Page 242 of 295

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 8:50 am
by Belinda
Skepdick wrote:
1+1=2 is true in one descriptive context called "decimal number system"
1+1=2 is false in another descriptive context called "binary number system"

Modernism is the meta-descriptive context that scientists hold to when they are acting as scientists. Mathematicians , I understand, are post-modernist and pragmatic about number bases by which I mean mathematicians choose a particular number base according to who uses that number base or the purpose for which it's being used.

'Facts' is a concept applied to the modernist meta-descriptive content but not the array of postmodern descriptive contexts.Within the modernist descriptive context academic disciplines each has its own formula for ascertaining whether or not a concept is a fact.

I'd like to explore the connection, or alternatively the difference, between post modernism and the metaphysical view of the eternal now. I think it's safe to say while postmodernism is about how we can and can't know, the eternal now and all its infinite contents is about what nobody knows but which would be rather nice nevertheless.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 8:53 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Skepdick wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 7:54 am OK, I can reconcile with 'descriptive context' but I insist 'Framework of Knowledge' is more critical and relevant.
You are taking too long to get to the point.

Philosophy too is a framework. Framework for what? Frameworks are theories.

Say we have a framework/theory of knowledge. What is knowledge used for?

What are frameworks/theories used for?
NOPE, framework of knowledge are not theories.

Note the example, the Scientific Framework provide the infrastructure, mechanisms, processes [scientific method], rules, principles, assumptions, peer review etc. to enable scientists to generate scientific knowledge, theories, facts and truths.

Within each main Framework of Knowledge, there are sub-Frameworks, e.g. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Neurosciences, etc with their specific infrastructure, etc.

Philosophy-proper is a very general framework but there are sub-frameworks of philosophies such as logic, morality, ontology, philosophical realism, philosophical anti-realism, analytic philosophy, continental philosophy, etc.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 8:59 am
by Sculptor
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:53 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 7:54 am OK, I can reconcile with 'descriptive context' but I insist 'Framework of Knowledge' is more critical and relevant.
You are taking too long to get to the point.

Philosophy too is a framework. Framework for what? Frameworks are theories.

Say we have a framework/theory of knowledge. What is knowledge used for?

What are frameworks/theories used for?
NOPE, framework of knowledge are not theories.

Note the example, the Scientific Framework provide the infrastructure, mechanisms, processes [scientific method], rules, principles, assumptions, peer review etc. to enable scientists to generate scientific knowledge, theories, facts and truths.

Within each main Framework of Knowledge, there are sub-Frameworks, e.g. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Neurosciences, etc with their specific infrastructure, etc.

Philosophy-proper is a very general framework but there are sub-frameworks of philosophies such as logic, morality, ontology, philosophical realism, philosophical anti-realism, analytic philosophy, continental philosophy, etc.
Semantic word salad.

Framework DEFINITION.
a basic structure underlying a system, concept, or text.
"the theoretical framework of political sociology"

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:07 am
by Skepdick
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:53 am NOPE, framework of knowledge are not theories.
That may be the way you see it, but the way I see it EVERYTHING is a theory.

Theory of frameworks.
Theory of theories.

As Sculptor points out - a theory is a system. What's a system?

Do you have a theory of systems?

I do:

* The informal version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
* The formal version: http://nuprl.org/Intro/intro.html
Over the years the scope of the project has expanded - from developing individual programs and theorems to constructing systems and theories. Starting with the slogan "proofs-as-programs," we now talk about "theories-as-systems." This change of scale has led to a new class of problems and challenges discussed throughout this project summary.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:53 am Note the example, the Scientific Framework provide the infrastructure, mechanisms, processes [scientific method], rules, principles, assumptions, peer review etc. to enable scientists to generate scientific knowledge, theories, facts and truths.

Within each main Framework of Knowledge, there are sub-Frameworks, e.g. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Neurosciences, etc with their specific infrastructure, etc.

Philosophy-proper is a very general framework but there are sub-frameworks of philosophies such as logic, morality, ontology, philosophical realism, philosophical anti-realism, analytic philosophy, continental philosophy, etc.
That's all implementation details/design choices! Yes. Practitioners develop practices suitable to their goals. So what?

Scientists develop their own rituals/methods.
Philosophers develop their own rituals/methods.
Mathematicians develop theirs.
Logicians.
Engineers.
Doctors.
etc. etc. etc.

What for?

