Re Morality: Is a Software Program Objectively Real?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am raising the question "Is a Computer Software Program Objectively Real?" arising from the conversation below;

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.

I remain utterly unconvinced as to the validity of Hume's and it seems Kant's objection, the so-called is-ought problem.

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.

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.

Since you're a computer scientist, it is obvious the computer hardware is physical, a matter of fact and is objective.
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

Health is better than sickness is not a matter for reductionism.

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.

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?

[Agent Smith]

I am raising the question "Is a Computer Software Program Objectively Real?" arising from the conversation below;

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.

I remain utterly unconvinced as to the validity of Hume's and it seems Kant's objection, the so-called is-ought problem.

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.

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.

Since you're a computer scientist, it is obvious the computer hardware is physical, a matter of fact and is objective.
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

Health is better than sickness is not a matter for reductionism.

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.

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?

Well, a computer program is exactly what we're discussing mon ami. Parts of it hasta be objective although what the program spits out in the end can't really be called objective in the sense the parts that are objective are objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, a computer program is exactly what we're discussing mon ami. Parts of it hasta be objective although what the program spits out in the end can't really be called objective in the sense the parts that are objective are objective.

Would you agree, there also 'coded' programs [similar in structure to computer programs] in the human brain [or self]?

[Agent Smith]

Well, a computer program is exactly what we're discussing mon ami. Parts of it hasta be objective although what the program spits out in the end can't really be called objective in the sense the parts that are objective are objective.

Would you agree, there also 'coded' programs [similar in structure to computer programs] in the human brain [or self]?

On target mon ami, on target.

[Impenitent]

dna could be read as binary

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

dna could be read as binary

-Imp

Anything can be converted to be read as binary.

However DNA has four bases [quadary?], i.e. A, T, G and C.
Each human genome in one cell has 3 billion pairs of combination of the above 4 letters.
They can be converted to a binary basis for computational work.

[Skepdick]

I am raising the question "Is a Computer Software Program Objectively Real?" arising from the conversation below;

Words like "real" are really, really stupid and cause endless confusion and debate. Everything is real. There is nothing that isn't real.

Software can autonomously manipulate matter; and by implication - it can manipulate itself as matter.

If that satisfies your criterion for "realness" then it's real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am raising the question "Is a Computer Software Program Objectively Real?" arising from the conversation below;

Words like "real" are really, really stupid and cause endless confusion and debate. Everything is real. There is nothing that isn't real.

Software can autonomously manipulate matter; and by implication - it can manipulate itself as matter.

If that satisfies your criterion for "realness" then it's real.

There are loads of loose words around, e.g. real, love, spirit, god, true, object, subject, etc.
That is why we need Philosophy [providing the framework] to deliberate them in their respective perspectives.

The first thing we need to different what is real from what is unreal is to isolate out what is unreal, dreams, hallucinations, imagination, illusion, contradiction, non-existing, and the likes.

Whatever is taken as real, we need to assess whether it is objectively real which in this case must be conditioned upon a specific framework relative to its credibility.

Science cannot confer absolute reality but at present science [or mathematics] is the most credible framework and system to verify what is objective real.
On that basis, science can confirm an executable software program is objectively real within its framework and conditions.

[Skepdick]

There are loads of loose words around, e.g. real, love, spirit, god, true, object, subject, etc.
That is why we need Philosophy [providing the framework] to deliberate them in their respective perspectives.

"Philosophy" itself is a loose word. In fact, there are no "tight" ones because they are just words.

The first thing we need to different what is real from what is unreal is to isolate out what is unreal, dreams, hallucinations, imagination, illusion, contradiction, non-existing, and the likes.

Why? What is the purpose of such an "isolation"; or "distinction"; or differentiation? Why don't you throw all thoughts and ideas into that category also?

Whatever is taken as real, we need to assess whether it is objectively real which in this case must be conditioned upon a specific framework relative to its credibility.

So how many categories of stuff do you have now? I've lost track.

Real; and by implication non-real.
Objectively real, and by implication objectively non-real; or is it non-objectively real?

Science cannot confer absolute reality but at present science [or mathematics] is the most credible framework and system to verify what is objective real.

