the meantime, both major political parties and apparently the majority of Aussies, think the present policy is just fucking dandy!

Ah; the numbers involved; there are currently about one thousand people in detention 1000. I'm not sure of the highest number at any one time, but capacity suggest around the same figure. People have been held in such centres for years.

Are those the kind of things you meant by 'toxic cognitive biases"?

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

context:

PERTH, Australia – When Iranian-Kurdish journalist Behrouz Boochani received the Victorian Prize in January, he did more than receive Australia's highest honor in literature. Unable to attend because of his internment at a detention center on Papua New Guinea, the award to Boochani renewed international attention on Australia's policies for people seeking asylum.
Boochani's prize-winning book, "No Friends but the Mountains: Writing From Manus Prison," details his experiences at the remote Pacific camp on Manus Island, a territory belonging to Papua New Guinea and where he has been held since 2013. He typed out the book in his mobile phone in Farsi, and used the What'sApp messaging platform to transmit a chapter at a time to a translator in Australia.
Australia has taken a hard line on asylum-seekers who arrive by boat, settling them offshore on Manus and on the Micronesian island nation of Nauru, vowing they will never enter Australia. Canberra runs these and five other on-shore detention centers for refugees who arrive by other means.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countri...l-election

(March 29, 2019 at 2:58 pm)Acrobat Wrote: If a dog takes two bones into the woods, and no one is around to count them, or give each bone the symbol of 1, and the symbol of 2, or "two", when combined. Does this mean he didn't take two bones into the woods?

If an irresistible tree fall on an unbreakable microphone what happens to the video recording of the event?

(March 29, 2019 at 8:00 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(March 29, 2019 at 5:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: If truth is something pertaining to statements, then, in the absence of statements (which would happen in the absence of consciences), truth is non-existent.

Reality, though, would be what it is, regardless.



No truth pertains to facts about reality. Truth statements are language based descriptions of reality. Truth is no more dependent on our descriptions for its existence, than a mountain is dependent on a topographic map for its existence.

FFS, stop making stupid analogies!

A fact is a true statement about reality.... or as true as human consensus makes it.

(March 29, 2019 at 8:00 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:My question was more in line of what is an addition in the absence of a conscious entity?
Does reality do addition?
Does reality count items?  

Reality need not do addition, for 1+1 =2, no more than reality needs to be conscious of the laws of physics, to be subject to it.

You are, of course, aware that what we call "laws of physics" are just our attempts at quantifying the patterns we observe in the way that reality works, right?

(March 29, 2019 at 8:00 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:
Possibly... if they extrapolate torture to their own kind...
I don't know how wrong will they consider if it's done to the self species.
Also, you're assuming that a non-human would also categorize things as we do, with a pattern seeking brain. That need not be so.

That wasn’t the question. The question assumes the observers understands human subjective and objective perceptions, views and beliefs perceived as objective truths, like 1+1=2 and that which is perceived as subjective taste and opinions, like Fred’s has the best pizza in town. What an objective observer would recognize is that moral statements are not like subjective statements like the best pizza in town, but resemble the way we speak of objective truths like 1+1 = 2.

The question assumes impartial observers... ideally non-human conscious observers. Aliens? Why would aliens have morals equivalent to humanity?

(March 29, 2019 at 8:00 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote: It shouldn't be surprising that our moral perceptions resemble the set of behaviors that lead to a healthy and thriving community. Some of those behaviors have been genetically selected for and are similar to those found in other social species, while other behaviors seem unique to or species and tend to be learned and imposed by society, either by laws and rules, or by peer pressure.

But we’re not talking about human behavior, but about human beliefs and perceptions. Its about the nature of moral beliefs, the ontology of mortality, not about the behaviors that stem from them. A thief can acknowledge that stealing is wrong, while stealing your wallet. A husband can acknowledge it’s wrong to cheat on his wife, while cheating on her.

Yes, but they only become relevant when they inform some action, some behavior.
If a positive disposition towards harming other humans is not passed on to a corresponding behavior, then such a trait tends to be propagated down the genetic line.
I don't know how wrong such a husband and thief would perceive what they're doing as they're doing it... typically, a greater good is somehow perceived.

(March 29, 2019 at 8:00 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:It is typically described as something more akin to disgust... not a simple negative feeling, but one of the strongest there is.

Yet claiming something is immoral is not synonymous with claiming some thing is strongly disgusting to me. If you’re telling your children it’s wrong to cheat people, what you’re not saying is that it’s wrong because it disgusts me as a father. Im not telling them that they shouldn’t do wrong things, because it disgusts me.



