Syllogism: Morality is an Objective Fact

[Iwannaplato]

Maybe I have a weird fetish then, because if that's insulting my intelligence, then please insult me

I get the feeling that Age is going to write a post about us and not the topic and in this post he will accuse us of writing posts about other people and not the topic. IOW he's going to do precisely what he is complaining about. If only he would ask for clarification about why we are writing about him and not the topic. And I'll bet he still doesn't actually answer your earlier question. It's as if he hasn't notice how often he evades answering, for example by asking questions in response to requests for clarification.

And as far as the topic: poor VA doesn't seem to realize that his syllogism is conflating the existence of humans having morals being objective with any of the morals or moral attitudes themselves being objective.

P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
P2 Morality is part of human nature
C1 Morality is an objective fact

One could easiy substitute
hallucinations
dreams
fantasies

for 'morality' in the above syllogisms.

These phenomena also exist as parts of human nature. But this does not entail that their contents are objectively accurate about the nature of something else.

[Flannel Jesus]

Maybe I have a weird fetish then, because if that's insulting my intelligence, then please insult me

I get the feeling that Age is going to write a post about us and not the topic and in this post he will accuse us of writing posts about other people and not the topic. IOW he's going to do precisely what he is complaining about. If only he would ask for clarification about why we are writing about him and not the topic. And I'll bet he still doesn't actually answer your earlier question. It's as if he hasn't notice how often he evades answering, for example by asking questions in response to requests for clarification.

Not only is he going to write a post about us and not the topic, he's going to write it starting with "and this proves how people back in those days thought such-and-such", for his audience in the future.

And as far as the topic: poor VA doesn't seem to realize that his syllogism is conflating the existence of humans having morals being objective with any of the morals or moral attitudes themselves being objective.

P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
P2 Morality is part of human nature
C1 Morality is an objective fact

One could easiy substitute
hallucinations
dreams
fantasies

for 'morality' in the above syllogisms.

These phenomena also exist as parts of human nature. But this does not entail that their contents are objectively accurate about the nature of something else.

I was trying to think of a good analogy for it, glad you got there

[Skepdick]

These phenomena also exist as parts of human nature. But this does not entail that their contents are objectively accurate about the nature of something else.

You are pre-supposing that being "objectively accurate about the nature of things" is even something coherent. From a instrumentalist point of view I have absolutely no idea what that even means.

If you are really doubting the existence of an outer-most FSK then how are you judging that the contents of your judgments are accurate about the nature of the thing being judged? What's your "accuracy" FSK?

And as far as the topic: poor VA doesn't seem to realize that his syllogism is conflating the existence of humans having morals being objective with any of the morals or moral attitudes themselves being objective.

He isn't doing the conflation though. The default position for any realist that isn't lying about their realism is that everything is objective.
Therefore the contents of human brains are also objective.
Therefore attitudes are objective.
Therefore moral attitudes are objective.

This is how deduction works. Right?!?

It's philosophers who are doing the mental gymnastics and apologetics necessary to explain why deduction doesn't apply in this case.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I was trying to think of a good analogy for it, glad you got there

I am not that stupid to claim what is hallucinated and dreamt as empirically objective.

What is a fact are the biological elements that cause a person to hallucinate, dream or fantasize.
It is fact that ALL normal humans dream about something.
The psychological fact of dreaming within the psychological-FSK is related to the neural mechanisms that trigger a person to dream.

• What are the neural mechanisms and physiological functions of dreams?
  Two major theories have been proposed regarding the neural circuits involved in dreaming. One is that dreams are generated by the activation of neural activity in the brainstem and its signal transmission to the cortex. The other is that dreams are caused by forebrain activation by dopamine.
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36572252/#

[Harbal]

I am not that stupid to claim what is hallucinated and dreamt as empirically objective.

But one could hardly be blamed for thinking you might be.

[Iwannaplato]

I was trying to think of a good analogy for it, glad you got there

And here's the response...

I am not that stupid to claim what is hallucinated and dreamt as empirically objective.

But we knew that. It is an assumption in my response to him earlier in the thread. For while he does not read me, my responses filter into the conversation. IOW...
Exactly, one wouldn't say that....
However the syllogism

P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
P2 Morality is part of human nature
C1 Morality is an objective fact

works equally well for those conclusions because his syllogism is conflating two things....
The existence of a cognitive phenomenon
with
the accuracy of the information in that cognitive phenomenon. (or 'the opinions' in that phenomenon)

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, it's clearly not about stupidity, it's about the applicability of the format of argument to arguments he's not intending to make, but which have apparently the same validity (or invalidity)

[Skepdick]

the accuracy of the information in that cognitive phenomenon. (or 'the opinions' in that phenomenon)

Yes, it's clearly not about stupidity, it's about the applicability of the format of argument to arguments he's not intending to make, but which have apparently the same validity (or invalidity)

No discussion on applicability is ever complete without a discussion on self-applicability.