I already told you the answer to that. Everything is objectively real. There is nothing that is NOT objectively real.

Dreams, hallucinations, imagination, illusion, feelings, emotions, ideas, thoughts, planets, atoms, energy, gravity, galaxies - it's ALL objectively real.

How do I know? Empirically! Empiricists can experience all of those things.

On that basis, science can confirm an executable software program is objectively real within its framework and conditions.

I swear, your mind is stuck in some sort of stupid-loop trying to categorise everything. With your latest obsession being "What is real; an what's not real".

Can science confirm whether science itself is objectively real?

The real/non-real distinction doesn't matter! Distinctions don't matter! They are just conceptual and rhetorical instruments.

The most important question is WHY?
Why do you want to philosophiseabout; or categorise stuff as real or otherwise?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are loads of loose words around, e.g. real, love, spirit, god, true, object, subject, etc.
That is why we need Philosophy [providing the framework] to deliberate them in their respective perspectives.

"Philosophy" itself is a loose word. In fact, there are no "tight" ones because they are just words.

The first thing we need to different what is real from what is unreal is to isolate out what is unreal, dreams, hallucinations, imagination, illusion, contradiction, non-existing, and the likes.

Why? What is the purpose of such an "isolation"; or "distinction"; or differentiation? Why don't you throw all thoughts and ideas into that category also?

Whatever is taken as real, we need to assess whether it is objectively real which in this case must be conditioned upon a specific framework relative to its credibility.

So how many categories of stuff do you have now? I've lost track.

Real; and by implication non-real.
Objectively real, and by implication objectively non-real; or is it non-objectively real?

Science cannot confer absolute reality but at present science [or mathematics] is the most credible framework and system to verify what is objective real.

I already told you the answer to that. Everything is objectively real. There is nothing that is NOT real.

Dreams, hallucinations, imagination, illusion, feelings, emotions, ideas, thoughts, planets, atoms, energy, gravity, galaxies - it's ALL real.

The real/non-real distinction doesn't matter! Distinctions don't matter! They are just mental/philosophical instruments.

If a Schizophrenic [medically certified] insisted his "real" alien friends told him, that aliens will destroy South Africa totally in a week's time and recommend that you fly out immediately, will you believe his claim of reality?
If someone offer you what is claimed to be a real Mona Lisa for S10,000, will you buy it so you can sell it for a profit?

From the above it is critical that we need to deliberate 'what is real' in its relevant perspective and subject 'what is claimed to be real' to the specific verification procedures.

Actually it is merely common sense to understand the distinction of what is real or not-real do matter as it can be an issue of life or death, loss of wealth and other detriments.

Can science confirm whether science itself is objectively real?

The general principle is, nothing can confirm itself is objectively real.
Self confirmation is merely subjective and thus cannot be objective. So your question is actually moot or a non-starter.

As such, there is no way Science an confirm itself to be objectively real.

Now what? you insist we abandon and get rid of science?

[Skepdick]

If a Schizophrenic [medically certified] insisted his "real" alien friends told him, that aliens will destroy South Africa totally in a week's time and recommend that you fly out immediately, will you believe his claim of reality?

Yes. I would absolutely believe him that he had that experience and that his experience was real. I have no reason not to.

As for whether I believe whether the actual event will take place in the future? I don't know. Would you believe real, actual aliens if they told you the exact same thing?

Do you believe everyone who threatens you; even if they are bluffing?

I'll come and destroy your country next week, unless you send me all your money right now! Do you believe my claim?

If someone offer you what is claimed to be a real Mona Lisa for S10,000, will you buy it so you can sell it for a profit?

Every replica of the Mona Lisa is real Mona Lisa. Perhaps you mean to say "authentic" or "original"? The first Mona Lisa! The Mona Lisa that is NOT a copy.

From the above it is critical that we need to deliberate 'what is real' in its relevant perspective and subject 'what is claimed to be real' to the specific verification procedures.

Clear to you maybe. To me - it's pretty obvious that realness is not material in practice.

Actually it is merely common sense to understand the distinction of what is real or not-real do matter as it can be an issue of life or death, loss of wealth and other detriments.

