Trolley Problem

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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:20 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:17 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:17 am A fact-in-itself is a fact that is independent of any FSK.
In other word a fact is always a fact-within-FSK.
Show me a fact that is absolutely independent of any FSK, and I will exposed the assumed or underlying FSK you are relying upon.
I can't show you something until you explain what it is that you want to see. What are you asking me to show you?

What is a fact that is independent from any framework and system of knowledge?

Same question: what is a thing-in-itself? Do you also want to see one of those?
You could just point to any arbitrary thing.
Agreed. Everything that exists exists independently from any framework and system of knowledge, and therefore any description. The mind-warp that VA and the dick-troll are suffering from - mistaking what we know and can say, or what can be known or said, about things for the way things are - is like a bottomless vortex. No wonder they're so confused.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:25 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:20 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:17 am
I can't show you something until you explain what it is that you want to see. What are you asking me to show you?

What is a fact that is independent from any framework and system of knowledge?

Same question: what is a thing-in-itself? Do you also want to see one of those?
You could just point to any arbitrary thing.
Agreed. Everything that exists exists independently from any framework and system of knowledge, and therefore any description. The mind-warp that VA and the dick-troll are suffering from - mistaking what we know and can say, or what can be known or said, about things for the way things are - is like a bottomless vortex. No wonder they're so confused.
Yeah, it seems like such a simple thing. I can't understand being seduced by this confusion.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:38 pm Yeah, it seems like such a simple thing. I can't understand being seduced by this confusion.
Dumb reductionists :lol: :lol: :lol:

Point at Germany.
Point at the ecosystem.
Point at reality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:56 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:32 am
But it is impossible for an independent fact-in-itself to exists as real.
This is just complete nonsense. What's the case isn't determined by consensus, aside from the consensus being determined by that.
You think it is nonsense because you are ignorant, and as I had stated is influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.

What is intersubjective consensus is on the reality and objectivity of an ASSUMED 'what is the case', feature of reality, state of affairs, the fact-in-itself and the likes.
There is no way to and it is a fallacy to claim what is ASSUMED is really real.
To simply reify what is 'ASSUMED' as real is delusional.

What we are most certain is the total experiences we experienced which can be confirmed empirically and reinforced philosophically.

To ensure what is experienced is really real the most effective means is to verify and justified the experienced empirically and philosophically upon a credible framework and system of reality [FSR, FSK], e.g. the scientific FSK.
All FSKs are interdependent with the human conditions.
Therein the specific FSK we give names to specific pattern of experiences of reality in parallel to the ASSUMED reality, i.e. that is the case, the fact-in-itself, and the likes.

Therefore what is most real is that total experience we have.
To be confidence of what we deemed as most real, this is confirmed by verifying and justifying the experienced-reality empirically and philosophically upon a credible framework and system of reality [FSR, FSK], e.g. the scientific FSK.
Thus what is really real can only be a qualified reality which is co-shared based on intersubjective consensus upon a credible FSK, thus objective, i.e. independent of any individual's beliefs or opinion.

There is no way one can reify and claim what is ASSUMED as the really real that it is independent of the human conditions, i.e. as an independent fact-by-itself.

Posted the above in a new thread for more detailed discussion;
viewtopic.php?p=505724#p505724
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:17 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:17 am A fact-in-itself is a fact that is independent of any FSK.
In other word a fact is always a fact-within-FSK.
Show me a fact that is absolutely independent of any FSK, and I will exposed the assumed or underlying FSK you are relying upon.
I can't show you something until you explain what it is that you want to see. What are you asking me to show you?

What is a fact that is independent from any framework and system of knowledge?

Same question: what is a thing-in-itself? Do you also want to see one of those?
Note my response to Terrapin above,
I have posted that as a new thread for further discussion,
What is a Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?p=505724#p505724

The fact that you claimed is a fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself that is independent of the human conditions and will even exists of there are no humans.

As I had stated above what is a fact-in-itself is merely an ASSUMED real thing.
How can I show you what you have have ASSUMED as real?

As I had claimed before, you are begging the question on what is the fact of reality when you ASSUMED it exists and real even before you prove it exists as real.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:13 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:17 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:17 am A fact-in-itself is a fact that is independent of any FSK.
In other word a fact is always a fact-within-FSK.
Show me a fact that is absolutely independent of any FSK, and I will exposed the assumed or underlying FSK you are relying upon.
I can't show you something until you explain what it is that you want to see. What are you asking me to show you?

What is a fact that is independent from any framework and system of knowledge?

Same question: what is a thing-in-itself? Do you also want to see one of those?
Note my response to Terrapin above,
I have posted that as a new thread for further discussion,
What is a Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?p=505724#p505724

The fact that you claimed is a fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself that is independent of the human conditions and will even exists of there are no humans.