I see different degrees of reaction depending on the gravity of the (potential) action.
Certainly killing someone is more serious than infidelity which is more serious than cheating at some game... The emotional reaction to those should also fall within an equivalent scale.
"It's wrong to cheat and you should be ashamed" might be something that a parent may tell the child.
"It's wrong and disgusting to torture a baby" is another, but I'd prefer not to have to say such a thing to anyone.

(March 29, 2019 at 8:00 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:Wrong. Psychological phenomena needs such an account.
You easily acknowledge that you have morals, that within you is a sense of a moral reality... but you can't bestow that moral reality upon the rest of the world.



The wrongness of torturing innocent babies, isn’t a psychological phenomena it’s an objective observation, like the  laptop it front of me. Now, the question of why and how our minds perceive the laptop or the wrongness here, may be described psychologicaslly. But acknowledging the existence of things outside our mind, is not dependent on how well we understanding psychology or the origins of the things we’re perceiving. We experience it as self-evident, as self-evident as the existence of other minds outside our own, etc..

Again, you feel it as an objective observation very likely because it's an inherited trait stemming from inwardly acknowledging that such practices lead to a less healthy, less happy, more suffering population.
The same happens for things like incest.

(March 29, 2019 at 8:00 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:But why do you (and most of us) consider that harming another human being is morally wrong? (see?, it doesn't need to be torture and babies, nor for fun)
I'm certain that such a "rule" is not floating around in the ether and it somehow crystallizes upon most of the human brains…

Because of underlying core moral principles, floating around in the ether, in which all our moral views and perceptions are built and rely on. It’s not because you tell me torturing innocent babies just for fun is immoral, it’s not because I say it, its immoral, and its not because society says its wrong, but reality itself. Now maybe you’ve never actually dealt with immoral people personally. Revealing to someone that something they’re doing is wrong is not like changing their taste in fashion, its akin to revealing truth to someone ignorant or delusional, or taking a blindfold off.

It's immoral because of the awareness that carrying out such practices leads to a worse society. If this is what you mean by "reality itself", then so be it.
I'd say it's an observation of societies... an emergent property. While it seems to me that you imply that it's an inherent property of reality, even in the absence of a social species.

(March 29, 2019 at 8:00 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:But, if they perceive a lie to be a truth, then what you consider to be an evil, they consider to be a good.

A nazi might acknowledge that killing innocent people is wrong, but justify killing jews by a delusional belief that  they’re not innocent but guilty. In order to scapegoat, murder, and justify their actions they can’t see the jews as innocent. It’s not that they disagree that killing innocent people is wrong, but because they fail to acknowledge that the jews were innocent.

So you acknowledge the possibility of conflicting information. People then tend to act on that to which they attribute more weight.
After spending centuries marginalizing the Jews in Europe, nazis merely went the extra inch and did away with them.
Was it right to do such marginalization? From the overwhelming mideval European christian point of view, it was. From our more globalist point of view, it wasn't.

[quote pid='1895885' dateline='1553914496']

(March 29, 2019 at 2:58 pm)Acrobat Wrote: If a dog takes two bones into the woods, and no one is around to count them, or give each bone the symbol of 1, and the symbol of 2, or "two", when combined. Does this mean he didn't take two bones into the woods?

The clue is in the question. You stated that a dog takes two bones into the woods then asked if the dog took two bones into the wood.
The dog may not know this no one may know this but it is still what happened in your scenario.

[/quote]

(March 30, 2019 at 4:49 am)pocaracas Wrote: FFS, stop making stupid analogies!

A fact is a true statement about reality.... or as true as human consensus makes it.

I think it was WLC that noted that any argument made against objective morality, can be equally made against objective truth. Instead of me having to show you this, you seem to making this argument yourself. You’re not only denying mind independent/objective moral truths, but mind independent/truths all together.

My argument is that moral truths, are like objective truths about reality, and not like subjective opinions or tastes, and rather than arguing otherwise, you’ve resorted to denying the existence of objective truths all together. That they they cease to exist absent of conscience minds to confirm them. (I’m not sure why you don’t take it a step further and suggest that reality doesn’t exist absent of minds to confirm it’s existence). At this point you might as well argue for solipsism.

Rather than arguing against my point, you’ve just moved the argument some place else instead. It’s no longer about whether moral truth, is better categorized as objective or subjective, but whether there’s even such a thing as objective truth.

And you’ve done this repeatedly. Rather than dealing with the argument I made, you’ve tried to move it to some argument that barely resembles the one I’m making regarding morality.

