What could make morality objective?

[RCSaunders]

Do you think concepts mean their definition?

You can't conceive an idea unless the idea is defined, usually by language and sometimes by image, sound, touch and so forth.

That wasn't that question. Of course a concept must have a definition. What I'm asking is if you think it is the definition a concept means.

If the concept, "tricycle," is defined: "a three-wheeled vehicle," is that phrase, "a three-wheeled vehicle," what the concept, "tricycle," means?

[Peter Holmes]

Do you think concepts mean their definition?

You can't conceive an idea unless the idea is defined, usually by language and sometimes by image, sound, touch and so forth.

That wasn't that question. Of course a concept must have a definition. What I'm asking is if you think it is the definition a concept means.

If the concept, "tricycle," is defined: "a three-wheeled vehicle," is that phrase, "a three-wheeled vehicle," what the concept, "tricycle," means?

1 What and where is a concept?
2 Is defining a concept explaining the use of a word or describing a thing?
3 In what way does a concept mean something?
4 How is a concept different from an idea?
5 What does it mean to conceive an idea?
6 What and where is an idea?

Any non-mystical answers welcome.

[uwot]

If you insist that both scenarios signify the same evidentiary weight, and therefore justifies equivalent belief is to exemplify statistical and contextual blindness.

The odds will ALWAYS be 1:3. The probability of the outcome isn't 1:3.

That's why I insist that philosophers are idiots. It's factual claim, not an insult.

The thing with factual claims is that they are only factual if they are based on facts. Anything based on the silly bollocks you have made up is just an insult. That is a factual claim and here is the fact:

So, you are "not a fucking idiot" and you don't assign equal weight to these hypotheses, right?

A. This is red.
B. This is red.

Whoops! Too late.

Oh please. There are 3 options...the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.

Gotta say Skepdick, given that nobody could be so stupid to conclude that from the full quote, I almost admire your utter shamelessness. For the benefit of anyone who missed it, here's what I actually said:

Oh please. There are 3 options: murder rates go up, they stay the same or they go down. You can stare at that until the cows come home but there will only ever be those 3 options, and you in your 'I'm a cor-blimey computer scientist' brilliance has concluded that the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.

That's 'have' rather than 'has', naturally, but I'll leave that typo in partly because hey, we all make mistakes, but mostly because Skepdick is such a steaming pile of hypocrisy I don't doubt he would accuse me of selective editing.

I still can't believe that you are that stupid, but there's a bit of Dunning-Kruger involved because you definitely do not have the mental acuity you credit yourself with. On top of that, there's some grandiose delusion involved, because given the amount of time you spend on this forum, there's no fucking way you have the high powered job of your fantasy.

[Skepdick]

I still can't believe that you are that stupid, but there's a bit of Dunning-Kruger involved because you definitely do not have the mental acuity you credit yourself with.

Weasel words. I've made no absolute claims about my mental acuity. I am pretty fucking ignorant.

My argument is (and continues to be) that you are more ignorant than I am when it comes to epistemology.

I am still waiting for you to tell me how you determined the choice between underdetermination and overdetermination.

On top of that, there's some grandiose delusion involved, because given the amount of time you spend on this forum, there's no fucking way you have the high powered job of your fantasy.

You don't even know what power is.

I HAD a "high-powered job" - I retired at 35. TIME is all I have! But I don't know what it is.

Financial independence was my "fantasy". Now I "work" on whatever the fuck I want to.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What, "certain knowledge crowd," would that be? Since Hume and Kant destroyed epistemology, there is not a single philosopher I know who holds the view of certain knowledge. Can you name any?

Well, it's been the dream of rationalists to develop certain knowledge from a logically watertight foundation since Parmenides pointed out that something definitely exists. Famously of course, René Descartes thought it was himself. Both were trying to create what Kant thought was self-contradictory; an analytic a posteriori proposition. Parmenides 'Being is' is it. That is the full extent of the sort of 'certain knowledge' that rationalists are after. The trouble is, nothing follows from it with the same logical necessity. Even advocates of rationalism generally concede that the best they can achieve is inference to the best explanation, IBE for short.

