Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

QED? What do you think you've demonstrated? The truth of a claim? And is that 'your truth'?

I demonstrated that which was demonstrated.

Evasion. What was it that was demonstrated?

As I remember, you're not a Platonist; you don't think truth is an abstract thing of some kind which, therefore, may or may not exist somewhere, somehow. Is that right?

Truth is a concept. There are many conceptions of truth. They are ALL man-made.

Pure metaphysical nonsense. What and where is a concept? And how is a concept 'made'? Can you describe that process? And if there are 'many conceptions of truth', does that mean truth isn't one concept - so that your claim 'truth is a concept' is false? This is a mess.

Here's a short list of Truth-conceptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Nonsense. This is and can be no more than a list of ways of using the word 'truth' and its cognates. 'Truth conceptions' are metaphysical fantasies.

If so, you know the expressions 'my truth' and 'your truth' are incoherent.

Obviously! You keep parsing my sentences in your framework.

If you parse my sentences in my framework - they will be perfectly coherent to you!

More nonsensical blather. How does analysing the component parts of a sentence have anything to do with the meaning of expressions such as 'my' and 'your'? Do their meanings change according to the 'framework'? And what the hell is a framework in this context?

Truth isn't a thing, so it isn't a thing that can belong to people.

It's a concepts. [sic] Concepts belong to people. Who else would they belong to?

You can't say or show what or where a concept is, let alone how it can belong to someone. You've just swallowed traditional metaphysical blather about concepts, and regurgitate it unthinkingly.

Everything you say demonstrates how mired in metaphysical delusion you way of thinking really is.

For the 3rd time now - language (and logic, and Mathematics) is metaphysics. If I am marred in a delusion - you are stuck in here with me.

Bollocks. Linguistic expressions - including logical and mathematical expressions - are real things: sounds, marks on paper or screen, gestures - and so on. There's nothing metaphysical about them. You don't know what you're talking about, because no one does when they talk about metaphysical things. It's an ancient delusion, as old as at least Plato.

How do we get out?

And you're so excitedly determined to be right and show that I'm wrong - that you can't see it.

"right" and "wrong" are moral claims. According to you - morality is something we have yet to figure out (for ourselves).

This is just incomprehension. 'Right' and 'wrong' have non-moral uses, as in 'You're right about that'.

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate HOW we "figure it out". You can't even work your way past a philosophical disagreement, never mind a moral one.

This is disingenuous. You haven't been asking me how we are to 'figure out' what's morally right and wrong. Your whole argument has been that there's no difference between factual and moral assertions, so that a moral assertion can be true or false in exactly the same way that a factual assertion is true or false - and that we can 'figure out' which they are in exactly the same way. Which is crap, of course.

Seems like a bit of a conundrum?

Oh dear, I seem to have bothered about your nonsense yet again. Note to self. Not worth it.

[Skepdick]

Evasion. What was it that was demonstrated?

I am not evading anything. I am putting your belief-system up to a challenge.

You are the one who believes in "facts" - why are you asking me what YOU have demonstrated?

Pure metaphysical nonsense. What and where is a concept?

concept noun an abstract idea.
idea noun a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

because concepts are ideas - they exist in exactly the same place as all your other ideas and thoughts.

And how is a concept 'made'?

You construct it. In your mind.

Can you describe that process?

Yes. I make use of generative grammars and computational linguistics.

And if there are 'many conceptions of truth', does that mean truth isn't one concept - so that your claim 'truth is a concept' is false?

How did you make that assertion? You used a logical-system, I imagine to arrive at that conclusion.

Which one?

This is a mess.

Like all human communication...

Nonsense. This is and can be no more than a list of ways of using the word 'truth' and its cognates.

Well, obviously it's a list of ways of using the word truth. Different people use the word differently!

That's what I have been saying - you are agreeing with me, but you are saying the word "nonsense".

Do you use the word "nonsense" to signify agreement with others? That's not how I use that word.

'Truth conceptions' are metaphysical fantasies.

And yet multiple people have conceptualised different notions of "truth". That's why they use the word differently.

More nonsensical blather. How does analysing the component parts of a sentence have anything to do with the meaning of expressions such as 'my' and 'your'? Do their meanings change according to the 'framework'? And what the hell is a framework in this context?

It is obvious to me that you don't know the first thing about linguistics. I doubt I can teach you in a forum post.

Best you do some homework...

You can't say or show what or where a concept is, let alone how it can belong to someone.

That's not true. I told you where concepts are. In your head.

You've just swallowed traditional metaphysical blather about concepts, and regurgitate it unthinkingly.

This is pretty spectacular. You are the one who rejects "metaphysics". You are the one who rejects the notion of "concepts" a.k.a ideas/thoughts.

