What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

There are only five billion years left before the Sun goes red giant and Earth becomes a fireball

Unless we have managed to get our asses to another solar system, or another galaxy.

[Peter Holmes]

1 To say 'all categories are errors' is to say that no categorisation, such as the distinction between 'human' and 'chimpanzee' is correct. (Your claim, not mine.)

False dichotomy. You are the one who is STILL clinging onto logical contra-position. Insisting that the opposite of 'error' is 'correctness'. I've long given up the law of excluded middle - sorry. In my world the negation of A is (1 - A). You think it's ¬A

Categorization serves purpose. Purpose requires 'ought'. Otherwise both 'chimpanzees' and 'humans' are both mammals, or animals, or quarks, leptons and electrons fluctuating through spacetime.

One can CHOOSE to identify only the difference.
One can CHOOSE to identify only the similarity.

Why have you CHOSEN (an ought!) to see the difference?

2 To perceive light waves is not to perceive the concept of colour - whatever that means.

To perceive heat (through your skin) is to perceive colors (through your eyes). Same physical phenomenon (waves!)- different human sensation.

3 An observation (a perception) is not a conceptual category - whatever that is.

What is it then?

My conception of phenomenon A is different from my conception of phenomenon B.BECAUSE I can tell a difference they are classified (categorized) differently in my head.

And if I had any intention of communicating them to somebody else - I would give them different labels/words.

4 Please give an example of a concept - or a supposed conceptual category - that isn't a linguistic expression.

OK. Here are THREE conceptual categories that aren't linguistic expressions:

http://www.piano-midi.de/ogg/beethoven/ ... us10_1.ogg

drawn-artwork-mc-escher-12.jpg

54213-primary-0-740x560.jpg

1 Had you actually abandoned the rules of logic - identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle - neither you nor we could understand what you're saying. So you haven't. You've chosen to follow them, because communication is impossible without them.

2 The negation of error is not-error. Your introduction of probability (1-error) demonstrates your confusion. But if the negation of error actually is 1-error, what does 1 represent?

3 An observation is an observation. That you feel it reasonable to call an observation - and those two-dimensional images - examples of concepts or conceptual categories, demonstrates the ill- or rather undefined nature of concepts. One dictionary has 'concept: an abstract idea' - as though that explains anything. The myth of abstract things in general, and concepts in particular, is powerful, pervasive and deeply misleading.

Can you demonstrate what and where concepts are? Or do you just assume they're 'abstract entities' that exist in 'minds'? How mystical is your ontology?

[TimeSeeker]

1 Had you actually abandoned the rules of logic - identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle - neither you nor we could understand what you're saying. So you haven't. You've chosen to follow them, because communication is impossible without them.

Argument from ignorance.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informati ... ing_theory
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_correction_code

I ken speek lyk diz end yo ken steel underrstend me. See? No problem!

Of course I know that it is unwise to do that in a job interview because humans are prejudiced creatures and so if I did speak like this I would be cheating myself!

But in this setting? Where there are no negative consequences? You don't get to tell me HOW to USE language

Logically (and therefore linguistically), I am a type-theorist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory

Type theory is closely related to (and in some cases overlaps with) type systems, which are a programming language feature used to reduce bugs. Type theory was created to avoid paradoxes in a variety of formal logics and rewrite systems.

That is WHY there are contradictions in my language. Only syntactic errors. Or parsing errors on your part!

2 The negation of error is not-error.

In the rules of classical logic. Which I have rjected over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Sorry. It's 2018. Aristotle is no longer relevant.

2nd time for effect. I am a type-theorist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory

Your introduction of probability (1-error) demonstrates your confusion. But if the negation of error actually is 1-error, what does 1 represent?

Both 0 and 1 represents absolute (infinite? maximum?) certainty. I leave it to you to decide where you ground those numbers.

Epistemically - I am a Bayesian.

3 An observation is an observation. That you feel it reasonable to call an observation - and those two-dimensional images - examples of concepts or conceptual categories, demonstrates the ill- or rather undefined nature of concepts. One dictionary has 'concept: an abstract idea' - as though that explains anything. The myth of abstract things in general, and concepts in particular, is powerful, pervasive and deeply misleading.

Ok Deepak. Dictionaries are appeals to authority - there is no authority on language. Language is for communication. if no serious errors occur as a result of miscommunication - then the language is sufficiently precise.