It's even more common sense to understand that it's just a fucking word! You can use another word to characterise whatever it is that you are attempting to characterise.

The general principle is, nothing can confirm itself is objectively real.

That's certainly not my general principle... I told you my general principle: everything is objectvely real.

But your general principle strikes me as super-peculiar! If science can't even confirm itself as real, why then can it confirm other things as real?

Self confirmation is merely subjective and thus cannot be objective. So your question is actually moot or a non-starter.

Non-starter to you; and a starter to me. Everything is objectively real; I am objectively real. Just confirmed myself to be objectively real.

As such, there is no way Science an confirm itself to be objectively real.

Any experience that a scientist experiences is an objectively real experience. Including the experience of experiencing oneself.

Now what? you insist we abandon and get rid of science?

Me? No. It's you who seems to have some weird problem with the objective/subjective; and real/not-real distinctions.

You have no idea what distinctions are; or what they are for.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As such, there is no way Science an confirm itself to be objectively real.

Any experience that a scientist experiences is an objectively real experience. Including the experience of experiencing oneself.

As usual you are merely being rhetorical and 'eeling' your way around.
We have talking been about Science per se and you shift to 'scientist' to eel your way out.

When we refer to Science, we are referring to the whole Framework and System of Science with all its element as a whole and NEVER to an individual scientist's experience which is subjective.
When we accept whatever is scientifically real, we are trusting the scientific framework, system, its process methods, peer reviews, etc. and never on an individual scientist. In addition or confidence of what is scientifically real will depend which aspects of science we are referring to.

Now what? you insist we abandon and get rid of science?

Me? No. It's you who seems to have some weird problem with the objective/subjective; and real/not-real distinctions.

You have no idea what distinctions are; or what they are for.

It is common sense and wisdom to deliberate on 'what is real' and 'what is not real' depending on the contexts, it is only the schizophrenics [and other mentally ill] who do not differentiate what is real and not real but rather insist everything he experience is real.

[Skepdick]

As usual you are merely being rhetorical and 'eeling' your way around.

Accusation in a mirror

We have talking been about Science per se and you shift to 'scientist' to eel your way out.

Putting a capital letter on "science" doesn't really help you anthropomorphise it.

I am speaking as a scientist about science. Science is what I DO - I participate in the scientific process in the first person.

How else would you like me to speak about it? By erroneously anthropomorphising it like you are doing?

When we refer to Science, we are referring to the whole Framework and System of Science with all its element as a whole and NEVER to an individual scientist's experience which is subjective.

I know. The system is made of individual scientists doing science. It's never about the invidual scientist's experience; but it is about the collective experiences of all scientists.

And ALL scientists have thoughts, feelings, ideas, emotions, imaginations, dreams etc. If they didn't the system wouldn't even exist.

When we accept whatever is scientifically real, we are trusting the scientific framework, system, its process methods, peer reviews, etc. and never on an individual scientist. In addition or confidence of what is scientifically real will depend which aspects of science we are referring to.

This is a contrived view of science. Naturally - buecase you are a dumb philosopher. You are talking ABOUT science, but you've never done any science yourself.

You are a spectator of science (an outsider), not a practitioner of science (an insider).

Do you also make it a habit of telling birds how to fly?

It is common sense and wisdom to deliberate on 'what is real' and 'what is not real' depending on the contexts, it is only the schizophrenics [and other mentally ill] who do not differentiate what is real and not real but rather insist everything he experience is real.

And yet it doesn't appear to be common sense to deliberate what is; and isn't wisdom... What you are doing (debating over distinctions in a vacuum!) certainly isn't.

You have this exactly backwards. It's only schizophrenic philosophers who gaslight themselves by thinking in mutually exclusive dichotomies.

How could you possibly do any science if you keep dismissing the objectively real fact that you are feeling pain and emotional distress every time you put your hand on a hot stove?

How could we possibly do any empiricism when we keep denying your own damn experiences?

[popeye1945]

If it is an object, it is considered objectively real.

[Skepdick]

If it is an object, it is considered objectively real.

Even if it's not an object it's considered objectively real.

Gravity is not an object, but a phenomenon. The phenomenon is objectively real.