And then you are accusing me of "unthinking"

4th time now. Language IS metaphysics. Language is what we use to form concepts. Language is also what we use to communicate with others.

I don't expect I can convince you of this notion, since you haven't the faintest theoretical grounding when it comes to linguistics.

Bollocks. Linguistic expressions - including logical and mathematical expressions - are real things: sounds, marks on paper or screen, gestures - and so on.There's nothing metaphysical about them.

That's the denotational delusion. Marks on paper, sounds, gestures etc. are meaningless in isolation. They require a mind which can extract the meaning from the otherwise-meaningless symbols.

Language requires interpretation. Interpretation requires rules.

Linguists call it parsing.

You don't know what you're talking about, because no one does when they talk about metaphysical things. It's an ancient delusion, as old as at least Plato.

And the attack on metaphysics stood its ground for thousands of years. But then we invented these things we call "computers". And we managed to communicate our exact metaphysical concepts to these things in the very languages that we made up.

So it is pertinently obvious to any computer programmer that meaning is much more than just use.

Meaning is causal.

This is disingenuous. You haven't been asking me how we are to 'figure out' what's morally right and wrong.

It's all conflict-resolution, Peter. Whether we are disagreeing about the color of the sky, the shape of the Earth, or the existence of things you call "facts" - you don't actually know HOW to work towards consensus.

You literally can't demonstrate it. But you preach it *shrug*

Your whole argument has been that there's no difference between factual and moral assertions

My whole argument has been that both factual and moral assertions are still.... ASSERTIONS.

All assertions require a subject. That the subject has CHOSEN to further sub-categorize their assertions as "factual" and "moral" doesn't detract from the point being made.

All assertions are made by subjects, and are therefore inherently subjective.

You are the one who keeps harping on about the confusion between what we SAY about things and what they actually ARE, and then you go on to make the exact same error you are warning us against!

What we SAY is that things are objective, but they ARE subjective.

, so that a moral assertion can be true or false in exactly the same way

it depends on what you mean by "truth" and "falsity". But you can't even tell us!

Oh dear, I seem to have bothered about your nonsense yet again. Note to self. Not worth it.

Yeah. I seem to be striking a nerve every time. Are you doubting your own belief-system yet?

Good! That's how you give up religion...

[Skepdick]

Aw now if only you'd read the article I wrote on Kuhn, you'd understand why philosophers of science don't accept that.

And if you kept up with the times you would've noticed that the Bayesian (e.g information-theoretic) and game-theoretic revolutions took place only in the last 20 years. That's a wee-bit after Kuhn. Maybe those philosophers/scientists who don't accept that haven't died yet?

Interactive communication is game-theoretic. if you play the game cooperatively (e.g avoid the self-defeating prisoner's dilemma strategy employed by most philosophers) and if players find themselves in a "psychologically safe environment" (yeah! safe spaces) where they feel comfortable with total (and often embarrassing) transparency it is actually possible to uncover source of disagreements and reach consensus in reasonable time.

All the scientists I've worked with in the past 15 years know, accept and practice this. Consensus-building is a learnable social skill.

Scott Aronson wrote this circa 2005.

The ‘theory-dependence of observation’ is this idea that exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways.

This is has been knowledge to any freshman data analyst for at least the last decade. So I guess that ticks the box... the new generation is familiar with it. Now we just wait for the old generation to die...

Straight from your original thread about the article that "I didn't read"

For a static dataset there are an infinite number of mathematical functions that can be fitted e.g an infinite number of explanations.

[Peter Holmes]

Evasion. What was it that was demonstrated?

I am not evading anything. I am putting your belief-system up to a challenge.

You are the one who believes in "facts" - why are you asking me what YOU have demonstrated?

You are confused. You used 'QED' to indicate you'd supposedly shown something about my argument. Go back and check it. What had you shown? Don't evade the question.

Pure metaphysical nonsense. What and where is a concept?

concept noun an abstract idea.
idea noun a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

because concepts are ideas - they exist in exactly the same place as all your other ideas and thoughts.

If concepts are ideas, why have two words for the same thing? Is a concept technically different in some way from an idea? And in what way is an abstract idea different from a non-abstract or 'concrete' idea? And what is a concrete idea? Is it a real thing - something we'd find if we opened up someone's brain? And if so, where are those pesky abstract ideas? And if an idea is a thought or suggestion, why have the word 'thought'? And so on.

You have no way to answer those questions - and no one does. And your use of a dictionary is hilarious, given your contempt for conventional usage. Talk about minds and mental things and activities isn't even metaphorical - because there's no literal talk with which to contrast it. All we have is brains and electrochemical processes.

And how is a concept 'made'?

You construct it. In your mind.

More casual bullshit, passed off as evident fact. What is the 'me' that can construct things 'in' 'my' 'mind'?

