The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:44 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:53 pm
As usual you answer is empty of content.
You are complaining about yourself, i.e. your responses are most empty of content; most of the time it is merely brushing off the arguments of others.
For your own intellectual sanity sake, you must provide well justified arguments to counter why my points are wrong.
You would have to make valid agrued points rather than just empty assertions.
You bandy words as if they are unproblematic.
Take "normal" for example. Your entire opinion rests on the meaning of that word, yet you seem to think it is meaningful.
At least you are countering something here.

What is the problem with my use of 'normal', note;
  • Normal: adjective
    1. -conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
    2. -serving to establish a standard.
    Psychology.
    3. -approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
    4. -free from any mental disorder; sane.
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/normal?s=t
Note meaning of 'normal' re 4, thus my

No sane person, free from any mental disorder would want to kill oneself; no normal person would want to kill oneself.

That is why those people who had suicidal feelings need to consult a psychologist and psychiatrist, i.e. they have a mental disorder of some degrees. They are not 'normal' relative to that sense.

So what is the problem with my use of the term 'normal'.

I am 100% confident whatever counters with your supporting views and references you throw at me, I will be able to explain it away and that my claim is rational 99% of the time.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 12:08 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:06 am Thus when any human is killed by whatever means, that is against the moral standard.
Empty assertion.
Where does the Samurai Bushido fit into your moral scheme?
As I had stated,
ALL humans are "programmed" with the following;
1. a program to kill living things for food
2. a program to ensure 1 is not directed at oneself and other living humans.

But human beings being not perfect, the above programs can be defective to a range of degrees.
At the extremes [99/100] there are the psychopaths who will kill without hesitation and those who are highly suicidal where there is nothing that can stop them killing themselves. At the other end, there is is the extreme of minimal defect of say 1-10/100.

The Samurai Bushido would likely have a 51/100 defectiveness in their program of not-to-kill-humans, thus will kill their enemies where there is a need to.
Those who volunteer to be legal soldiers, executors, will likely have a 30/100 defectiveness.

Thus the above defects ranging from 99/100 to 10/100 would be regarded as falling short of the moral standard of ZERO/100 defect of program 2.

There is nothing we can do to correct those with defects at >30/100 to be pacifists at present or the next two or so generations.
But that we are able to justify the moral fact as a moral standard that will drive humanity to seek improvements progressively to bring the defects within the majority down to below 30/100 towards say 10/100 without the understanding it is impossible to achieve 0/100 defectiveness.
This gradual improvement is very possible in the future [next 50, 75, 100 years] given the increasing trend in knowledge and technology.

The extreme pacifists will have a 1/100 defect in the program inhibiting killing of humans.

Note you are so ignorant of the additional information I had used to counter your question. There are more to it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:39 am What makes you think scientific facts are not "distorted" by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations.
Are you banking on me thinking that beliefs, knowledge, etc. when it comes to science wouldn't be subjective/wouldn't be distorted by personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations?

Beliefs, knowledge, etc. are subjective, period. Anything mental in nature is subjective. And that's on the definition you're preferring. Because anything mental is a factor of personal feelings and/or prejudices and/or interpretations. The difference when it comes to science--a difference between it and morality, is that scientific knowledge is about objective stuff, in the sense that the goal is to "match" objective stuff. Morality can't match objective stuff, because there are no objective moral maxims to match.
I am confident you are lacking in the competence to deal with the term 'subjectivity' as dealing with subjects in its more refined sense.

I agree with 'anything mental in nature is subjective' or whatever [mental + physical] it related to the 'subject' is subjective.

Note whatever is "objective stuff" is always connected to the mental.
The only way you can conclude the "objective stuff" is independent of mind is to assume it is independent of mind and objective.
Regardless of how you look at it, the mental [subjectivity] is always involved, there is no escape from subjectivity [the subject].
Prove to me otherwise.

You got it wrong, science do not deal directly with objective stuff at all.
Classical science [not QM] merely ASSUMES there are "objective stuff" out there.
If I were to do any classical science I will have to ASSUME there are objective stuff out there in my thesis.

The essence of science is focused on observations i.e. mental stuffs, and from there infer via its FSK that its conclusion is credible.
What is critical for science is its FSK which is constructed by subjects' beliefs.
The ultimate consideration of scientific truths as objective is its peers review and consensus by the majority of the specific scientists.

Peers review is always conditioned upon a consensus of a group of specific qualified scientists i.e. subjects, thus intersubjective.
Thus what is 'objective stuff' in correspondence to what is assumed is only objective based on intersubjective consensus.
The critical tests for the credibility of scientific truths is its testability and repeatability.

Thus whatever is objective stuff in science is always connected with subjects, i.e. mental.