As I had stated above what is a fact-in-itself is merely an ASSUMED real thing.
How can I show you what you have have ASSUMED as real?

As I had claimed before, you are begging the question on what is the fact of reality when you ASSUMED it exists and real even before you prove it exists as real.
I don't assume facts-in-themselves exist. I have no idea what such things are. They seem to be straw-facts that you've invented, to justify your straw-man argument. So my question stands: what is a fact-in-itself?

As for facts (features of reality), I agree that empirical demonstration of their existence is a rational requirement. And you've failed to meet your burden of empirical proof that moral facts exist. You haven't even explained the meaning of the expression 'moral fact' - because it's incoherent.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:51 pm As for facts (features of reality), I agree that empirical demonstration of their existence is a rational requirement. And you've failed to meet your burden of empirical proof that moral facts exist. You haven't even explained the meaning of the expression 'moral fact' - because it's incoherent.
You haven't even explained the meaning of the expression "fact"!

What or where is the fact that THIS COLOR IS RED? Go ahead and empirically demonstrate where that fact is.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

When all the platoons had marched past, a little dick-troll piped up: 'But ... where's the regiment? All we've seen are platoons!
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:26 pm When all the platoons had marched past, a little dick-troll piped up: 'But ... where's the regiment? All we've seen are platoons!
So how come you keep missing objective morality?

The entire fucking military (army, navy and airforce) passed by.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:13 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:17 am
I can't show you something until you explain what it is that you want to see. What are you asking me to show you?

What is a fact that is independent from any framework and system of knowledge?

Same question: what is a thing-in-itself? Do you also want to see one of those?
Note my response to Terrapin above,
I have posted that as a new thread for further discussion,
What is a Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?p=505724#p505724

The fact that you claimed is a fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself that is independent of the human conditions and will even exists of there are no humans.

As I had stated above what is a fact-in-itself is merely an ASSUMED real thing.
How can I show you what you have have ASSUMED as real?

As I had claimed before, you are begging the question on what is the fact of reality when you ASSUMED it exists and real even before you prove it exists as real.
I don't assume facts-in-themselves exist. I have no idea what such things are. They seem to be straw-facts that you've invented, to justify your straw-man argument. So my question stands: what is a fact-in-itself?

As for facts (features of reality), I agree that empirical demonstration of their existence is a rational requirement. And you've failed to meet your burden of empirical proof that moral facts exist. You haven't even explained the meaning of the expression 'moral fact' - because it's incoherent.
Yeah, I don't know what the difference would be between a "fact-in-itself" and just a fact. What does "in-itself" add?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:13 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:17 am
I can't show you something until you explain what it is that you want to see. What are you asking me to show you?

What is a fact that is independent from any framework and system of knowledge?

Same question: what is a thing-in-itself? Do you also want to see one of those?
Note my response to Terrapin above,
I have posted that as a new thread for further discussion,
What is a Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?p=505724#p505724

The fact that you claimed is a fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself that is independent of the human conditions and will even exists of there are no humans.

As I had stated above what is a fact-in-itself is merely an ASSUMED real thing.
How can I show you what you have have ASSUMED as real?

As I had claimed before, you are begging the question on what is the fact of reality when you ASSUMED it exists and real even before you prove it exists as real.
I don't assume facts-in-themselves exist. I have no idea what such things are. They seem to be straw-facts that you've invented, to justify your straw-man argument. So my question stands: what is a fact-in-itself?

As for facts (features of reality), I agree that empirical demonstration of their existence is a rational requirement. And you've failed to meet your burden of empirical proof that moral facts exist. You haven't even explained the meaning of the expression 'moral fact' - because it's incoherent.
Note in the link above, I mentioned,

The thing 'fact-in-itself' is synonymous with fact-by-itself, thing-in-itself, the noumenon which is attributed to things that are absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist even if there are no humans. You get this point?

While you are using the term facts generally, I wanted to differentiate your sense of fact from what is typically defined as fact which is conditioned upon a specific FSK.
Thus what is fact to you is a 'fact-in-itself' i.e. 'in-itself' means it is independent of the human mind[s] & conditions and will exists even if there are no humans.

What I termed and defined as fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK, thus cannot be 'in-itself' or 'by-itself'.
Therefore whenever I mentioned 'fact' it has to be qualified to a specific FSK, e.g. scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
What are moral facts are conditioned upon a credible moral FSK.

Because what you termed as fact is a fact-in-itself, there is no way you can reconcile to my moral-fact-via-a-FSK.
I agree that empirical demonstration of their existence is a rational requirement.
If you agree with empirical demonstration of fact, then such a fact cannot be a fact-in-itself. But you seem to be sticking to a fact-in-itself which is demonstrable, thus the contradiction.
And you've failed to meet your burden of empirical proof that moral facts exist. You haven't even explained the meaning of the expression 'moral fact' - because it's incoherent.
As explained above, that is your problem because you keep conflating a fact-in-itself with a FSK-linked-Fact.