Can you describe that process?

Yes. I make use of generative grammars and computational linguistics.

So we construct concepts in minds (abstract, non-linguistic things), using a generative grammar model theorised and written about in linguistics. Grammar; linguistics. Notice the problem? Hard, I know, when we're seduced and dazzled by impressive, technical-sounding academic bullshit. As you seem to be, permanently.

And if there are 'many conceptions of truth', does that mean truth isn't one concept - so that your claim 'truth is a concept' is false?

How did you make that assertion? You used a logical-system, I imagine to arrive at that conclusion.

So fucking what? What's the big gotcha moment here? Are you giving up on your useless appeal to concepts now, and reverting to where we've always been all along - with language?

Which one?

Ooo. How thought-bubblingly exciting; there are different logics - so no logic is the correct logic. And that means it's all a mess, everything we call true falls apart, there are no facts, only opinions, blah, blah. When do you plan to get over this first-grade frisson of subversive naughtiness?

This is a mess.

Like all human communication...

... Not at the moment, obviously.

Nonsense. This is and can be no more than a list of ways of using the word 'truth' and its cognates.

Well, obviously it's a list of ways of using the word truth. Different people use the word differently!

That's what I have been saying - you are agreeing with me, but you are saying the word "nonsense".

Do you use the word "nonsense" to signify agreement with others? That's not how I use that word.

Floundering now. No - I call out your nonsense, because I'm tired of it. You called me intellectually dishonest. And I think you're intellectually challenged - and blissfully unaware of it.

'Truth conceptions' are metaphysical fantasies.

And yet multiple people have conceptualised different notions of "truth". That's why they use the word differently.

Back to the pseudo-technical bollocks. Now people 'have conceptualised different notions' of truth. What's a notion? Anything like a concept or an idea or a thought or a suggestion? And what is the thing 'truth' of which they've conceptualised (?) these different notions (?) ? Lost in the maze down the rabbit hole.

More nonsensical blather. How does analysing the component parts of a sentence have anything to do with the meaning of expressions such as 'my' and 'your'? Do their meanings change according to the 'framework'? And what the hell is a framework in this context?

It is obvious to me that you don't know the first thing about linguistics. I doubt I can teach you in a forum post.

Best you do some homework...

Why don't you fuck off and learn how to think critically and skeptically? Look where all your good-boy homework got you? Mired in metaphysical delusion.

You can't say or show what or where a concept is, let alone how it can belong to someone.

That's not true. I told you where concepts are. In your head.

Sigh.

This is pretty spectacular. You are the one who rejects "metaphysics". You are the one who rejects the notion of "concepts" a.k.a ideas/thoughts.

And then you are accusing me of "unthinking"

4th time now. Language IS metaphysics. Language is what we use to form concepts. Language is also what we use to communicate with others.

No. Try again. Think it through. Language is language - the use of signs, which are real things. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophical bullshit that mistakes some signs - abstract nouns - for things about which to speculate.

I don't expect I can convince you of this notion, since you haven't the faintest theoretical grounding when it comes to linguistics.


That's the denotational delusion. Marks on paper, sounds, gestures etc. are meaningless in isolation. They require a mind which can extract the meaning from the otherwise-meaningless symbols.

And the 'meaning' is some kind of abstract thing that somehow existed inside the symbols? It's pathetic that you've swallowed this pseudo-scientific crap and fondly believe it.

Language requires interpretation. Interpretation requires rules.

Linguists call it parsing.


And the attack on metaphysics stood its ground for thousands of years. But then we invented these things we call "computers". And we managed to communicate our exact metaphysical concepts to these things in the very languages that we made up.

Exact metaphysical concepts? Blather and nonsense.

So it is pertinently obvious to any computer programmer that meaning is much more than just use.

Meaning is causal.

Metaphysical bullshit, like all '[abstract noun] is ... ' proclamations.

It's all conflict-resolution, Peter. Whether we are disagreeing about the color of the sky, the shape of the Earth, or the existence of things you call "facts" - you don't actually know HOW to work towards consensus.

You literally can't demonstrate it. But you preach it *shrug*


My whole argument has been that both factual and moral assertions are still.... ASSERTIONS.

All assertions require a subject. That the subject has CHOSEN to further sub-categorize their assertions as "factual" and "moral" doesn't detract from the point being made.

All assertions are made by subjects, and are therefore inherently subjective.

You are the one who keeps harping on about the confusion between what we SAY about things and what they actually ARE, and then you go on to make the exact same error you are warning us against!

What we SAY is that things are objective, but they ARE subjective.

Ah, so here is where you're going wrong: 'all assertions are made by subjects (people), and are therefore inherently subjective.' That's just a misunderstanding of the way we standardly use these words with reference to the nature of assertions.

