That's so, but it does not do any work. We have to grade procedures in a value hierarchy to get anything done.All the procedures by which one mind affects another.
What could make morality objective?
Re: What could make morality objective?
Univalence wrote:
-
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
From Shannon's information theory
There are three types of communication problems.
How accurately can symbols be transmitted ( technical problem )
How precisely do the transmitted symbols convey the desired meaning ( semantic problem )
How effectively does the received meaning affect the recipient's conduct in the desired way ( effectiveness problem )
Most philosophers/philosophy is dancing around the semantic problem, when effectiveness matters way more in practice.
"Did my words have the desired effect?" Is a problem of verification. feedback loops.
It's why communication is such a beautiful dance of give-and-take.
Last edited by Univalence on Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Univalence wrote;
I had written:
You have the advantage of me as I have not read the big books you have. However I'm interested in the analysis you provided ,How precisely do the transmitted symbols convey the desired meaning ( semantic problem )
The semantic problem does indeed seem to me too to be what is at stake in this conversation. In this regard I strongly recommend Kuhn's social theory of science.There are three types of communication problems.
How accurately can symbols be transmitted ( technical problem )
How precisely do the transmitted symbols convey the desired meaning ( semantic problem )
How effectively does the received meaning affect the recipient's conduct in the desired way ( effectiveness problem )
Most philosophers/philosophy is dancing around the semantic problem, when effectiveness matters way more in practice.
I had written:
and you wrote this is an effectiveness problem, if I understand you. I think that cultural paradigms overarch theories and world views too. However within cultural paradigms we need to get stuff done as well as we can that is until some new genius is born.We have to grade procedures in a value hierarchy to get anything done.
Last edited by Belinda on Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Don't short-change yourself like that. It's a tiny TINY book (A5, about 100 pages) . And so accessible too!
You already have the intuitions for "communicating" - you are doing it right now.
Shannon just turns it into a formal model (something more tangible and structured) and gave us jargon to talk about it in English.
I agree with Kuhn. And with Sociologists. The latter is an unpopular opinion.
Mostly because of the myth of the Lone Ranger - the scientists who "discovers" that which everybody else missed. It's not how it works.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Well, they stood on the shoulders of other giants( Newton ,sort of)
Somebody else bred Silver
Somebody else bred Silver
-
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Precisely. I grew up with a computer in my hands from age of 5. I developed intuitions way before I read any theoretical books.
I didn't know who Turing or Shannon were for another 15 years.
Science gives us new instruments and you are likely to benefit from them whether you know it or not.
-
- Posts: 3775
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
I disagree. Lightwaves and brain-processing (electrical and chemical) to produce perception are real things we can measure. The expression 'the nature of [a particular situation's] morality' begs the question: in what way does a particular situation 'have' a moral value? (And why introduce the metaphysical category 'mind' in this anyway? Let's just stick with brains.)Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:25 amThere is a similarity, but not a complete parallel. Lightwaves exist, but our perception of them is constructed in the brain/mind. A particular situation could be said to exist, but the nature of its morality is also created in the mind. Granted, we tend to more readily agree on the colour of something than we do on the morality of something. A moral judgement is no more or less "real" than the perception of a colour, although the "situation" that provoked the judgement could be thought of as an artificial construction, whereas light is a physical phenomenon.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:40 am But do you think moral rightness and wrongness are similarly features of reality, like lightwaves and brains?
And if we say 'the nature of a situation's morality is created in the brain' - while the word 'created' is confusing - there's truth inside the metaphor, in my opinion. It just means that moral value isn't a feature of reality 'outside brains', which is my argument. Lightwaves and other features of reality are 'outside brains' - things of which there can be knowledge, through brain-processed perception.
In other words, the analogy 'colour is 'created' in the brain in the same way that morality is 'created' in the brain - so they're equally real' doesn't stand up.
-
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Minds are what brains DO. It's an emergent property.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:30 am And why introduce the metaphysical category 'mind' in this anyway? Let's just stick with brains.
It is systems theory. Not metaphysics.
It is going to be very difficult to show you your mistake if you are going to keep straw-manning all of science.
-
- Posts: 3775
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
And there's the confusion: minds are emergent properties of brains. What kind of property is a mind? Is it a real thing, like other measurable and describable properties? Brains have real properties: weight, size, colour, chemical composition, and so on. Are minds in that category? The modifier 'emergent' doesn't explain anything.Univalence wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:38 amMinds are what brains DO. It's an emergent property.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:30 am And why introduce the metaphysical category 'mind' in this anyway? Let's just stick with brains.