I have argued, the moral FSK in justifying their moral facts adopts the same processes as the scientific FSK.
The point is the scientific FSK has its constitutions [all necessary requirements] to ensure as much personal bias are filtered out, thus maintaining objectivity
The definition of "objectivity" isn't that "as much personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations are filtered out as can be" (which we'd know how, exactly? The definition you gave is that objectivity denotes something without of personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations.
Objectivity as in science has control processes to filter out as much personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations as can be.
As I had stated, its feature of testability and repeatability ensure that.

Btw, I am not insisting science is perfect, i.e. a GOD of knowledge.
There are loads of failure from science, but it has features to be self-corrective.
Note,
b]Clinical psychology,[/b] in which well-being consists of biological, psychological and social needs being met.
What is so difficult in measuring and being objective about meeting basic biological needs and psychological. Social needs are merely the extra merits for well being.
Biological basic needs can be measured via physical examinations and blood-tests to determine the well-being of the person.
The psychological and mental well being can be assessed by psychologist and psychiatry.
The point is that what counts as well-being is subjective there, as it is everywhere. What counts as subjective isn't without "distortion" from personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations, especially because what counts as well-being is ONLY personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations.
Nope, what counts as well-being, example meeting biological needs and various testing are not leveraged on personal feelings but based on the processes of the scientific FSK.

For example, if you have 4 limbs and there are no physical deformities and health issues with them, then this aspect of well-being could be rated at say 90/100.
If one do a thorough blood test and all the measurements are within normal range, that is 'good' well being in those aspects. There is no personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations involved.

Point is the term 'well-being' is a very loose term, but what I am focusing are the objective core elements that represent what is well-being.
I would exclude 'happiness' as a determinate of 'well-being' for one can still feel happy even if one is very sick.

On the moral side, if a person is not a malignant psychopath [can be diagnosed objectively] that would be a good well-being point in respect of 'no-killing-humans'. This is independent of any personal feelings, opinions and beliefs.

Note again;
What is Philosophical Objectivity.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:00 am The ultimate consideration of scientific truths as objective is its peers review and consensus by the majority of the specific scientists.
You mean assuming that mental phenomena you experience are actually other people?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:05 pm You mean assuming that mental phenomena you experience are actually other people?
Nah. Assuming that the hallucinations are compartmentalised to avoid correlated failures.

All upside. No downside.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:14 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:05 pm You mean assuming that mental phenomena you experience are actually other people?
Nah. Assuming that the hallucinations are compartmentalised to avoid correlated failures.

All upside. No downside.
I don't know what any of that is saying.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:15 pm I don't know what any of that is saying.
Oh well.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:17 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:15 pm I don't know what any of that is saying.
Oh well.
Yeah, I can't do anything with it if you don't explain it in other words.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:18 pm Yeah, I can't do anything with it if you don't explain it in other words.
Ok... it doesn't matter if you are not "another person", but "merely a solipsistic hallucination", it's sufficient that you reside in a different part of "my brain" and have some sense of "autonomy".

That is sufficient for "peer review". It simply means that the content can been reviewed by a "different perspective" and so the risk of error is reduced.

If there's a "bug" in one system there's low probability that the other systems have the exact same (correlated) problem/bug.

Measure twice, cut once etc.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:23 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:18 pm Yeah, I can't do anything with it if you don't explain it in other words.
Ok... it doesn't matter if you are not "another person", but "merely a solipsistic hallucination", it's sufficient that you reside in a different part of "my brain"
There would be no reason to believe that you have a brain/body, etc. by the way. You could say it's just that the hallucination is different, though, sure.
the content can been reviewed by a "different perspective" and so the risk of error is reduced.
What the heck would a "risk of error" be? If we're just talking about hallucinations, how can any of them be in error? What would that amount to?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:25 pm There would be no reason to believe that you have a brain/body, etc. by the way. You could say it's just that the hallucination is different, though, sure.
It's sufficient that I don't self-identify with it to call it "not me"/"somebody else"
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:25 pm What the heck would a "risk of error" be? If we're just talking about hallucinations, how can any of them be in error? What would that amount to?
Whatever "error" means in hallucination land.

Failure to predict other hallucinations.
Failure to obtain.
Failure to control hallucinations.

Choose your poison.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:28 pm It's sufficient that I don't self-identify with it to call it "not me"/"somebody else"
Okay, but that would make little sense, because you'd have no reason to NOT self-identify with it.
Failure to predict.
Why should it predict? It's a hallucination. Why wouldn't predicting be the error?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Re self-identifying, you certainly wouldn't think that you can observe something that's not yourself, would you?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:30 pm Okay, but that would make little sense, because you'd have no reason to NOT self-identify with it.
I don't have a reason TO self-identify with you.
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:30 pm Why should it predict? It's a hallucination. Why wouldn't predicting be the error?
Because that's what hallucinations want? Apparently they have hallucinatory social norms.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:32 pm Re self-identifying, you certainly wouldn't think that you can observe something that's not yourself, would you?
If solipsism were true it doesn't imply I would know it to be true.

I "wouldn't self identify" with you, and you will still be just a figment of my imagination.
Post Reply