Subjective assertions express judgements, beliefs or opinions; objective assertions avoid judgements, beliefs or opinions when describing facts (states-of-affairs). Since there are states-of-affairs, and since they can be described correctly - given the conventional way we use signs in a context - there can be objective assertions, given the way we use the word 'objective' in this context.

The fact that an assertion must come from a person doesn't mean it must be subjective. Amazing that your whole argument boils down to this mistake. What a fucking waste of time and effort.

Please go away and have a jolly good think, before shouting back with more uncomprehending nonsense.

[uwot]

Aw now if only you'd read the article I wrote on Kuhn, you'd understand why philosophers of science don't accept that.

And if you kept up with the times you would've noticed that the Bayesian (e.g information-theoretic) and game-theoretic revolutions took place only in the last 20 years.

Ah, forgot to mention I did my MSc in 2016. Keep up Skepdick, things are moving fast, dontcha know.

That's a wee-bit after Kuhn. Maybe those philosophers/scientists who don't accept that haven't died yet?

Interactive communication is game-theoretic. if you play the game cooperatively (e.g avoid the self-defeating prisoner's dilemma strategy employed by most philosophers) and if players find themselves in a "psychologically safe environment" (yeah! safe spaces) where they feel comfortable with total (and often embarrassing) transparency it is actually possible to uncover source of disagreements and reach consensus in reasonable time.

Well, having eaten through a variety of personas, do you think you've found your safe place in 'Skepdick'?

All the scientists I've worked with in the past 15 years know, accept and practice this. Consensus-building is a learnable social skill.

Then yer can't have met many scientists. UCL was heaving with the things and they're very like human beings, some of them like to hold hands, some of them want a punch up.

Scott Aronson wrote this circa 2005.

As long ago as that, eh?

The ‘theory-dependence of observation’ is this idea that exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways.

This is has been knowledge to any freshman data analyst for at least the last decade.

How would you know? As I remember, you made it a badge of honour that you have learnt by practice and didn't go to university.

So I guess that ticks the box... the new generation is familiar with it. Now we just wait for the old generation to die...

Straight from your original thread about the article that "I didn't read"

For a static dataset there are an infinite number of mathematical functions that can be fitted e.g an infinite number of explanations.

It has been recognised in philosophy since the Pre-Socratics that there is an infinite number of possible explanations. Aristotle's response was "We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses." So now computer scientists have caught up. Yay, biscuits all round!

[Skepdick]

You are confused. You used 'QED' to indicate you'd supposedly shown something about my argument. Go back and check it. What had you shown? Don't evade the question.

Peter, I am going to evade the question for as long as you keep evading the challenge.

When you step up - so will I. Lead the way.

If concepts are ideas, why have two words for the same thing?

Is this the first time you've heard of a synonym? People draw distinctions for all sorts of linguistic reasons.

It helps with elucidation.

Is a concept technically different in some way from an idea?

There's nothing "technical" about informal communication. It's adaptive in real-time.

I could CHOOSE to use the words "concept" and "idea" interchangeably; or I could CHOOSE to use them to mean different things.

Use is meaning.
Different use is different meaning.

And in what way is an abstract idea different from a non-abstract or 'concrete' idea? And what is a concrete idea?

Broadly and generally - it's meaningless to even ask such questions. Meaning is holistic and contextual - you are trying to reduce it and generalise it.

Not going to work.

I am really trying to help you here but you keep ignoring the pertinent question: WHY do you draw the distinctions? What do you use distinctions for?

I told you why I do it - it's a linguistic instrument. It's a divide-and-conquer approach to communication - it helps guide us to the point of the conversation.

You are still dodging the "why?" question.

Is it a real thing - something we'd find if we opened up someone's brain?

If your thoughts aren't real then why should we listen to you?

And if so, where are those pesky abstract ideas? And if an idea is a thought or suggestion, why have the word 'thought'? And so on.

Because that's how language works. Somebody, somewhere found it USEFUL to draw the distinction for some purpose or another. Probably so that they can communicate their idea better to another person. Distinctions and juxtaposition are instruments of language.

Do you even know how to use them for effective communication?

You have no way to answer those questions - and no one does.

Broadly and generally - nobody can answer them. Particularly and in the context of a particular conversation - everybody can.

We can (re)define the meaning of any words which hinder communication ad-hoc. As and when necessary. Use metaphors, dictionaries, pictures, diagrams or videos - whatever works to get your message across.

And your use of a dictionary is hilarious, given your contempt for conventional usage.

It was useful to get my message across - I used it.

Your appeal to conventional language is no less hilarious, while you reject conventional notions such as "minds", "thoughts" and "concepts.

Talk about minds and mental things and activities isn't even metaphorical - because there's no literal talk with which to contrast it. All we have is brains and electrochemical processes.