A moral fact is one that is linked to the moral FSK.
I have already demonstrated many times how the physical moral oughtness [inhibitors comprising neurons and chemicals] in human brain is processed as a moral fact within the moral FSK. I won't waste time repeating my explanations.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:33 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:13 am
Note my response to Terrapin above,
I have posted that as a new thread for further discussion,
What is a Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?p=505724#p505724

The fact that you claimed is a fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself that is independent of the human conditions and will even exists of there are no humans.

As I had stated above what is a fact-in-itself is merely an ASSUMED real thing.
How can I show you what you have have ASSUMED as real?

As I had claimed before, you are begging the question on what is the fact of reality when you ASSUMED it exists and real even before you prove it exists as real.
I don't assume facts-in-themselves exist. I have no idea what such things are. They seem to be straw-facts that you've invented, to justify your straw-man argument. So my question stands: what is a fact-in-itself?

As for facts (features of reality), I agree that empirical demonstration of their existence is a rational requirement. And you've failed to meet your burden of empirical proof that moral facts exist. You haven't even explained the meaning of the expression 'moral fact' - because it's incoherent.
Yeah, I don't know what the difference would be between a "fact-in-itself" and just a fact. What does "in-itself" add?
If you are not aware [not necessary agree with] of the term 'thing-in-itself' then your philosophical knowledge is very narrow. Suggest you broaden it up with the knowledge and understanding [not necessary agree with] the thing-in-itself.

If you are familiar with 'thing-in-itself' then you could easily relate 'a fact as a thing' to 'fact-in-itself' - apple-in-itself, table-in-itself, car-in-itself, diamond-in-itself, atom-in-itself, and so on.

Note my further explanations on the term in my above post to Peter.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:33 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:13 am
Note my response to Terrapin above,
I have posted that as a new thread for further discussion,
What is a Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?p=505724#p505724

The fact that you claimed is a fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself that is independent of the human conditions and will even exists of there are no humans.

As I had stated above what is a fact-in-itself is merely an ASSUMED real thing.
How can I show you what you have have ASSUMED as real?

As I had claimed before, you are begging the question on what is the fact of reality when you ASSUMED it exists and real even before you prove it exists as real.
I don't assume facts-in-themselves exist. I have no idea what such things are. They seem to be straw-facts that you've invented, to justify your straw-man argument. So my question stands: what is a fact-in-itself?

As for facts (features of reality), I agree that empirical demonstration of their existence is a rational requirement. And you've failed to meet your burden of empirical proof that moral facts exist. You haven't even explained the meaning of the expression 'moral fact' - because it's incoherent.
Note in the link above, I mentioned,

The thing 'fact-in-itself' is synonymous with fact-by-itself, thing-in-itself, the noumenon which is attributed to things that are absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist even if there are no humans. You get this point?

While you are using the term facts generally, I wanted to differentiate your sense of fact from what is typically defined as fact which is conditioned upon a specific FSK.
Thus what is fact to you is a 'fact-in-itself' i.e. 'in-itself' means it is independent of the human mind[s] & conditions and will exists even if there are no humans.

What I termed and defined as fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK, thus cannot be 'in-itself' or 'by-itself'.
Therefore whenever I mentioned 'fact' it has to be qualified to a specific FSK, e.g. scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
What are moral facts are conditioned upon a credible moral FSK.

Because what you termed as fact is a fact-in-itself, there is no way you can reconcile to my moral-fact-via-a-FSK.
I agree that empirical demonstration of their existence is a rational requirement.
If you agree with empirical demonstration of fact, then such a fact cannot be a fact-in-itself. But you seem to be sticking to a fact-in-itself which is demonstrable, thus the contradiction.
And you've failed to meet your burden of empirical proof that moral facts exist. You haven't even explained the meaning of the expression 'moral fact' - because it's incoherent.
As explained above, that is your problem because you keep conflating a fact-in-itself with a FSK-linked-Fact.

A moral fact is one that is linked to the moral FSK.
I have already demonstrated many times how the physical moral oughtness [inhibitors comprising neurons and chemicals] in human brain is processed as a moral fact within the moral FSK. I won't waste time repeating my explanations.
And the comedy continues. A fact-in-itself is a fact-by-itself, a thing-in-itself, the noumenon, and so on. Okay...so what is any one-of-those?

VA, do you think there were things and facts in the universe before humans turned up, and that there will be things and facts in the universe after we're gone? If, as I assume, you do, then those things and facts, to use your own terms. existed and will exist 'independent from human conditions'. But if you don't think such things and facts existed and will exist, what reason do you have to think they didn't and won't?

