Here's the conventional ontology of 2023 represented in a computational language.
Of what value is it exactly?
![Image](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg)
Here's the conventional ontology of 2023 represented in a computational language.
Are you saying that scientists redefined the word "value" and that we should care about it? Why should we?
Let's try this analogy. One and the same bitmap image can be accurately stored in computer memory in more than one way. A bitmap image is a two-dimensional grid of tiny dots called pixels each of which has certain color. Suppose that you want to store it in computer memory, i.e. represent it, as a one-dimensional array of bytes. There is more than one way to do it. For example, you can flatten the grid by placing one row of pixels after another, starting with the top row and ending with the bottom; or you can flatten it by placing one column of pixels after another, starting with the left column and ending with the right. It does not matter how you're going to do it. The only thing that matters is that the program that you're going to use to reproduce that image on your screen can understand your format, i.e. the language that you used to represent the bitmap image. If it does not, it will give you an incorrect result; it will display a noisy image.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 7:07 amI understand there is some sort of computation going on but I would not regard it as language in the general sense.
It's not just science, but subjectivists on values in general.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 7:59 amAre you saying that scientists redefined the word "value" and that we should care about it? Why should we?
Language is ambiguous about 'value.'Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 7:24 am Language decides what something is. For example, language decides what unicorns are. The definition of the word "unicorn" tells us that unicorns are horses that have a straight horn on their forehead. No amount of observation can prove that wrong. The same goes for the word "value". It is language that tells us that a value is a property of an object denoting how useful that object is to someone. No amount of observation can prove that wrong. You can't argue with language.
Here we have value extrinsic and intrinsic ideas about value.the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
The point in our earlier primordial perception, we do not use language you described as above.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 8:04 amLet's try this analogy. One and the same bitmap image can be accurately stored in computer memory in more than one way. A bitmap image is a two-dimensional grid of tiny dots called pixels each of which has certain color. Suppose that you want to store it in computer memory, i.e. represent it, as a one-dimensional array of bytes. There is more than one way to do it. For example, you can flatten the grid by placing one row of pixels after another, starting with the top row and ending with the bottom; or you can flatten it by placing one column of pixels after another, starting with the left column and ending with the right. It does not matter how you're going to do it. The only thing that matters is that the program that you're going to use to reproduce that image on your screen can understand your format, i.e. the language that you used to represent the bitmap image. If it does not, it will give you an incorrect result; it will display a noisy image.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 7:07 amI understand there is some sort of computation going on but I would not regard it as language in the general sense.
You're missing the point. And you're making a very basic mistake ( no doubt due to lack of proper effort to understand what the other side is saying. )Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 8:01 amThis is a fundamental mistake. Features of reality - such as cats and dogs - are what they are, how ever we identify, name and describe them. They are not obliged to conform to our ways of talking about them. Outside language, reality is not linguistic.
What are cats and dogs or any biological entity is because the science-biology FSK said so, thus conditioned upon a human-based FSK.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 8:01 am Here's a claim: 'Language decides what something is.'
This is a fundamental mistake. Features of reality - such as cats and dogs - are what they are, how ever we identify, name and describe them. They are not obliged to conform to our ways of talking about them. Outside language, reality is not linguistic.
You ignored this?That's why, though it's necessary for communication, agreement on the use of signs does not constitute what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity. For example, agreement on the use of signs in the assertion 'there are pink unicorns on the moon' does not constitute a fact. And the fact that water is H2O isn't the case simply because we call water H2O.
You are ignorant on this and Shot YOUR own foot.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 6:08 pm Try this analysis with 'water is H2O'. Its truth or falsehood has nothing to do with who it's 'true for. It just is or isn't true. Cos it's a factual assertion, unlike 'X is morally wrong'. Shot in the foot?
The 'red square experiment' in my view satisfy the FSR-FSK principle.The 'red square experiment' actually demolishes the argument for antirealism, constructivism, model-dependent realism, and other recently fashionable isms.
I am sorry. What fundamental distinction between mistake and non-mistake are you appealing to?
Computation is manipulation.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 7:07 am I understand there is some sort of computation going on but I would not regard it as language in the general sense.
As far as I've always been aware, morality is about what people think is right and wrong, and no dictionary definition I've ever seen has suggested otherwise. Even if absolutely every human being was born believing -and maintaining throughout his life- that X was morally wrong, I still don't see how that would make X objectively wrong, because there is nowhere outside of human opinion to look for confirmation or proof of it. Things like murder and rape certainly feel objectively wrong to most of us, which is no doubt responsible for the misconception about there being moral facts, but when we look at more trivial moral issues, such as sexual behaviour, it is easier to see that morals are a matter of opinion.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 12:35 amExcept it's not. Historically, people have thought in moral objectivist terms. Subjectivism is a conceit of the modern and postmodern eras, and one that can't be sustained.
If you look in any reputable dictionary, I think you will find that the word, morality, is defined more closely to the way I define it than to the way you do.IC wrote:Then you've done much the same trick as Peter: you've tried to eliminate morality a priori. He's done it presumptively, and you've tried to do it with an arbitrary personal definition.Harbal wrote:The only way a moral precept could be proved true, is by giving the term, morality, a different definition to the one I accept as the correct definition.
I think morality is a matter of opinion, and I have tried to explain why I think that, but I am not telling anyone else what they should believe.But in both cases, what you've done is only to eliminate all basis of justification from consideration, then claim the fact that you can't find justification should make us believe in subjectivism.
I'm not aware of having a strategy. All I am doing is defending logic -as I see it- for its own sake, and, unlike you, have no vested interest in convincing anyone for any other reason. You are the one with a strategy, not I.But I wonder: do you, like him, think we're objectively wrong if we dismiss your strategy?
I'm just stating the obvious here, but language and definitons change over time, especially now with this scientific explosion of the last few centuries. We can't freeze language in time, in that case we would still be talking caveman language, and had no good way of going beyond the very basic thinking of cavemen.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 8:07 amIt's not just science, but subjectivists on values in general.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 7:59 amAre you saying that scientists redefined the word "value" and that we should care about it? Why should we?
I didn't say that it's necessary to care about it. To some people, philosophy means the search for truth out of the love of wisdom, and this is arguably one of the places where the search leads us.
Ehhh, so fundamental scientific theories (expressed in the language of Mathematics) are not valuable in the conventional sense of "valuable"?
So the multiple definitions of "value" are NOT valuable ?!?!