Can you demonstrate what and where concepts are? Or do you just assume they're 'abstract entities' that exist in 'minds'? How mystical is your ontology?

My ontology is as mystical as that of any quantum physicist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

Observe that while you are shitting over my ontology, you do not present an alternative. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2Co ... cy-of-gray

The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else."
The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view..."

All models are wrong. Some are useful. My mental model is more useful than yours. Because it allows me to translate between the metaphysical languages of different groups e.g theists and atheists. They are both equivocating! And they think they are different from each other!

What a Christian calls 'God' an atheist calls entropy/luck/randomness/universe.

Whether you call it a 'mistake', an 'illusion', 'abstract' , 'pervasive' or 'misleading' - I don't care about your OPINION It's just language.

Actions speak louder than words. But if you want to nitpick my language first you need to learn to speak it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... 3_grammars

[Peter Holmes]

1 Had you actually abandoned the rules of logic - identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle - neither you nor we could understand what you're saying. So you haven't. You've chosen to follow them, because communication is impossible without them.

Argument from ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informati ... ing_theory

Logically (and therefore linguistically), I am a type-theorist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory

2 The negation of error is not-error.

In the rules of classical logic. Which I have rjected over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Sorry. It's 2018. Aristotle is no longer relevant.

2nd time for effect. I am a type-theorist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory

Your introduction of probability (1-error) demonstrates your confusion. But if the negation of error actually is 1-error, what does 1 represent?

Both 0 and 1 represents absolute (infinite? maximum?) certainty. I leave it to you to decide where you ground those numbers.

Epistemically - I am a Bayesian.

3 An observation is an observation. That you feel it reasonable to call an observation - and those two-dimensional images - examples of concepts or conceptual categories, demonstrates the ill- or rather undefined nature of concepts. One dictionary has 'concept: an abstract idea' - as though that explains anything. The myth of abstract things in general, and concepts in particular, is powerful, pervasive and deeply misleading.

Ok Deepak. Dictionaries are appeals to authority - there is no authority on language. Language is for communication. if no serious errors occur as a result of miscommunication - then the language is sufficiently precise.

Can you demonstrate what and where concepts are? Or do you just assume they're 'abstract entities' that exist in 'minds'? How mystical is your ontology?

My ontology is as mystical as that of any physicist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

Observe that while you are shitting over my ontology, you do not present an alternative. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2Co ... cy-of-gray

The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else."
The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view..."

All models are wrong. Some are useful. My mental model is more useful than yours. Because it allows me to translate between the metaphysical languages of different groups e.g theists and atheists. They are both equivocating! And they think they are different from each other!

What a Christian calls 'God' an atheist calls entropy/luck/randomness/universe.

Whether you call it a 'mistake', an 'illusion', 'abstract' , 'pervasive' or 'misleading' - I don't care about your OPINION It's just language.

Actions speak louder than words.

1 'An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.'

Please explain why I'm making an argument from ignorance. What claim am I saying is true because it hasn't been shown to be false?

2 If 'both 0 and 1 represents absolute (infinite? maximum?) certainty', what does '1-error' mean? Dodging the question.

3 'Dictionaries are appeals to authority - there is no authority on language. Language is for communication. if no serious errors occur as a result of miscommunication - then the language is sufficiently precise.' Wrong. Talk to any lexicographer. Dictionaries can only record usage. You need to abandon this straw man.

4 'My ontology is as mystical as that of any physicist.' Dodging the question: can you demonstrate what and where concepts are? Or do you just assume they're 'abstract entities' that exist in 'minds'? Do physicists - as physicists - have anything to say about the existence, nature and location of concepts?

5 'What a Christian calls 'God' an atheist calls entropy/luck/randomness/universe.' Bollocks - grandstanding, unsubstantiated bollocks. Deepak-woo.

[TimeSeeker]

1 'An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.'
Please explain why I'm making an argument from ignorance. What claim am I saying is true because it hasn't been shown to be false?

You claimed communication is 'impossible' without abiding to the rules of logic. I provided evidence which falsifies that claim by offering you a probabilistic mode of communication.
And so it is safe to say that you were (are?) ignorant of the possibility of communication WITHOUT adhering to the classical laws of logic.

Hence I am ASSERTING (based on EVIDENCE) that you are making an "argument from ignorance". Based on intuitionistic logic (e.g neither formal nor informal!)

I didn't need the dictionary to define it for me.