Surely you see the pattern between your words and the words below?
The goals of systems theory are to model a system's dynamics, constraints, conditions, and to elucidate principles (such as purpose, measure, methods, tools) that can be discerned and applied to other systems at every level of nesting, and in a wide range of fields for achieving optimized equifinality.[

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:19 am
by Skepdick
Sculptor wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:59 am Semantic word salad.
My iPad understands more than you do.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:48 am
by Skepdick
Belinda wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:50 am Modernism is the meta-descriptive context that scientists hold to when they are acting as scientists. Mathematicians , I understand, are post-modernist and pragmatic about number bases by which I mean mathematicians choose a particular number base according to who uses that number base or the purpose for which it's being used.
That's quite reasonable but it is a particular example. The point was being made for the purposes of recognising that context is part and parcel of interpretation.

We are all guilty of symbolism - my symbols are Information, Recursion, Computation.
And to extend this to a general claim: the meaning of a symbol is not separate from its context.

So for general purposes it's OK to speak about "the numbers", but there comes a point where even numbers can be represented differently.
And then to kick my own foundations out from under my own feet: there are different models (representations) of compuation.

Recursion can be represented differently. Everything can be re-conceptualised/re-described. Because language is not grounded to reality except via the entity which uses it.
Belinda wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:50 am 'Facts' is a concept applied to the modernist meta-descriptive content but not the array of postmodern descriptive contexts.Within the modernist descriptive context academic disciplines each has its own formula for ascertaining whether or not a concept is a fact.
Right. And so each "academic discipline" is a closed system in its own right - own set of rules/practices/standards.

A tribe.
Belinda wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:50 am I'd like to explore the connection, or alternatively the difference, between post modernism and the metaphysical view of the eternal now. I think it's safe to say while postmodernism is about how we can and can't know, the eternal now and all its infinite contents is about what nobody knows but which would be rather nice nevertheless.
The "eternal now" is this idea that a symbol/system of symbolism (a religion) can survive on its own two feet without humans to practice it.

It's a stupid idea - we are trapped in time. My take on the matter largely overlaps with Rorty: http://youtube.com/watch?v=C7FxWHd_vsk

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 1:36 pm
by RCSaunders
Skepdick wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 2:23 am if you are arguing ...
I'm not arguing anything. Believe whatever you like.

On April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln. That is a fact. On the next day, April 15, 1865, it was still true that John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln the previous day. On April 14, 1965, it was still true that John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln one hundred years earlier on April 14, 1865. Today it is still true that John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865. There will never be a date in the future when it is not true that John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865.

A statement of fact is not an argument. No one is trying to convince you of anything and you certainly don't have to believe it.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 1:41 pm
by Skepdick
RCSaunders wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 1:36 pm A statement of fact is not an argument. No one is trying to convince you of anything and you certainly don't have to believe it.
Of course it is an argument! It's just implicit, not an explicit.

You are claiming that your account of history (as you recall it, or as it has been recorded) is correct.

You are literally saying "What happened, happened exactly as I say it happened and no new information could ever convince me that history was recorded incorrectly."

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 1:58 pm
by RCSaunders
Skepdick wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 1:41 pm You are claiming that your account of history (as you recall it, or as it has been recorded) is correct
You and VA are making the same mistake. You are confusing knowledge of facts with actual facts. A fact is what is, and cannot change. One's knowledge of facts may or may not be correct, but one's knowledge (or lack thereof) does not change the fact.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 2:11 pm
by RCSaunders
Skepdick wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 3:30 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 8:19 pm You are absolutely right. To bad you couldn't explain that to the whole logical positivist and linguistic analysis crowd.
Turns out I don't even have to prove you wrong. Science is already doing it.

Pattern recognition/categorization is a linguistic problem. in the sense that we are programming computers how to recognise and categorise things USING language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-shot_learning
https://github.com/openai/gpt-3
Sure! A printing press produces information, an abacus thinks, a camera learns, and the manipulation of meaningless symbols is the equivalent of knowledge. Superstitious mystical nonsense.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 2:53 pm
by Impenitent
I wanted to learn math once and used an abacus... it swore at my father...

-Imp

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 3:37 pm
by Skepdick
RCSaunders wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 2:11 pm Sure! A printing press produces information, an abacus thinks, a camera learns, and the manipulation of meaningless symbols is the equivalent of knowledge. Superstitious mystical nonsense.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 1:10 am Quantity is a kind of quality--the quality of things that can be counted (e.g. multiplicity) or with attributes that can be measured (e.g. length and weight).
People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

ALL quantitative reasoning reduces to Mathematics.
It's all the qualitative stuff that Mathematics somehow misses.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 3:43 pm
by Skepdick
RCSaunders wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 1:58 pm You and VA are making the same mistake. You are confusing knowledge of facts with actual facts.
Am I now?

