Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:28 pm No theory. The subjective/objective distinction is basically a "person-dependent"/"person-independent" distinction (or more specifically mind-dependent/mind-independent). Facts are states of affairs.
All definitions/distinctions are person-dependent. All philosophy is person-dependent. All measurements in science are measurer-dependent.

So which theory of "person-independence" are you appealing to? Because it's probably bullshit.
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:28 pm So are you using "truth" to basically refer to "what one feels"? So for example, if someone feels that the recent US election was fraudulent, that's true, but if one feels that it wasn't fraudulent, then that's true?
I have no idea how I am using it, I just know how to use it. It's like riding a bicycle.

Do you feel that the theme of this website is blue?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:31 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:28 pm No theory. The subjective/objective distinction is basically a "person-dependent"/"person-independent" distinction (or more specifically mind-dependent/mind-independent). Facts are states of affairs.
All definitions/distinctions are person-dependent. All philosophy is person-dependent. All measurements in science are measurer-dependent.

So which theory of "person-independence" are you appealing to? Because it's probably bullshit.
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:28 pm So are you using "truth" to basically refer to "what one feels"? So for example, if someone feels that the recent US election was fraudulent, that's true, but if one feels that it wasn't fraudulent, then that's true?
I have no idea how I am using it, I just know how to use it. It's like riding a bicycle.

Do you feel that the theme of this website is blue?
First I don't know if you saw the last part. I sincerely am of the opinion that you're not thinking this stuff through very well at all. Is it true that you're not thinking this stuff through well?
Skepdick
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:46 pm First I don't know if you saw the last part. I sincerely am of the opinion that you're not thinking this stuff through very well at all. Is it true that you're not thinking this stuff through well?
Which theory of "wellness" are you appealing to?

In so far as I can tell, I've thought this stuff through as well as it can be thought about. Is just that all this stuff is plagued by undecidability.

Any conceptual/categorisation schema is arbitrary. Had you chosen a different one you would've arrived at different conclusions than the ones you've arrived at.

So... why did you choose the conceptual schema you are defending?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:49 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:46 pm First I don't know if you saw the last part. I sincerely am of the opinion that you're not thinking this stuff through very well at all. Is it true that you're not thinking this stuff through well?
Which theory of "wellness" are you appealing to?

In so far as I can tell, I've thought this stuff through as well as it can be thought about. Is just that all this stuff is plagued by undecidability.

Any conceptual/categorisation schema is arbitrary. Had you chosen a different one you would've arrived at different conclusions than the ones you've arrived at.

So... why did you choose the conceptual schema you are defending?
Is "'Murder is wrong' is true" undecideable?
Skepdick
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:52 pm Is "'Murder is wrong' is true" undecideable?
Not to me.

To you it is, apparently.

Now answer the question...
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:49 pm So... why did you choose the conceptual schema you are defending?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:01 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:52 pm Is "'Murder is wrong' is true" undecideable?
Not to me.
Then how is it the case that "all this stuff is plagued by undecidability"?
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:49 pm So... why did you choose the conceptual schema you are defending?
That depends on your theory of what "conceptual schema" refers to. Isn't that what you'd say? What theory do you have in mind?
Skepdick
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:05 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:01 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:52 pm Is "'Murder is wrong' is true" undecideable?
Not to me.
Then how is it the case that "all this stuff is plagued by undecidability"?
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:49 pm So... why did you choose the conceptual schema you are defending?
That depends on your theory of what "conceptual schema" refers to. Isn't that what you'd say? What theory do you have in mind?
Look how cute you look at trying to frame me.

"All this stuff is plagued by undecidability" in exactly the same way that "All humans are liars" (myself included).

If you insist on conventional meaning, why are you asking me all these questions?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5838
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:29 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:33 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 7:05 pm 1 You haven't shown that there are moral facts, and your 'moral FSK' is nothing more than a question begging invention. But hey, keep kidding yourself.

2 All this blather about concepts demonstrates my point. They're misleading metaphysical fictions, just like the minds that are supposed to 'contain' them. And your concoction - a mental represetation represented by a neural algorithm or program - is just another nonsensical mess. There's no evidence for the existence of any of the many things described as concepts. And all talk of the mental that's anything other than metaphorical is substance-dualism.

3 There are dogs (real things). There is the word 'dog' (a real thing), that we use to talk about dogs. Now, try describing or 'analysing' the supposed thing called the concept of a dog, What does it mean to do that, and what's the result? Write down your findings, and see if it amounts to anything more than a description of a dog.
You are SO ignorant and yet SO arrogant.

Note I have done extensive research into cognitive science, neuro-cognitive-science, neuro-psychology and has sufficient exposure to the various neurosciences.

Here is a quickie clue from Oliver Sacks;
There are a ton of research supporting this theory related to concepts [neural correlates] in the brain;
  • The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales is a 1985 book by neurologist Oliver Sacks describing the case histories of some of his patients. Sacks chose the title of the book from the case study of one of his patients who has visual agnosia,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_W ... _for_a_Hat
In this case, there are developed neural correlates [the physical neural algorithm] of the concept of 'wife' 'face' and 'hat' in the man's brain and mind. However, since the man's brain was damaged, he was unable to match the right concept to the images from the retina and the visual cortex.