What methodology; or framework; or procedure; or measurement instrument (pick the phrase you like here if you want to nitpick semantics) do you propose we use in order to ascertain the "accuracy" of the information contained?

And before you respond with the usual "correspondence to reality" mumbo jumbo...

What methodology; or framework; or procedure; or measurement instrument (pick the phrase you like here if you want to nitpick semantics) do you propose we use in order to ascertain the "correspondence" of the information contained?

For some reason Philosophers keep side-stepping the bootstrapping problem with respect to adjectival judgments.

[Harbal]

For some reason Philosophers keep side-stepping the bootstrapping problem with respect to adjectival judgments.

I must admit; I'm always doing that.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, it's clearly not about stupidity, it's about the applicability of the format of argument to arguments he's not intending to make, but which have apparently the same validity (or invalidity)

For me it's a kind of practical issue.
I see a would-be-bureaucrat intending to be part of a utopian future - VA.
He sees a future where genetic modification, AI and likely other technologies can perfect the human, mainly through getting brains to have the oughtnesses he wants.
So, in his flailing way he engages various tools in this enterprise, hoping to gain power through them.
Here: a syllogism.
The syllogism in question is only a small part of the vast array of texts and arguments he is trying to use like levers here to get his ideas into minds.
In parallel - out there in the wider world - there are many technocrats with similar hopes and plans, many with the practical skills to contribute to these utopian futures, plus the backing of organizations - generaly corporations, or corporate financed research in universities, perhaps with some government research monies involved also.

So, he picks a tool, and give a specific use of that tool.
Me, knowing the wider set of his beliefs, sense his contribution or intended contribution is to what I would experience as dystopia.
So, I want to undermine his use of tools, here the specific syllogism.

In a way it's easy, because, as many have noticed, he doesn't check his tools very well. This is clearest in his choices of texts. He often aims philosophical texts at PH but hasn't read the texts very well. Sometimes they say the opposite of what he thinks it does. Something it undermines PH but undermines his own position even more. Sometimes the text is pointing out the problems of positions similar to PH's positions, but not the same as them (and even includes a clear distinction between the cases). Sometimes the texts are irrelevant.

Often the texts are used in an appeal to authority way. This philosopher X disagree with a position Y, a position that PH has or might have. This is treated as proof that the issue is settled and PH is some primitive philosopher, living with a dead philosophy. Some of the texts he has done this with even state that there is philosophical controversy still over the issue, and not a fringe element still clinging to the past.

Unfortunately the flailing approach of his seems coupled with a flailing reading comprehension.

So, in the syllogism example, he managed to feel insulted that anyone would say that he had the beliefs entailed by his syllogism, when in fact, one (being me) had a distant, tiny hope that he would realize there was a problem with his syllogism, not for us, but for him, precisely because of how it could be misused from his perspective.

But, he only looked at the end results and could easily, with outrage, dismiss their relationship to him.

He's a pragmatist to the bone when it suits him.

So, I have no real solution to VA. And unfortunately societies that are dystopian for me actually do depend on people like VA. They don't have to be AI designers or effective politicians. But they can be cogs in the machine, even at some fairly high levels.

[Harbal]

So, I have no real solution to VA.

Have you tried applying the crackpot FSK to the problem?

[Iwannaplato]

So, I have no real solution to VA.

Have you tried applying the crackpot FSK to the problem?

Well, the crackpot FSK has been assessed by VA as only 2.3 effective on the ten point scale.

On a FSK basis, there are astrological facts [as defined], but I would rate them with no credibility at all, but if I am driven by science of no absolute certainty, then I can rate it as a 0.00001/100 fact which is as good as nonsense. [just like Dawkins having to rate himself as a 6/7 [85.71%] atheist since he as a scientist cannot claim absolute 100% certainty]

Unfortunately I can't find the full list of his numerical assessments.

Well, have to wait for the book.

[Harbal]

Unfortunately I can't find the full list of his numerical assessments.

Well, have to wait for the book.

Those FSKs are wonderful things. You can dream up any crazy thing you like, and all you need is the right FSK to make it come true.

[Flannel Jesus]

Unfortunately I can't find the full list of his numerical assessments.

Well, have to wait for the book.

Those FSKs are wonderful things. You can dream up any crazy thing you like, and all you need is the right FSK to make it come true.

But the trick is, as long as you're not thinking about the fsk, it's no longer true. So it's only ever fleetingly true, for a moment.

Like unicorns, whose existence relies on your faith in them. If you stop believing, they die.

[Harbal]

But the trick is, as long as you're not thinking about the fsk, it's no longer true. So it's only ever fleetingly true, for a moment.

I don't think there's much danger of VA not thinking about FSKs.