Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]

[Terrapin Station]

You are prescribing that oughts/shoulds must be sought extramentally.

No I'm not. I'm not prescribing anything for anyone.

[Skepdick]

No I'm not. I'm not prescribing anything for anyone.

Then why are you excluding parts of reality in your search parameters?

[Terrapin Station]

No I'm not. I'm not prescribing anything for anyone.

Then why are you excluding parts of reality in your search parameters?

I'm not.

[Skepdick]

No I'm not. I'm not prescribing anything for anyone.

Then why are you excluding parts of reality in your search parameters?

I'm not.

You are....

You explicitly specified the search location as extramental.

You are excluding parts of reality from your search.

Why?

Searching for anything that could count as an extramental "should/ought"

Why ought shoulds and oughts be extramental?

[Terrapin Station]

Then why are you excluding parts of reality in your search parameters?

I'm not.

You are....

You explicitly specified the search location as extramental.

If we're wondering if there are any objective normatives or ethical edicts, or if we're wondering whether any extramental facts imply any normatives, that's the topic!

You're not going to look at whether any normatives or moral edicts occur as mental phenomena because that's not at issue; there's no dispute about that.

For the hundredth time, the is/ought issue isn't a dispute over whether it's a fact that people say things like "I ought to pay my taxes." No one is disputing that. The issue is over whether the extramental fact that you'll get thrown in jail if you don't pay your taxes implies that you ought to pay your taxes.

[Skepdick]

If we're wondering if there are any objective normatives or ethical edicts, or if we're wondering whether any extramental facts imply any normatives, that's the topic!

You're not going to look at whether any normatives or moral edicts occur as mental phenomena because that's not at issue; there's no dispute about that.

For the hundredth time, the is/ought issue isn't a dispute over whether it's a fact that people say things like "I ought to pay my taxes." No one is disputing that. The issue is over whether the extramental fact that you'll get thrown in jail if you don't pay your taxes implies that you ought to pay your taxes.

We aren't wondering any such things.

If reality is all that exists, and there's such thing as an "ought" (and there must be, since you are talking about it) then it must be part of "all there is".

If oughts are not part of "all there is" then... what the fuck are you talking about?
If oughts are part of "all there is" then.... Why do you prescribe "objectivity" as mind-independence? Why doesn't "objectivity" correspond exactly to "all that exists"?

You really can't seem to string a sentence together to be able to explain what the dispute is about.

[Skepdick]

The issue is over whether the extramental fact that you'll get thrown in jail if you don't pay your taxes implies that you ought to pay your taxes.

There is a universe in which the extramental fact "you'll get thrown in jail" implies that you ought to pay your taxes.
There's a universe in which the extramental fact "you'll get thrown in jail" doesn't imply that you ought to pay your taxes.

Which fucking universe are you in?

THE ONE YOU CREATE.

[Terrapin Station]

We aren't wondering any such things.

We are when we ask if there are any objective normatives or ethical edicts, or when we talk about the is/ought problem.

That's the topic when those issues come up.

It's fine if you're not interested in that topic, but that's what the topic is.

[Skepdick]

We aren't wondering any such things.

We are when we ask if there are any objective normatives or ethical edicts, or when we talk about the is/ought problem.

That's the topic when those issues come up.

It's fine if you're not interested in that topic, but that's what the topic is.

This is a normative framing of the topic.

I am fine if you keep pretending that it isn't, but I'll keep pointing out that it is.

[Terrapin Station]

There is a universe in which the extramental fact "you'll get thrown in jail" implies that you ought to pay your taxes.

Suppose that's the case. How does that work in that universe, and what would count as evidence for it?

[Skepdick]

Suppose that's the case. How does that work in that universe, and what would count as evidence for it?

The evidence is whatever mechanism you used to excluded the other possible universe!

[Terrapin Station]

We aren't wondering any such things.

We are when we ask if there are any objective normatives or ethical edicts, or when we talk about the is/ought problem.

That's the topic when those issues come up.

It's fine if you're not interested in that topic, but that's what the topic is.

This is a normative framing of the topic.

It's not a normative. I'm not telling anyone that that's what they ought to/should be talking about. I don't care what you talk about. I'm just telling you that that's what the vast majority of people are talking about re those topics. That's the issue. Otherwise it wouldn't even be clear that there's any issue, that there's any dispute.

[Terrapin Station]

Suppose that's the case. How does that work in that universe, and what would count as evidence for it?

The evidence is whatever mechanism you used to excluded the other possible universe!

So you have no idea. It would be far more interesting if you did have an idea.

[Skepdick]

It's not a normative. I'm not telling anyone that that's what they ought to/should be talking about. I don't care what you talk about. I'm just telling you that that's what the vast majority of people are talking about re those topics. That's the issue. Otherwise it wouldn't even be clear that there's any issue, that there's any dispute.

So you are appealing to a bandwagon fallacy to justifying your normative semantics/framing of the issue.

[Terrapin Station]

It's not a normative. I'm not telling anyone that that's what they ought to/should be talking about. I don't care what you talk about. I'm just telling you that that's what the vast majority of people are talking about re those topics. That's the issue. Otherwise it wouldn't even be clear that there's any issue, that there's any dispute.

So you are appealing to a bandwagon fallacy to justifying your normative semantics/framing of the issue.

There's no justification necessary. It's just a matter of whether we're talking about one thing or another.