In the case of the "concept of a dog" that concept is a fact of a mental states represented by the appropriate physical neural correlates.
If the person suffers brain damage, he may see an elephant or something else, when a real dog is presented to him or he could only see lines, patches or whatever.
Is a so-called concept different from an idea or a thought? If so, in what way? If not, why use the word 'concept'?

Is a so-called concept a mental representation, object, entity, state or capacity of cognitive agents?

What's the difference between a mental thing and an abstract thing? Can an abstract thing be a mental thing?

How exactly do firing neurons 'represent' or 'correlate with' the supposed concept of a dog?

If brain damage leads to seeing an elephant rather than the actual dog, why is this a conceptual problem rather than a neurological problem? And if a conceptual problem is nothing more than a neurological problem, why bother talking about concepts? What explanatory role do they have?

What and where are the mind and the supposed mental things, states and events that the mind supposedly 'contains'? Do you think neuroscience has answered, or even can answer, those questions?
I do not want to go on a lecture tour of all the above. You'll need to do the research to find answers to the above.

Note this which is relevant;

PH: Is a so-called concept different from an idea or a thought? If so, in what way? If not, why use the word 'concept'?

These are the philosophical meanings [not conventional] of the respective terms.

A thought is an output of the brain/mind processes that can eventually manifest through the subconscious and be recognized by the conscious mind as some thing [images, concepts, inferences, etc.].

A concept is a thought that is related an element of the mind that is associated with empirically-related or possible elements. Example, 'dog' which is empirically possible to be experienced, verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a specific FSK, e.g. the moral facts represented by its concept.

An idea [philosophical] is a thought that has no relation to any empirically related nor possible element. Thus an idea is something like a square-circle, soul, God, the absolute-whole-universe.

From Kant;
Kant in CPR wrote:There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else [ideas] of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions [ideas] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title [rational], since they [ideas] are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They [ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them [the illusions].
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
While the concepts are relevant, the ideas above are not relevant to our discussion of moral facts but more to the question of whether God exists as real or not.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1728
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:47 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:29 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:33 am
You are SO ignorant and yet SO arrogant.

Note I have done extensive research into cognitive science, neuro-cognitive-science, neuro-psychology and has sufficient exposure to the various neurosciences.

Here is a quickie clue from Oliver Sacks;
There are a ton of research supporting this theory related to concepts [neural correlates] in the brain;
  • The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales is a 1985 book by neurologist Oliver Sacks describing the case histories of some of his patients. Sacks chose the title of the book from the case study of one of his patients who has visual agnosia,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_W ... _for_a_Hat
In this case, there are developed neural correlates [the physical neural algorithm] of the concept of 'wife' 'face' and 'hat' in the man's brain and mind. However, since the man's brain was damaged, he was unable to match the right concept to the images from the retina and the visual cortex.

In the case of the "concept of a dog" that concept is a fact of a mental states represented by the appropriate physical neural correlates.
If the person suffers brain damage, he may see an elephant or something else, when a real dog is presented to him or he could only see lines, patches or whatever.
Is a so-called concept different from an idea or a thought? If so, in what way? If not, why use the word 'concept'?

Is a so-called concept a mental representation, object, entity, state or capacity of cognitive agents?

What's the difference between a mental thing and an abstract thing? Can an abstract thing be a mental thing?

How exactly do firing neurons 'represent' or 'correlate with' the supposed concept of a dog?

If brain damage leads to seeing an elephant rather than the actual dog, why is this a conceptual problem rather than a neurological problem? And if a conceptual problem is nothing more than a neurological problem, why bother talking about concepts? What explanatory role do they have?

What and where are the mind and the supposed mental things, states and events that the mind supposedly 'contains'? Do you think neuroscience has answered, or even can answer, those questions?
I do not want to go on a lecture tour of all the above. You'll need to do the research to find answers to the above.

Note this which is relevant;

PH: Is a so-called concept different from an idea or a thought? If so, in what way? If not, why use the word 'concept'?

These are the philosophical meanings [not conventional] of the respective terms.

A thought is an output of the brain/mind processes that can eventually manifest through the subconscious and be recognized by the conscious mind as some thing [images, concepts, inferences, etc.].

A concept is a thought that is related an element of the mind that is associated with empirically-related or possible elements. Example, 'dog' which is empirically possible to be experienced, verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a specific FSK, e.g. the moral facts represented by its concept.

An idea [philosophical] is a thought that has no relation to any empirically related nor possible element. Thus an idea is something like a square-circle, soul, God, the absolute-whole-universe.