So I am speaking to a mindless person? It shows!

More casual bullshit, passed off as evident fact. What is the 'me' that can construct things 'in' 'my' 'mind'?

The question need not be answered for me to accept that SOMETHING produced the sentence above!

Unless, of course you are trying to convince me that the words you are using aren't caused by you. They just freely flow out of you?

For the record - I CHOOSE my words in such a way so as to trigger an image in your mind. My intent is to effectively transmit the ideas from my head into your head. Some times it works - some times it doesn't. So I may have to CHOOSE different words.

Either way - it's an interactive, dynamic and feedback-intensive process. Perhaps you don't do that?

So we construct concepts in minds (abstract, non-linguistic things), using a generative grammar model theorised and written about in linguistics. Grammar; linguistics. Notice the problem?

No, I don't notice the problem. Are you sure you aren't just making up "problems"?

Hard, I know, when we're seduced and dazzled by impressive, technical-sounding academic bullshit. As you seem to be, permanently.

That's petty ironic, since I am the most anti-academic person on this forum.

I am an engineer first and foremost. I invent/build stuff. Languages included.

If it's stupid and it works, then it's not stupid.

So fucking what? What's the big gotcha moment here? Are you giving up on your useless appeal to concepts now, and reverting to where we've always been all along - with language?

There is no "gotcha" moment you moron! You THINK that there is one - that's why you are constantly on the defence. It's your Philosophical bias shining through - philosophy is adversarial, communication is cooperative.

You are literally unable to communicate because you think the world is going to cheat you.

We always have been with language, but the argument you have been making is that there is a particular way we use language. "The way we use language" is the foundation of your argument.

There is no particular way in which we use language - language evolves literally as we use it. It's not a solid foundation.

Ooo. How thought-bubblingly exciting; there are different logics - so no logic is the correct logic.

Yet another silly strawman. It is precisely because there is CHOICE in the matter is why you need to tackle the issue of HOW to choose the "correct" (what does that mean?!?!?) logic from the bag of logics.

And that means it's all a mess, everything we call true falls apart

18th or 19th strawman - I am actually losing count. Truth doesn't fall apart.

Two people with two different conceptions of "truth" are talking across paradigms - until we find common ground there's no moving forward.

there are no facts, only opinions, blah, blah. When do you plan to get over this first-grade frisson of subversive naughtiness?

When you tackle the problem of choice.

For every assertion you deem "correct" - I will raise the question: Who decides and how?

And I think you're intellectually challenged - and blissfully unaware of it.

But you just rejected "minds" as nonsensical delusions. How are you using the word "think" if you don't have a mind?

think intransitive verb To have or formulate in the mind.

Back to the pseudo-technical bollocks.

I am not sure what you mean by "back to". There's not an ounce of technicality in Philosophy.

What's a notion?

It's a synonym for "concept" and "idea". If you are so fucking baffled by synonyms - I imagine your brain will explode when we get to metaphors!

More nonsensical blather. How does analysing the component parts of a sentence have anything to do with the meaning of expressions such as 'my' and 'your'? Do their meanings change according to the 'framework'? And what the hell is a framework in this context?

It is obvious to me that you don't know the first thing about linguistics. I doubt I can teach you in a forum post.

Why don't you fuck off and learn how to think critically and skeptically?

Peter, my name is a portmanteau of "skeptic" and "dick". Skepticism and critical thought is literally what I am trying to teach you.

You can't call yourself a skeptic or a critical thinker until you've deconstructed every single idea you've been programmed with while you were still gullible.

Look where all your good-boy homework got you? Mired in metaphysical delusion.

Are you at all comfortable with the idea that science is the best metaphysic available to humans circa 2019?

No. Try again. Think it through. Language is language - the use of signs, which are real things.

"Language is language" is circular and vacuous. That is the premise you need us to accept so that you can get your argument off the ground, and so that's precisely the premise I am going to grill you on.

Language is a complex system. The "realness" of signs is entirely moot - humans care about the meaning of signs, not their "realness".

Different people use signs differently!

The sign P in English means something entirely different to the sign Р in Russian.
Hieroglyphs from ancient civilisations are real - we have no fucking idea what they mean.

I speak the language that I speak - you speak the language that you speak. There is clearly an overlap because we are still speaking to each other, but it's also clear distinction in the way you use language and the way I use language - which is the very reason why we can't find common ground.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophical bullshit that mistakes some signs - abstract nouns - for things about which to speculate.

Strawman 22? Fuck it. Why am I still counting?

Logic is metaphysics.

And the 'meaning' is some kind of abstract thing that somehow existed inside the symbols? It's pathetic that you've swallowed this pseudo-scientific crap and fondly believe it.

Strawman 23.

Exact metaphysical concepts? Blather and nonsense.