Please could you specify the exact ontological location of the "actual fact" that "On April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln."

Pretty sure it exists only in human heads and in some man-made information storage devices. Like history books and online encyclopaedias.

Because that's what memory/history is for - remembering stuff.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 1:58 pm A fact is what is, and cannot change. One's knowledge of facts may or may not be correct, but one's knowledge (or lack thereof) does not change the fact.
Oh. You want to play that stupid game.

Is your knowledge of the fact that "On April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln." correct?

What sort of new information would change your knowledge?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Sat May 30, 2020 4:16 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Sculptor wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:53 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:42 am
You are taking too long to get to the point.

Philosophy too is a framework. Framework for what? Frameworks are theories.

Say we have a framework/theory of knowledge. What is knowledge used for?

What are frameworks/theories used for?
NOPE, framework of knowledge are not theories.

Note the example, the Scientific Framework provide the infrastructure, mechanisms, processes [scientific method], rules, principles, assumptions, peer review etc. to enable scientists to generate scientific knowledge, theories, facts and truths.

Within each main Framework of Knowledge, there are sub-Frameworks, e.g. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Neurosciences, etc with their specific infrastructure, etc.

Philosophy-proper is a very general framework but there are sub-frameworks of philosophies such as logic, morality, ontology, philosophical realism, philosophical anti-realism, analytic philosophy, continental philosophy, etc.
Semantic word salad.

Framework DEFINITION.
a basic structure underlying a system, concept, or text.
"the theoretical framework of political sociology"
How come you are do dumb?

Your definition above fit with my point, i.e.
  • Note the example, the Scientific Framework provide the infrastructure, mechanisms, processes [scientific method], rules, principles, assumptions, peer review etc. to enable scientists to generate scientific knowledge, theories, facts and truths.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /framework

Framework= a system of rules, ideas, or beliefs that is used to plan or decide something:
Example;
-a legal framework for resolving disputes
-The U.S. Constitution established a broad framework of government.
-Many people accept the principles of evolution within the framework of their religious beliefs.
-Most biologists use the same basic framework for classification.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Posted: Sat May 30, 2020 4:27 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Skepdick wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 9:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:53 am NOPE, framework of knowledge are not theories.
That may be the way you see it, but the way I see it EVERYTHING is a theory.

Theory of frameworks.
Theory of theories.

As Sculptor points out - a theory is a system. What's a system?

Do you have a theory of systems?

I do:

* The informal version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
* The formal version: http://nuprl.org/Intro/intro.html
Over the years the scope of the project has expanded - from developing individual programs and theorems to constructing systems and theories. Starting with the slogan "proofs-as-programs," we now talk about "theories-as-systems." This change of scale has led to a new class of problems and challenges discussed throughout this project summary.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:53 am Note the example, the Scientific Framework provide the infrastructure, mechanisms, processes [scientific method], rules, principles, assumptions, peer review etc. to enable scientists to generate scientific knowledge, theories, facts and truths.

Within each main Framework of Knowledge, there are sub-Frameworks, e.g. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Neurosciences, etc with their specific infrastructure, etc.

Philosophy-proper is a very general framework but there are sub-frameworks of philosophies such as logic, morality, ontology, philosophical realism, philosophical anti-realism, analytic philosophy, continental philosophy, etc.
That's all implementation details/design choices! Yes. Practitioners develop practices suitable to their goals. So what?
So what??
It is very critical.
My point is to counter Peter Holmes' 'what is fact' which he take to be absolute and unconditional.
My point is 'what is fact' is always conditioned upon the Framework and System of Knowledge.

Scientists develop their own rituals/methods.
Philosophers develop their own rituals/methods.
Mathematicians develop theirs.
Logicians.
Engineers.
Doctors.
etc. etc. etc.

What for?

Surely you see the pattern between your words and the words below?
The goals of systems theory are to model a system's dynamics, constraints, conditions, and to elucidate principles (such as purpose, measure, methods, tools) that can be discerned and applied to other systems at every level of nesting, and in a wide range of fields for achieving optimized equifinality.[
When I used 'Framework' it is always accompanied with the term 'system'.
It is just that I am lazy to type in the additional word.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 17, 2020 5:54 amWhilst I have to accept moral relativism due to the current constraints, I do not agree moral relativism should persist in the future, rather humanity must work toward a secular empirical moral realism based Moral Framework and System.
viewtopic.php?p=455561#p455561