Skepdick implied that I belong to, "The Certain Knowledge crowd," and I was pointing out, in philosophy today there is no such crowd. No philosopher of the last two hundred years has held that position--except me. If there is such a crowd it is a very small one.
..........

I can believe you are so dumb and archaic to cling to that outdated 'Rationalism' ideology at the same declare it with such high arrogance.
Note 'rationalism' the "-ism" ideology has nothing to do with 'rationality'.

Rationalism claim that 'reason' prevails over all forms of knowledge.
Rationalism is contrasted with Empiricism, both being dogmatic ideology - as per your SEP link.

If we define rationalism as a strict adherence to logic combined with a desire for internal consistency in theories, then rationalism runs the danger of going against reality. In other words, just because your theory is logically consistent doesn't mean it will line up with experimental findings.
A 'rational fundamentalist' would rather reject an experiment that give up a cherished theory*. This said, it is good for theorists to be a little conservative, given that experiments are in fact often wrong.

* Theories that try to incorporate agreement with reality into formal systems are actually quite complex. I suspect that this is because science is incomplete, but formal systems strive for completeness.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-crit ... ationalism

The current position with reason and the empirical is the rational person will complement the empirical with reason [critical thinking] to strive for optimal outcomes within existing constraints.

[Skepdick]

So, you are "not a fucking idiot" and you don't assign equal weight to these hypotheses, right?

A. This is red.
B. This is red.

Whoops! Too late.

And since you still don't "get it" - I'll spell it out for you.

0.5 is the PRIOR probability of either of them being "true".
That is the epistemic weight you assign to each of them BEFORE you consider all the evidence.

That's the principle of maximum entropy in action. a.k.a agnosticism.

Now, tell me what your POSTERIOR probability is.

Convince me you that you have absolutely no decision procedure to select A or B.
Convince me that your posterior is 0.5.
Convince me that you are undecided.

Given all the evidence I have taken into account, I landed in camp A.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can't conceive an idea unless the idea is defined, usually by language and sometimes by image, sound, touch and so forth.

That wasn't that question. Of course a concept must have a definition. What I'm asking is if you think it is the definition a concept means.

If the concept, "tricycle," is defined: "a three-wheeled vehicle," is that phrase, "a three-wheeled vehicle," what the concept, "tricycle," means?

1 What and where is a concept?
2 Is defining a concept explaining the use of a word or describing a thing?
3 In what way does a concept mean something?
4 How is a concept different from an idea?
5 What does it mean to conceive an idea?
6 What and where is an idea?

Any non-mystical answers welcome.

• When the mind makes a generalization such as the concept of tree, it extracts similarities from numerous examples; the simplification enables higher-level thinking.
  -wiki

Concepts are mental representations.
-wiki

Concepts are the resultant emergence of the conceptualization process represented by a neural algorithm.
They are like memories which emerge only when the memory process is triggered.

• The analogy is like that of a computer processing and producing images or texts on the screen. The image is NOT stored like a physical photo but the digital image is formed by combining bits of data which are spread all over the harddisk.
  When the computer user want a certain image, he will open up a program that organize and process images [photo] and trigger an instruction to bring up a certain image [e.g. like the image above]. The related computer programs will collected the respective bits of data stored separately all over the harddisk to produce the whole image.

This is why, if the conceptualization process in the brain of a person is damage, he will not be able to produce concepts effectively. When damaged, a person could produce a concept representing a stick instead of a complete tree like the above.

The conceptualization algorithm processes empirical-based data. Thus all concepts must be empirically possible.

An idea [philosophical not general thought] is also a mental representation that depend solely on non-empirical-based data that are not empirically justifiable. Whatever of an idea [philosophical] that is produced in the mind, the idea cannot be empirically possible, e.g. God.

[Belinda]

But freedom is the aim that overarches partisans of passion and partisans of reason. Moderation between the two is good, psychologically. Politically there are tides in the affairs of men that call for more passion to avoid apathy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... gain-world

Freedom is just a slogan. Everybody wants it.

It's the things we want to be free from that are contentious.