Yes, Peter. Humans can explain their meaning to computers. Using language.

Metaphysical bullshit, like all '[abstract noun] is ... ' proclamations.

There is nothing "mystical" about the computer you are using right now.

It functions because of the way its hardware and software interact. Software is that which humans explained to the computer using LANGUAGE.

Ah, so here is where you're going wrong: 'all assertions are made by subjects (people), and are therefore inherently subjective.' That's just a misunderstanding of the way we standardly use these words with reference to the nature of assertions.

Who is this "we" you keep talking about and what is "the way " they use the word "subjective"?

Because I think you scored an own goal. By rejecting the concept of a mind the dictionary definition just became off-limits for you.

subjective adj. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.

Subjective assertions express judgements, beliefs or opinions; objective assertions avoid judgements

ALL assertions are performed by SUBJECTS and are therefore SUBJECTIVE.

If there was no subject there would be no assertions of any kind.

beliefs or opinions when describing facts (states-of-affairs). Since there are states-of-affairs, and since they can be described correctly - given the conventional way we use signs in a context - there can be objective assertions, given the way we use the word 'objective' in this context.

The fact that an assertion must come from a person doesn't mean it must be subjective. Amazing that your whole argument boils down to this mistake. What a fucking waste of time and effort.

RIGHT THERE!!!

Within the context of our conversation you are conceptualising the notion of "facts" and "opinions" using language - you are literally INVENTING the meaning of those words!!!

WHY are you inventing it?
WHO decides the "correctness" of any particular description and HOW?

[Peter Holmes]

You are confused. You used 'QED' to indicate you'd supposedly shown something about my argument. Go back and check it. What had you shown? Don't evade the question.

Peter, I am going to evade the question for as long as you keep evading the challenge.

When you step up - so will I. Lead the way.

If concepts are ideas, why have two words for the same thing?

Is this the first time you've heard of a synonym? People draw distinctions for all sorts of linguistic reasons.

It helps with elucidation.

Is a concept technically different in some way from an idea?

There's nothing "technical" about informal communication. It's adaptive in real-time.

I could CHOOSE to use the words "concept" and "idea" interchangeably; or I could CHOOSE to use them to mean different things.

Use is meaning.
Different use is different meaning.

And in what way is an abstract idea different from a non-abstract or 'concrete' idea? And what is a concrete idea?

Broadly and generally - it's meaningless to even ask such questions. Meaning is holistic and contextual - you are trying to reduce it and generalise it.

Not going to work.

I am really trying to help you here but you keep ignoring the pertinent question: WHY do you draw the distinctions? What do you use distinctions for?

I told you why I do it - it's a linguistic instrument. It's a divide-and-conquer approach to communication - it helps guide us to the point of the conversation.

You are still dodging the "why?" question.

Is it a real thing - something we'd find if we opened up someone's brain?

If your thoughts aren't real then why should we listen to you?

And if so, where are those pesky abstract ideas? And if an idea is a thought or suggestion, why have the word 'thought'? And so on.

Because that's how language works. Somebody, somewhere found it USEFUL to draw the distinction for some purpose or another. Probably so that they can communicate their idea better to another person. Distinctions and juxtaposition are instruments of language.

Do you even know how to use them for effective communication?

You have no way to answer those questions - and no one does.

Broadly and generally - nobody can answer them. Particularly and in the context of a particular conversation - everybody can.

We can (re)define the meaning of any words which hinder communication ad-hoc. As and when necessary. Use metaphors, dictionaries, pictures, diagrams or videos - whatever works to get your message across.

And your use of a dictionary is hilarious, given your contempt for conventional usage.

It was useful to get my message across - I used it.

Your appeal to conventional language is no less hilarious, while you reject conventional notions such as "minds", "thoughts" and "concepts.

Talk about minds and mental things and activities isn't even metaphorical - because there's no literal talk with which to contrast it. All we have is brains and electrochemical processes.

So I am speaking to a mindless person? It shows!

More casual bullshit, passed off as evident fact. What is the 'me' that can construct things 'in' 'my' 'mind'?

The question need not be answered for me to accept that SOMETHING produced the sentence above!

Unless, of course you are trying to convince me that the words you are using aren't caused by you. They just freely flow out of you?

For the record - I CHOOSE my words in such a way so as to trigger an image in your mind. My intent is to effectively transmit the ideas from my head into your head. Some times it works - some times it doesn't. So I may have to CHOOSE different words.

Either way - it's an interactive, dynamic and feedback-intensive process. Perhaps you don't do that?

So we construct concepts in minds (abstract, non-linguistic things), using a generative grammar model theorised and written about in linguistics. Grammar; linguistics. Notice the problem?

No, I don't notice the problem. Are you sure you aren't just making up "problems"?