Your mistake is very simple. You leap from the truth that we describe things in different ways - to the falsehood that we create those things. And from that falsehood, you leap to the falsehood that what we call facts exist 'within FSKs', so that moral facts can exist 'within a moral FSK'. There's a fallacy at every step of your argument. And you'll continue to ignore or not understand this fact.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:43 am If you are familiar with 'thing-in-itself' then you could easily relate 'a fact as a thing' to 'fact-in-itself' - apple-in-itself, table-in-itself, car-in-itself, diamond-in-itself, atom-in-itself, and so on.
If you're just saying that there are no facts that would obtain if humans didn't exist, that could only be because you're some sort of ontological idealist (which has zero justification) or you're confusing "fact" with something like "true proposition."
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:33 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:51 pm
I don't assume facts-in-themselves exist. I have no idea what such things are. They seem to be straw-facts that you've invented, to justify your straw-man argument. So my question stands: what is a fact-in-itself?

As for facts (features of reality), I agree that empirical demonstration of their existence is a rational requirement. And you've failed to meet your burden of empirical proof that moral facts exist. You haven't even explained the meaning of the expression 'moral fact' - because it's incoherent.
Note in the link above, I mentioned,

The thing 'fact-in-itself' is synonymous with fact-by-itself, thing-in-itself, the noumenon which is attributed to things that are absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist even if there are no humans. You get this point?

While you are using the term facts generally, I wanted to differentiate your sense of fact from what is typically defined as fact which is conditioned upon a specific FSK.
Thus what is fact to you is a 'fact-in-itself' i.e. 'in-itself' means it is independent of the human mind[s] & conditions and will exists even if there are no humans.

What I termed and defined as fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK, thus cannot be 'in-itself' or 'by-itself'.
Therefore whenever I mentioned 'fact' it has to be qualified to a specific FSK, e.g. scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
What are moral facts are conditioned upon a credible moral FSK.

Because what you termed as fact is a fact-in-itself, there is no way you can reconcile to my moral-fact-via-a-FSK.
I agree that empirical demonstration of their existence is a rational requirement.
If you agree with empirical demonstration of fact, then such a fact cannot be a fact-in-itself. But you seem to be sticking to a fact-in-itself which is demonstrable, thus the contradiction.
And you've failed to meet your burden of empirical proof that moral facts exist. You haven't even explained the meaning of the expression 'moral fact' - because it's incoherent.
As explained above, that is your problem because you keep conflating a fact-in-itself with a FSK-linked-Fact.

A moral fact is one that is linked to the moral FSK.
I have already demonstrated many times how the physical moral oughtness [inhibitors comprising neurons and chemicals] in human brain is processed as a moral fact within the moral FSK. I won't waste time repeating my explanations.
And the comedy continues. A fact-in-itself is a fact-by-itself, a thing-in-itself, the noumenon, and so on. Okay...so what is any one-of-those?

VA, do you think there were things and facts in the universe before humans turned up, and that there will be things and facts in the universe after we're gone? If, as I assume, you do, then those things and facts, to use your own terms. existed and will exist 'independent from human conditions'. But if you don't think such things and facts existed and will exist, what reason do you have to think they didn't and won't?

Your mistake is very simple. You leap from the truth that we describe things in different ways - to the falsehood that we create those things. And from that falsehood, you leap to the falsehood that what we call facts exist 'within FSKs', so that moral facts can exist 'within a moral FSK'. There's a fallacy at every step of your argument. And you'll continue to ignore or not understand this fact.
I NEVER claimed 'we create those thing'.

1. I have argued we co-create those things.
2. Thus whatever is real of reality, i.e. facts or feature of reality, there is no way they [fact] can be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
3. What is the fact of reality are inevitably entangled with a specific FSK.
- E.g. a scientific fact of reality is specific to the scientific FSK.
5. Therefore, a moral fact of reality is specific to the moral FSK.
6. The critical requirement is whatever is a fact or feature of reality must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

Show me where is the fallacy in the above points.
The most you can claim is from your POV, the above is not very sound and that is because you are ignorant of how a moral FSK works.
In addition, you will never understand how a moral FSK works because you have been brainwashed by the ideologies and bastardized philosophies of the LPs and CAPs.

Because of point 2 above,
"2. Thus whatever is real of reality, i.e. facts or feature of reality, there is no way they [fact] can be absolutely independent of the human conditions"
there is no way in the ultimate sense, there is a universe that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Point is, whatever the claim of reality, you cannot disentangled the human conditions from it.
As such to a claim-C 'the universes exists before there were humans and after humans are extinct' do not make ultimate real sense.

Claim-C is nevertheless acceptable within common and various conventional senses but not in the ultimate real sense.

Even within Physics, scientists has conceded to their expectation of an absolutely independent reality, note:
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It Model-dependent realism claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]

The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
I believe you are ignorant of the above and even I have linked it many time, it won't get into your thick skull.
Do you have a counter against Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow views above?
Post Reply