It is systems theory. Not metaphysics.
-
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Yes. It has measurable consequences (I am talking to you right now) - therefore it is real phenomenon.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:48 am And there's the confusion: minds are emergent properties of brains. What kind of property is a mind? Is it a real thing, like other measurable and describable properties?
That science cannot explain it is moot and doesn't detract from its realness.
The modifier "energy" doesn't explain anything in physics either. But it has consequences. So we USE it.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:48 am Brains have real properties: weight, size, colour, chemical composition, and so on. Are minds in that category? The modifier 'emergent' doesn't explain anything.
Spacetime doesn't explain anything either. But it has consequences. So we USE it.
photons and gluons have no mass or "size, color or "chemical composition" either. But it has consequences. So we USE it.
You don't understand how science works.
Last edited by Univalence on Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:59 am, edited 4 times in total.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Peter Holmes wrote:
Peter, this is inconsistent with your idea about how murder is always wrong at all times and all places. Laws against murder, as taken to refer to all instances of illegal taking of human life, constantly appear in historical and anthropological records. Murder is one of several actions which tend to destry the mutual trust upon which all societies are founded. We prefer naturalistic explanations.I disagree. Lightwaves and brain-processing (electrical and chemical) to produce perception are real things we can measure. The expression 'the nature of [a particular situation's] morality' begs the question: in what way does a particular situation 'have' a moral value? (And why introduce the metaphysical category 'mind' in this anyway? Let's just stick with brains.)
-
- Posts: 3775
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
No, the expression 'murder is wrong' - with which I agree - expresses a moral judgement. And the nature of those judgements is that we tend to make them universally - not restricted to a time or place. (It would be inconsistent to do otherwise.) My argument is simply that the claim 'murder is wrong' is not and can't be a fact - true independent of opinion. And in that case, it makes no sense to say there are moral facts - that morality is objective.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:52 am Peter Holmes wrote:
Peter, this is inconsistent with your idea about how murder is always wrong at all times and all places. Laws against murder, as taken to refer to all instances of illegal taking of human life, constantly appear in historical and anthropological records. Murder is one of several actions which tend to destry the mutual trust upon which all societies are founded. We prefer naturalistic explanations.I disagree. Lightwaves and brain-processing (electrical and chemical) to produce perception are real things we can measure. The expression 'the nature of [a particular situation's] morality' begs the question: in what way does a particular situation 'have' a moral value? (And why introduce the metaphysical category 'mind' in this anyway? Let's just stick with brains.)
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What could make morality objective?
We may well be able to measure various kinds of brain activity, but I don't think we are yet able to measure the nature or degree of a perception. Can we even infer the presence of a perception by monitoring brain activity?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:30 am
I disagree. Lightwaves and brain-processing (electrical and chemical) to produce perception are real things we can measure.
And what is wrong with questioning the way in which a situation has a moral value? I introduce 'mind' because I'm not sure that the biological computer of the brain is capable of moral judgement.The expression 'the nature of [a particular situation's] morality' begs the question: in what way does a particular situation 'have' a moral value? (And why introduce the metaphysical category 'mind' in this anyway? Let's just stick with brains.)
I don't really understand what you are saying here, except that we agree on morality not existing outside of our brain/MIND.And if we say 'the nature of a situation's morality is created in the brain' - while the word 'created' is confusing - there's truth inside the metaphor, in my opinion. It just means that moral value isn't a feature of reality 'outside brains', which is my argument.
I am unable to follow your reasoning here, and not wanting us both to get lost, I am reluctant to even try.Lightwaves and other features of reality are 'outside brains' - things of which there can be knowledge, through brain-processed perception.
In other words, the analogy 'colour is 'created' in the brain in the same way that morality is 'created' in the brain - so they're equally real' doesn't stand up.
Light/light waves do exist outside of the brain, but colour does not. Colour is a perception only, it is not a property of light. Our perception of colour is an effect caused by light.
-
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Then how do you explain the 700+ years of reduction in murders?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:58 am My argument is simply that the claim 'murder is wrong' is not and can't be a fact - true independent of opinion.
To what cause do you attribute that effect?
Re: What could make morality objective?
I think the answer is: nothing.What could make morality objective?
By MAKING it, we divorce the product of any objectivity. Objectiveness and subjectiveness apply to opinions; by making something you don't create an opinion, you create a unit, which is not at all independent of your mind, therefore not only is it meaningless to talk about "making something objective", it is also wrong.