Hard, I know, when we're seduced and dazzled by impressive, technical-sounding academic bullshit. As you seem to be, permanently.

That's petty ironic, since I am the most anti-academic person on this forum.

I am an engineer first and foremost. I invent/build stuff. Languages included.

If it's stupid and it works, then it's not stupid.

So fucking what? What's the big gotcha moment here? Are you giving up on your useless appeal to concepts now, and reverting to where we've always been all along - with language?

There is no "gotcha" moment you moron! You THINK that there is one - that's why you are constantly on the defence. It's your Philosophical bias shining through - philosophy is adversarial, communication is cooperative.

You are literally unable to communicate because you think the world is going to cheat you.

We always have been with language, but the argument you have been making is that there is a particular way we use language. "The way we use language" is the foundation of your argument.

There is no particular way in which we use language - language evolves literally as we use it. It's not a solid foundation.

Ooo. How thought-bubblingly exciting; there are different logics - so no logic is the correct logic.

Yet another silly strawman. It is precisely because there is CHOICE in the matter is why you need to tackle the issue of HOW to choose the "correct" (what does that mean?!?!?) logic from the bag of logics.

And that means it's all a mess, everything we call true falls apart

18th or 19th strawman - I am actually losing count. Truth doesn't fall apart.

Two people with two different conceptions of "truth" are talking across paradigms - until we find common ground there's no moving forward.

there are no facts, only opinions, blah, blah. When do you plan to get over this first-grade frisson of subversive naughtiness?

When you tackle the problem of choice.

For every assertion you deem "correct" - I will raise the question: Who decides and how?

And I think you're intellectually challenged - and blissfully unaware of it.

But you just rejected "minds" as nonsensical delusions. How are you using the word "think" if you don't have a mind?

think intransitive verb To have or formulate in the mind.

Back to the pseudo-technical bollocks.

I am not sure what you mean by "back to". There's not an ounce of technicality in Philosophy.

What's a notion?

It's a synonym for "concept" and "idea". If you are so fucking baffled by synonyms - I imagine your brain will explode when we get to metaphors!

More nonsensical blather. How does analysing the component parts of a sentence have anything to do with the meaning of expressions such as 'my' and 'your'? Do their meanings change according to the 'framework'? And what the hell is a framework in this context?

It is obvious to me that you don't know the first thing about linguistics. I doubt I can teach you in a forum post.

Why don't you fuck off and learn how to think critically and skeptically?

Peter, my name is a portmanteau of "skeptic" and "dick". Skepticism and critical thought is literally what I am trying to teach you.

You can't call yourself a skeptic or a critical thinker until you've deconstructed every single idea you've been programmed with while you were still gullible.

Look where all your good-boy homework got you? Mired in metaphysical delusion.

Are you at all comfortable with the idea that science is the best metaphysic available to humans circa 2019?

No. Try again. Think it through. Language is language - the use of signs, which are real things.

"Language is language" is circular and vacuous. That is the premise you need us to accept so that you can get your argument off the ground, and so that's precisely the premise I am going to grill you on.

Language is a complex system. The "realness" of signs is entirely moot - humans care about the meaning of signs, not their "realness".

Different people use signs differently!

The sign P in English means something entirely different to the sign Р in Russian.
Hieroglyphs from ancient civilisations are real - we have no fucking idea what they mean.

I speak the language that I speak - you speak the language that you speak. There is clearly an overlap because we are still speaking to each other, but it's also clear distinction in the way you use language and the way I use language - which is the very reason why we can't find common ground.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophical bullshit that mistakes some signs - abstract nouns - for things about which to speculate.

Strawman 22? Fuck it. Why am I still counting?

Logic is metaphysics.

And the 'meaning' is some kind of abstract thing that somehow existed inside the symbols? It's pathetic that you've swallowed this pseudo-scientific crap and fondly believe it.

Strawman 23.

Exact metaphysical concepts? Blather and nonsense.

Yes, Peter. Humans can explain their meaning to computers. Using language.

Metaphysical bullshit, like all '[abstract noun] is ... ' proclamations.

There is nothing "mystical" about the computer you are using right now.

It functions because of the way its hardware and software interact. Software is that which humans explained to the computer using LANGUAGE.

Ah, so here is where you're going wrong: 'all assertions are made by subjects (people), and are therefore inherently subjective.' That's just a misunderstanding of the way we standardly use these words with reference to the nature of assertions.

Who is this "we" you keep talking about and what is "the way " they use the word "subjective"?

Because I think you scored an own goal. By rejecting the concept of a mind the dictionary definition just became off-limits for you.

subjective adj. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.

Subjective assertions express judgements, beliefs or opinions; objective assertions avoid judgements

ALL assertions are performed by SUBJECTS and are therefore SUBJECTIVE.