Is the eternal battle of semantics.

What I mean by freedom is the best freedom from all or each of those as got by means of reason powered by passion. Reason powered by passion is the proper default psyche of all human beings.

Failure of passion might be addressed by medical attention to thyroxine deficiency and suchlike but is often unfortunately a chronic physical condition and can be caused by some varieties of irreversible physical or mental injury. For instance if it were possible to meet Socrates at the hour of his death it would be a reasonable claim in him passion and reason each was active and well balanced together.

Failure of reason is best addressed by provision of the best possible conditions for learning. The best possible conditions for learning imply overlap between therapy and education.

Is there any adult in good health and sharpened reasoning ability who would contend

"Free from authoritarian oppression.
Free from dystopian apathy.
Free from over-zealous and unreasonable passion."

are not freedoms to be wished and aimed for?

[Peter Holmes]

That wasn't that question. Of course a concept must have a definition. What I'm asking is if you think it is the definition a concept means.

If the concept, "tricycle," is defined: "a three-wheeled vehicle," is that phrase, "a three-wheeled vehicle," what the concept, "tricycle," means?

1 What and where is a concept?
2 Is defining a concept explaining the use of a word or describing a thing?
3 In what way does a concept mean something?
4 How is a concept different from an idea?
5 What does it mean to conceive an idea?
6 What and where is an idea?

Any non-mystical answers welcome.

• When the mind makes a generalization such as the concept of tree, it extracts similarities from numerous examples; the simplification enables higher-level thinking.
  -wiki

Concepts are mental representations.
-wiki

Concepts are the resultant emergence of the conceptualization process represented by a neural algorithm.
They are like memories which emerge only when the memory process is triggered.

• The analogy is like that of a computer processing and producing images or texts on the screen. The image is NOT stored like a physical photo but the digital image is formed by combining bits of data which are spread all over the harddisk.
  When the computer user want a certain image, he will open up a program that organize and process images [photo] and trigger an instruction to bring up a certain image [e.g. like the image above]. The related computer programs will collected the respective bits of data stored separately all over the harddisk to produce the whole image.

This is why, if the conceptualization process in the brain of a person is damage, he will not be able to produce concepts effectively. When damaged, a person could produce a concept representing a stick instead of a complete tree like the above.

The conceptualization algorithm processes empirical-based data. Thus all concepts must be empirically possible.

An idea [philosophical not general thought] is also a mental representation that depend solely on non-empirical-based data that are not empirically justifiable. Whatever of an idea [philosophical] that is produced in the mind, the idea cannot be empirically possible, e.g. God.

So, a concept is an emergent generalisation made in the mind by means of a conceptualisation process in the brain represented by a neural algorithm analogous to a computer-generated image processed from empirical data. And an idea is also a mental representation (produced by an idealisation process?), but not processed from empirical data.

So concepts and ideas are in the mind, which is in the brain. Sorted. No mysticism there.

[Skepdick]

So, a concept is an emergent generalisation made in the mind by means of a conceptualisation process in the brain represented by a neural algorithm analogous to a computer-generated image processed from empirical data. And an idea is also a mental representation (produced by an idealisation process?), but not processed from empirical data.

So concepts and ideas are in the mind, which is in the brain. Sorted. No mysticism there.

Then how come we can explain all this "mysticism" to computers?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. --Arthur C. Clarke.

It's only you who doesn't understand.

[Skepdick]

What I mean by freedom is the best freedom from all or each of those as got by means of reason powered by passion. Reason powered by passion is the proper default psyche of all human beings.

Indeed. The human condition is shared in human experience.

Failure of passion might be addressed by medical attention to thyroxine deficiency and suchlike but is often unfortunately a chronic physical condition and can be caused by some varieties of irreversible physical or mental injury.

I have spent much time wondering what cultivates curiosity. "That's just how I am wired" is not quite the answer I want.

I don't think it's a problem fixable with a pill.

For instance if it were possible to meet Socrates at the hour of his death it would be a reasonable claim in him passion and reason each was active and well balanced together.

Socrates and I have a difference of opinion here. Falling on swords is not my idea of victory - there's no virtue in dying for a cause.