Quote:The question assumes impartial observers... ideally non-human conscious observers. Aliens? Why would aliens have morals equivalent to humanity?

There you go again, changing my argument. I didn’t say anything about non-human, or alien observers, just an objective observers. I also didn’t say anything about this observers personal beliefs or own moral views. In fact all this observers needed to understand is the human genre of objective truths, vs that of subjective opinions and tastes, sort of like the observer understanding the human genres of writings, history, non-fiction, poetry, fiction, etc…, and as result can piece back together a layout of a bookstore and which books fall into which section, as result of knowing the nature of various genres.

If they looked at the way we talk about morality, moral statements, moral arguments, moral beliefs, etc… they would recognize that such perceptions resemble objective truths, and not subjective opinions. The statements like torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, more resemble statements like 1+1 =2, and not statements like The Notebook was a terrible movie.

Quote:Yes, but they only become relevant when they inform some action, some behavior.
If a positive disposition towards harming other humans is not passed on to a corresponding behavior, then such a trait tends to be propagated down the genetic line.
I don't know how wrong such a husband and thief would perceive what they're doing as they're doing it... typically, a greater good is somehow perceived.

Again, shifting my argument. I’m arguing about moral beliefs and perceptions, and here you’re going on about moral behaviors.

Secondly, there’s plenty of things people know are wrong, yet do them. I know I shouldn’t eat that cookie, but I give into temptation. I know it’s wrong to cheat on my wife, but I couldn’t resist the temptation to do it. I know it’s wrong to keep the wallet you dropped, but the money is so tempting to keep.

“For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.”

Quote:Certainly killing someone is more serious than infidelity which is more serious than cheating at some game... The emotional reaction to those should also fall within an equivalent scale.
"It's wrong to cheat and you should be ashamed" might be something that a parent may tell the child.

Again, changing my argument. I indicated the moral statements, such as the ones I tell my children, are not akin to expressing my disgust, or implying that my children should act in ways that don’t disgust me.

Even the statement “its wrong to cheat and you should be ashamed”, doesn’t mean that it’s only wrong if you feel ashamed. It’s wrong even if you don’t feel ashamed about it.

Quote:"It's wrong and disgusting to torture a baby" is another,

Exactly, it’s wrong and disgusting. The meaning of wrong is not synomous with disgusting. Or else you statement would be “It’s disgusting and disgusting to torture a baby”

Quote:Again, you feel it as an objective observation very likely because it's an inherited trait stemming from inwardly acknowledging that such practices lead to a less healthy, less happy, more suffering population.
The same happens for things like incest.

I’m not feeling an objective observation, I’m perceiving and recognizing an objective observation. Might as well say I feel the chair in my room is real, because it’s an inherited trait.

But perhaps you mean something like this: That our strong feelings of disgust leads us to falsely believe that morality exist objectively. We feel the wrongness of something so strongly we can’t believe it’s just an internal biological sensation, we’re compelled to believe something like a moral law out there in the fabric of reality, like a mirage?

Quote:It's immoral because of the awareness that carrying out such practices leads to a worse society.

No it isn’t. In fact we seem aware of the wrongness of things, like torturing innocent babies just for fun, prior to assessing whether it has any real impact on our particular society or not.

Perhaps there’s some ruler in some country which we’re dependent on economically, who rapes and murders little children. We may find that it’s better for our society, and it’s material needs, not to intervene, to allow the practice to continue. But this doesn’t mean that we don’t see the act as wrong.

Torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, even if it has no real impact on the wellbeing of our particular society.

Quote:Was it right to do such marginalization? From the overwhelming mideval European christian point of view, it was. From our more globalist point of view, it wasn’t.

No, the overwhelming European christian view wasn’t that it’s okay to marginalize people, to scapegoat, or blame innocent people for things they didn’t do. They just deluded themselves into denying that this is what they were doing. It’s not that we’re operating on the same perception of reality and disagreeing, but one is operating on a false perception of reality to justify their actions.

I'm sorry, did you just defend flying planes into buildings as religiously inspired moral behavior? Assphincter says what?

---

(March 29, 2019 at 2:54 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(March 29, 2019 at 2:38 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: -and since moral realism doesn't actually require the existence of a god..then they would be plain and simply wrong, just as you are plain and simply wrong.

It depends on what form of moral realism you're referring to, if its akin to some form of platonic moral realism, than yes that's dependent on platonic theism.

If the requirement is only a requirement of a subset of moral realism and not of the whole class of moral realism then it isn't a requirement of moral realism. You really suck at this thinking thing, don't you?