If there was no subject there would be no assertions of any kind.

beliefs or opinions when describing facts (states-of-affairs). Since there are states-of-affairs, and since they can be described correctly - given the conventional way we use signs in a context - there can be objective assertions, given the way we use the word 'objective' in this context.

The fact that an assertion must come from a person doesn't mean it must be subjective. Amazing that your whole argument boils down to this mistake. What a fucking waste of time and effort.

RIGHT THERE!!!

Within the context of our conversation you are conceptualising the notion of "facts" and "opinions" using language - you are literally INVENTING the meaning of those words!!!

WHY are you inventing it?
WHO decides the "correctness" of any particular description and HOW?

WOT

[Peter Holmes]

So, it turns out that the arguments for moral objectivity are specious, because moral rightness and wrongness aren't independent features of reality, so moral assertions - such as 'eating animals [is/is not] morally wrong' - have no truth-value - but instead express value-judgements. Who knew?

[Skepdick]

moral assertions ... have no truth-value - but instead express value-judgements.

Judgments have truth-value in high order logic.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/judgmental+equality
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/judgment

Who knew?

Obviously you didn't.

So the statement "Peter is a fucking idiot" it is a true judgment because Peter does not know that judgments have truth-values.

[Peter Holmes]

So, it turns out that, like aesthetic ones, moral value-judgements have no truth-value, because there are no independent aesthetic or moral features of reality. There's no way to verify or falsify 'this thing is beautiful' or 'this action is morally right', because they express value-judgements rather than make factual claims. And that's why people can and do disagree irreconcilably over such judgements - nothing can settle the arguments.

[Belinda]

So, it turns out that the arguments for moral objectivity are specious, because moral rightness and wrongness aren't independent features of reality, so moral assertions - such as 'eating animals [is/is not] morally wrong' - have no truth-value - but instead express value-judgements. Who knew?

All arguments are specious but contending is real. "Real" as in natural law. Thank you for looking up the song . Nobody knows of any rose garden but it's good to honestly seek it.

Seeking is aided by language. Explicit language and poetic language. Are there standards of excellence for explicit language?

[Peter Holmes]

So, it turns out that the arguments for moral objectivity are specious, because moral rightness and wrongness aren't independent features of reality, so moral assertions - such as 'eating animals [is/is not] morally wrong' - have no truth-value - but instead express value-judgements. Who knew?

All arguments are specious but contending is real. "Real" as in natural law. Thank you for looking up the song . Nobody knows of any rose garden but it's good to honestly seek it.

Seeking is aided by language. Explicit language and poetic language. Are there standards of excellence for explicit language?

I'm sorry, but the claim 'all arguments are specious' is silly, in my humble opinion. Is the argument that concludes 'all arguments are specious' itself specious?

And poetic language can be explicit, so I don't see that as a useful distinction. Do you mean 'factual'? - Because poetic language can be factual too. What I mean is: what do you think makes language poetic?

[Belinda]

So, it turns out that the arguments for moral objectivity are specious, because moral rightness and wrongness aren't independent features of reality, so moral assertions - such as 'eating animals [is/is not] morally wrong' - have no truth-value - but instead express value-judgements. Who knew?

All arguments are specious but contending is real. "Real" as in natural law. Thank you for looking up the song . Nobody knows of any rose garden but it's good to honestly seek it.

Seeking is aided by language. Explicit language and poetic language. Are there standards of excellence for explicit language?

I'm sorry, but the claim 'all arguments are specious' is silly, in my humble opinion. Is the argument that concludes 'all arguments are specious' itself specious?

And poetic language can be explicit, so I don't see that as a useful distinction. Do you mean 'factual'? - Because poetic language can be factual too. What I mean is: what do you think makes language poetic?

"All arguments are specious" would be a very stupid claim when you are contending "Eating animals is wrong" and so on. Arguments are part of social life and people in society contend for power so everybody argues a point of view. Not every speech is intended to argue a point of view; some speeches are social rituals, or instructions.

Poetic language emerges in a sophisticated form from everyday social language. Poetic language gets its meaning from what everybody in the speech community feels is common to all. That's why some poetic language becomes unfashionable when people view life in a different way.
Both explicit language and poetic language are best when the reasoning (explicit) and the sensibility (poetic) are honest.

[Skepdick]

So, it turns out that, like aesthetic ones, moral value-judgements have no truth-value.

Why do you keep lying even after having been corrected literally the post before?

Judgments have truth-value in high order logic.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/judgmental+equality
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/judgment
(....)

[Sculptor]

So, it turns out that, like aesthetic ones, moral value-judgements have no truth-value.

Why do you keep lying even after having been corrected literally the post before?

Judgments have truth-value in high order logic.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/judgmental+equality
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/judgment
(....)

You link does not support your claim, nor could it.