Or in the words of Patton: No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his.

Socrates had a failure of passion.

Failure of reason is best addressed by provision of the best possible conditions for learning. The best possible conditions for learning imply overlap between therapy and education.

How do you educate an incurious mind?

Is there any adult in good health and sharpened reasoning ability who would contend

"Free from authoritarian oppression.
Free from dystopian apathy.
Free from over-zealous and unreasonable passion."

are not freedoms to be wished and aimed for?

They absolutely are, but that is the pinnacle and problem of society. What do we do when our freedoms clash?

The pen is mightier than the sword in a society ruled by laws.
On a battlefield - not so much.

Or the old cliche: I'd rather be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.

[uwot]

My argument is (and continues to be) that you are more ignorant than I am when it comes to epistemology.

I am still waiting for you to tell me how you determined the choice between underdetermination and overdetermination.

Well if it's my greater ignorance you wish to demonstrate, that's not a good start Skepdick; it's not either or. False dichotomy and all that.

I HAD a "high-powered job" - I retired at 35.

For all I know that may be true, but I don't believe it, you simply don't have the temperament nor communication skills that most people in powerful positions can at least fake. The thing is you are demonstrably a liar and a cheat who will rip the heart out of the truth until it says what you want it to. You can ignore it all you like, but this was you:

Oh please. There are 3 options...the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.

Oh please. There are 3 options: murder rates go up, they stay the same or they go down. You can stare at that until the cows come home but there will only ever be those 3 options, and you in your 'I'm a cor-blimey computer scientist' brilliance has concluded that the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.

[uwot]

And since you still don't "get it" - I'll spell it out for you.

Skepdick, this is based on you believing your own lie. Again, I did not say this:

Oh please. There are 3 options...the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.

[Skepdick]

And since you still don't "get it" - I'll spell it out for you.

Skepdick, this is based on you believing your own lie. Again, I did not say this:

Oh please. There are 3 options...the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.

Imbecille. Pay attention. You don't even know what a "belief" is, let alone asserting what "I believe".

I am a liar. And THAT IS THE TRUTH. Therefore I am truth-telling liar. Do you not understand that there is no resolution to liar's paradox?
Do you not understand the epistemic implications of non-determinism?

You don't know what "lying" is! You don't know what "truth" is either! That's why you keep mixing them up.
That's why you can't determine whether I am lying or not.

You keep hunting for contradictions in what I say (like a well programmed zealot) when I have explicitly told you that I intentionally contradict myself.

What I say and what you say doesn't matter, if we arrive at mutual understanding.

All I want you to tell me is your POSTERIOR probability on

A: This is red
B: This is red

If you are an underdeterminist then the answer should be p=0.5. That is - you would not even be able to decide on your own philosophical position.

How did you determine that underdetermination "just is"?

[Skepdick]

Well if it's my greater ignorance you wish to demonstrate, that's not a good start Skepdick; it's not either or. False dichotomy and all that.

I don't wish to demonstrate YOUR ignorance. Pay attention.

I wish to determine your ignorance relative to mine. As far as I can tell I am at the height of ignorance. Being an agnostic and all.

Either you are at my level of ignorance (agnosticism), or you aren't.

For all I know that may be true, but I don't believe it, you simply don't have the temperament nor communication skills that most people in powerful positions can at least fake.

Have you considered the alternative hypothesis?

You don't speak my language, therefore you can't determine if I am telling "the truth".

How is it that:

1. I lack the communication skills.
2. You've heard what I am communicating and you are assessing its truth-value?

Do you even understand what communication is and how it works? I bet you don't!

The thing is you are demonstrably a liar and a cheat who will rip the heart out of the truth until it says what you want it to.

That is EXACTLY how communication works! That's exactly how "being heard" works! I make words mean exactly what I want them to mean. It's a feature, not a bug. We are quantum systems: quantum communication would be literally impossible without error correction.

You are defending reality, truth or some other abstract idea, and in your religious devotion you forget that the reason people speak to each other is so that they can COMMUNICATE.

Truth doesn't need a knights in shining armor.