2 If 'both 0 and 1 represents absolute (infinite? maximum?) certainty', what does '1-error' mean? Dodging the question.

Ad hominem. I am dodging nothing. Educate yourself on binary classification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristic
And the principle of maximum entropy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy

e.g 0.5 probability which translates into English as the phrase "I don't know".

The ROC curve is created by plotting the true positive rate (TPR) against the false positive rate (FPR) at various threshold settings. The true-positive rate is also known as sensitivity, recall or probability of detection[1] in machine learning. The false-positive rate is also known as the fall-out or probability of false alarm[1] and can be calculated as (1 − specificity). It can also be thought of as a plot of the Power as a function of the Type I Error of the decision rule (when the performance is calculated from just a sample of the population, it can be thought of as estimators of these quantities). The ROC curve is thus the sensitivity as a function of fall-out. In general, if the probability distributions for both detection and false alarm are known, the ROC curve can be generated by plotting the cumulative distribution function (area under the probability distribution from − ∞ {\displaystyle -\infty } -\infty to the discrimination threshold) of the detection probability in the y-axis versus the cumulative distribution function of the false-alarm probability on the x-axis.

Talk to any lexicographer. Dictionaries can only record usage. You need to abandon this straw man.

Appeal to the authority of lexicographers again
And I get to reject the recorded (common) usage and replace it with my own and so it is pertinently obvious that the dictionary doesn't record MY USAGE!

You need to abandon your attempts to frame the argument.

4 'My ontology is as mystical as that of any physicist.' Dodging the question: can you demonstrate what and where concepts are? Or do you just assume they're 'abstract entities' that exist in 'minds'? Do physicists - as physicists - have anything to say about the existence, nature and location of concepts?

Yes. They also have a lot to say about the nuances of Unicorn hairstyle; and the aesthetic appeal of ball-tickling when done with a French feather duster. We talk a lot of nonsense to pass time in between doing science.

But like I said - words are inconsequential unless they translate into consequences.

Least I ask you to point to the existence, nature and location of 'facts' Wittgenstein figured out this game 100 years ago and I've mastered it.

5 'What a Christian calls 'God' an atheist calls entropy/luck/randomness/universe.' Bollocks - grandstanding, unsubstantiated bollocks. Deepak-woo.

Ad hominem and argument from ignorance.

I can substantiate all my "Deepak-woo" with references to scientific literature AND Evidence. Something YOU have been unable to do so far <- POINT

[TimeSeeker]

If you are going to appeal to lexicographers on language, then we might as well appeal to objective moralists on objective morality?

I guess we are in luck!

I happen to be an objective moralist and I am TELLING you there is objective morality!

Or to put it to you gently: I will concede to your laws of language(logic) if you concede objective morality

[Atla]

...category error.

That is a tautology.

All categories are errors - the universe has none. Minds do.

No point in any further discussion with you. You failed to address the 10-20 big and small errors I already pointed out in your worldview. You are a Dunning-Kruger idiot.

[TimeSeeker]

No point in any further discussion with you. You failed to address the 10-20 big and small errors I already pointed out in your worldview. You are a Dunning-Kruger idiot.

Pity. If you actually understood the IMPLICATIONS of the Dunning-Kruger effect you would know damn well that you have no way to assert whether you are the idiot in the conversation. The probability IS 50/50.

But since you have made the a-priori ASSUMPTION that you KNOW what an 'error' in reasoning looks like and yet you can't justify WHY it is an error, i am going to go with much firmer odds on you being the idiot.

I'd actually bet money on it. Like a lot

The errors in my reasoning you pointed out don't add up to even a fraction to the single FUCKING GYNORMOUS ERROR I keep pointing out. You have no foundation/grounding, so you are just turning the spotlight away from your house of cards by pointing out broken windows in my skyscraper.

Simply: I have laid my foundations in information. You haven't laid any foundations - so you fell into the abyss

[Atla]

Simply: I have laid my foundations in information.

Which is a very fashionable Dunning-Kruger nowadays, as I explained thoroughly. Carry on.

[TimeSeeker]

Which is a very fashionable Dunning-Kruger nowadays, as I explained thoroughly. Carry on.

You didn't explain it. You criticized it. But you offered no alternative

I will quote this again for effect:

The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else."
The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view..."
—Marc Stiegler, David's Sling

Offer me a view more colorful than information, or retreat back to your irrelevance.

