Meanwhile, my intended hypothesis is;
1. Executable Computer Software Programs are Objectively Real as a matter of fact.
2. There are similar structured software programs in the human brain which are also objectively Real and matter of fact.
3. There are software programs in the human brain related to morality.
4. So, there are objective moral facts.
Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:49 pm I remain utterly unconvinced as to the validity of Hume's and it seems Kant's objection, the so-called is-ought problem.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:49 am Hume's and Kant's insistence of "No Ought From Is" in relation to Morality is valid where oughts are imposed and enforced on others based on opinions, beliefs and feelings of individual[s], groups, a cult leader or dictator. Such oughts are not based on matter-of-fact which can be verified and justified universally as objective.
However there are biological oughts for all humans [even most living organisms], the oughtness to breathe or oughtness to drink water, oughtness to ingest food.
Such oughts are a matter of fact which can be verified and justified scientifically.
For all normal humans, such oughts are spontaneous and there is no need for enforcements nor rules to dictate these oughts.
They are very subtle; there are biological oughts that are related to morality that are represented by neural correlates within all humans albeit they are not active in the majority of people. But there is no denial these biological moral oughts existing objectively as a matter of fact.
Problem is, for most it is quite a task to identify and recognize them.
Whilst Kant rejected opinionated oughts, he had indirectly presented such 'biological' [human nature] moral oughts.
Since you're a computer scientist, it is obvious the computer hardware is physical, a matter of fact and is objective.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 11:07 am Every time you look at morality through a reductionist lens (such as physics, biology, sociology; ethics;) etc you will always fail at figuring it out.
Health is better than sickness is not a matter for reductionism. And philosophy amounts to nothing more than linguistic reductionism.
You are wasting your time trying to define the ineffable.
Would you also consider an executable program [a software] installed in the computer hardware, is also an empirically verifiable and justifiable matter of fact and is objective. i.e. its existence is real and is independent of opinions and beliefs?
The brain is organic but nevertheless can be viewed as a sort of organic hardware with its software within.
Do you agree there are executable software programs within our brain that are 'programmed' grounded on human nature via evolution?
As such, we have a program like,
The conditions are as follows;
Humans exist to survive till the inevitable,
To survive all humans need oxygen,
As with Basic human nature to obtain oxygen all humans must breathe.
We have the "if X.... then Y.. else Z"
If no oxygen one ought to breathe.
I believe in the brain there are perhaps thousands and millions of such "if X.... then Y.. else Z" existing in the human brain at various neural nodes.
It is because we have to date understood so much of neuroscience and many "if X.... then Y.. else Z" codes within the human brain that humanity is able to facilitate so much progress in human skills, intelligence, prevention of diseases, improve health, etc. even possibly longevity
I have just finished a course on Genetics, Molecular Biology, Genomics & Rational Medicines from MIT to note the future of Health will be most effectively dealt with from the atomic and molecular level via the basic DNA information and coding together with epigenetic elements.Health is better than sickness is not a matter for reductionism.
You familiar with the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology?
"The central dogma of molecular biology explains the flow of genetic information, from DNA to RNA, to make a functional product, a protein.
It was first proposed in 1958 by Francis Crick, discoverer of the structure of DNA."
Since 1958, there has been correction to the above dogma, i.e. where information can also flow from RNA to DNA.
Surely you are familiar with 'Information' and therefrom programming and coding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
My hypothesis is there are loads of molecular "if X.... then Y.. else Z" related to morality, i.e. doing what good and avoiding evil.
This is already very evident to some, but humanity must get understand them at the molecular level [as objective facts] so that improvements of the program coding can be expedited to improve moral competence for the future generations [too late for any improvements to the current and next few generations].
If you insist on shutting the door to the above, that is an ideological resistance to change. If not for the above path, where else can we seek improvements of moral competence for future generations?
Question:
Is an executable Computer Software Program Objectively Real?
Is my hypothesis above tenable?