From Kant;
Kant in CPR wrote:There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else [ideas] of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions [ideas] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title [rational], since they [ideas] are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They [ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them [the illusions].
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
While the concepts are relevant, the ideas above are not relevant to our discussion of moral facts but more to the question of whether God exists as real or not.
At every stage of your and Kant's account, there are unjustified metaphysical assertions for there is no empirical evidence. For example, Kant's claim that some 'ideas .. have sprung from the very Nature of Reason' demonstrates the delusion that 'reason' is the name of some kind of thing that exists somewhere, somehow, and has a nature that can be described. This mystical codswallop has passed muster for so long that it goes unquestioned.

What and where are so-called abstract things, such as concepts, propositions and minds, and in what way do they exist? Talk of neurology and so-called neural algorithms is useless. And the same is true for so-called mental things, events and states. Belief in their existence is precisely as deluded as belief in supernatural things, such as fairies and gods. The mind is the soul secularised.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5838
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:03 pm At every stage of your and Kant's account, there are unjustified metaphysical assertions for there is no empirical evidence. For example, Kant's claim that some 'ideas .. have sprung from the very Nature of Reason' demonstrates the delusion that 'reason' is the name of some kind of thing that exists somewhere, somehow, and has a nature that can be described. This mystical codswallop has passed muster for so long that it goes unquestioned.
How come you are SO ignorant?

Do you deny you have a faculty of reason that enable you to reason?
What and where are so-called abstract things, such as concepts, propositions and minds, and in what way do they exist?
Talk of neurology and so-called neural algorithms is useless. And the same is true for so-called mental things, events and states. Belief in their existence is precisely as deluded as belief in supernatural things, such as fairies and gods. The mind is the soul secularised.
So your brain capacity to reason and its various faculties are supernatural things, such as fairies and gods??

You can wallow in your ignorance.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1728
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 5:46 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:03 pm At every stage of your and Kant's account, there are unjustified metaphysical assertions for there is no empirical evidence. For example, Kant's claim that some 'ideas .. have sprung from the very Nature of Reason' demonstrates the delusion that 'reason' is the name of some kind of thing that exists somewhere, somehow, and has a nature that can be described. This mystical codswallop has passed muster for so long that it goes unquestioned.
How come you are SO ignorant?

Do you deny you have a faculty of reason that enable you to reason?
What and where are so-called abstract things, such as concepts, propositions and minds, and in what way do they exist?
Talk of neurology and so-called neural algorithms is useless. And the same is true for so-called mental things, events and states. Belief in their existence is precisely as deluded as belief in supernatural things, such as fairies and gods. The mind is the soul secularised.
So your brain capacity to reason and its various faculties are supernatural things, such as fairies and gods??

You can wallow in your ignorance.
So what and where is 'the faculty of reason', and how does someone 'have' it?

Like everyone else, you have absolutely no idea. You just mumble the words and pretend they refer to real things, as do words such as 'neuron', 'blood vessel' and 'synaptic firing'. But hey, why risk questioning ancient delusions?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5838
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:16 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 5:46 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:03 pm At every stage of your and Kant's account, there are unjustified metaphysical assertions for there is no empirical evidence. For example, Kant's claim that some 'ideas .. have sprung from the very Nature of Reason' demonstrates the delusion that 'reason' is the name of some kind of thing that exists somewhere, somehow, and has a nature that can be described. This mystical codswallop has passed muster for so long that it goes unquestioned.
How come you are SO ignorant?

Do you deny you have a faculty of reason that enable you to reason?
What and where are so-called abstract things, such as concepts, propositions and minds, and in what way do they exist?
Talk of neurology and so-called neural algorithms is useless. And the same is true for so-called mental things, events and states. Belief in their existence is precisely as deluded as belief in supernatural things, such as fairies and gods. The mind is the soul secularised.
So your brain capacity to reason and its various faculties are supernatural things, such as fairies and gods??

You can wallow in your ignorance.
So what and where is 'the faculty of reason', and how does someone 'have' it?

Like everyone else, you have absolutely no idea. You just mumble the words and pretend they refer to real things, as do words such as 'neuron', 'blood vessel' and 'synaptic firing'. But hey, why risk questioning ancient delusions?
Again you are ignorant.
Your dogmatism and bigotry is making you stupid and overlooking common public knowledge;
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
    This article is about the human faculty of reason and rationality

    Reason is the capacity of consciously making sense of things, applying logic, and adapting or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.[1]
    It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a distinguishing ability possessed by humans.[2] Reason is sometimes referred to as rationality.[3]

    The biological functioning of the brain is studied by neurophysiologists and neuropsychologists. Research in this area includes research into the structure and function of normally functioning brains, and of damaged or otherwise unusual brains.
and how does someone 'have' it?
Read this book,

Like everyone else, you have absolutely no idea. You just mumble the words and pretend they refer to real things, as do words such as 'neuron', 'blood vessel' and 'synaptic firing'. But hey, why risk questioning ancient delusions?
You are so ignorant and yet so stupidly arrogant to make baseless accusations.
Suggest you do research into the neurosciences, cognitive sciences and the other relevant subjects.

You still have outstanding research to do, i.e. a wider reach into Morality and Ethics.

Btw, are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect [not likely with your ignorance]
  • The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.
    It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from people's inability to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their level of competence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect
Post Reply