You can't even address this problem in YOUR worldview, yet you nitpick my worldview

[Atla]

You didn't explain it. You criticized it. But you offered no alternative

I explained it in every way I could think of, also explained why asking for a strict alternative on the same level is also a fallacy, while talking about the actual "alternative" or rather (more) correct view all along.

This is all known, well-established fact for those who actually look into what information actually is. Which you didn't do, you cling to your magical beliefs about information like a religious zealot. You also cling to Information theory and computations, which are using logic, while also rejecting logic.

You are also the great saviour of humanity through global consensus, but your suggested methods make communication and therefore global consensus pretty much impossible. And the kind of global consensus you are after would probably quickly destroy humanity anyway.

I hear you bet a lot of money on these things.. should I send my bank account number now?

[TimeSeeker]

I explained it in every way I could think of, also explained why asking for a strict alternative on the same level is also a fallacy, while talking about the actual "alternative" or rather (more) correct view all along.

So you failed to explain it? Would you say that is evidence that your system doesn't work?

This is all known, well-established fact for those who actually look into what information actually is. Which you didn't do, you cling to your magical beliefs about information like a religious zealot. You also cling to Information theory and computations, which are using on logic, while also rejecting logic.

Argument from ignorance. Information theory is probabalistic. The kind of logic you speak of is not. Your CONCEPTION of logic is absolutist. I reject YOUR conception of logic. See - you even misunderstood what it is that I am rejecting

You are also the great saviour of humanity through global consensus, but your suggested methods make communication and therefore global consensus pretty much impossible. And the kind of global consensus you are after would probably quickly destroy humanity anyway.

Well no, you see - this is me actually me exercising the principle of charity. While you are spending all your time 'not believing me'. This 'fad' of mine is dominating the economy, politics, science and well - it's dominating society

I am trying to convince you, I too am failing (like you are failing to convince me), but that is less of a problem for me than it is for you, because even though you are "not convinced" - you still use all the things that I am building and you are PAYING ME FOR IT. And I am OK with you voting with your wallet instead of your "verbal agreement". Payment is a form of consensus

I hear you bet a lot of money on these things.. should I send my bank account number now?

What do I sound like a charity? I am shorting your stupidity! That is - I PROFIT from your errors/idiocy!

Q.E.D You are using this "fad and non-concrete" computer, over this "fad and non-concrete" internet on this "fad and non-concrete" forum. And for every byte of information you move over this "illusion" my bank account gets fatter and fatter

Aaaaaah performative contradictions There is a sucker born every minute...

[Atla]

I am trying to convince you, I too am failing (like you are failing to convince me), but that is less of a problem for me than it is for you, because even though you are "not convinced" - you still use all the things that I am building and you are PAYING ME FOR IT. And I am OK with you voting with your wallet instead of your "verbal agreement". Payment is a form of consensus

Q.E.D You are using this "fad and non-concrete" computer, over this "fad and non-concrete" internet on this "fad and non-concrete" forum. And for every byte of information you move over this "illusion" my bank account gets fatter and fatter

Aah, so to protect your information religion, payment has to be consensus now.

That's a pretty bad position you had to retreat to, on a philosophy forum.

Especially seeing how I occasionally get paid for working with computers / writing some software as well.

[TimeSeeker]

I am trying to convince you, I too am failing (like you are failing to convince me), but that is less of a problem for me than it is for you, because even though you are "not convinced" - you still use all the things that I am building and you are PAYING ME FOR IT. And I am OK with you voting with your wallet instead of your "verbal agreement". Payment is a form of consensus

Q.E.D You are using this "fad and non-concrete" computer, over this "fad and non-concrete" internet on this "fad and non-concrete" forum. And for every byte of information you move over this "illusion" my bank account gets fatter and fatter

Aah, so to protect your information religion, payment has to be consensus now.

That's a pretty bad position you had to retreat to, on a philosophy forum.

Especially seeing how I occasionally get paid for working with computers / writing some software as well.

Well are YOU saying that payment Is NOT consensus ?

Why would you pay me for something that doesn’t work with your hard-earned money?

I mean you are stupid but you aren’t THAT stupid!

[Atla]

Well are YOU saying that payment Is NOT consensus ?

Why would you pay me for something that doesn’t work with your hard-earned money?

I mean you are stupid but you aren’t THAT stupid!

Aha. We pay for software/hardware, therefore information is more than an abstraction.

That's like saying we pay for two apples, so numbers like two are also objects.

Are you really that stupid?