Justification of knowledge and morality/ethics

Author: Shed12

Posts

Total: 137
#91
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
I don't understand how a supposedly meaningless universe could spawn meaningful things
As far as I can tell it did not. I am unaware of any meaning or value that was not assigned or imposed subjectively and artificially by humans.

nor do I understand how subjective values are any more made up or artificial than anything else that exists.
I'm just not sure what you mean by this. An asteroid exists physically an opinion does not exist beyond the opinion holder.
By objective judgment, I mean what you mean
That remains to be seen.
Does agreement really matter?
The defining of terms is a necessary step in the pursuit of any debate. If we do not agree on the definitions of the words or concepts we are discussing we may not even be having the same conversation.
Topic's author
#92
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
"I don't understand how a supposedly meaningless universe could spawn meaningful things"

As far as I can tell it did not. I am unaware of any meaning or value that was not assigned or imposed subjectively and artificially by humans.
Are humans meaningful?

"nor do I understand how subjective values are any more made up or artificial than anything else that exists."

I'm just not sure what you mean by this. An asteroid exists physically an opinion does not exist beyond the opinion holder.
Does the physicality of an asteroid make it less artificial than an opinion? Are opinions and asteroids even ontically different?

"By objective judgment, I mean what you mean"

That remains to be seen.
I take it back then. Qualifying judgment or value with "subjective" didn't make sense to me anyway. I brought up objective judgment as an inverse to "subjective judgment" from,

When one is discussing morality one is usually making subjective judgements about what... (post #87)

The defining of terms is a necessary step in the pursuit of any debate. If we do not agree on the definitions of the words or concepts we are discussing we may not even be having the same conversation.
I guess I object to the final deciding nature of definitons. I agree they are important but believe they should change as the thing being investigated becomes clearer.

For example if we agreed for the purposes of this discussion that we will both agree that freedom is good and repression is evil and based on our agreed upon criteria killing someone would be evil because a dead person has no freedom. (post #87)
(As an example) like I said above even though there can be agreement, it may not necessarily be freedom that is good. It may be something more fundamental that freedom shares with other good things. If that can be elucidated then the definiton should be tweaked. Same thing if it is initially agreed that repression is evil.
#93
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
Are humans meaningful?
Only to other humans and the animals we share our environment with. If there is any further meaning it has not been demonstrated to me.
Does the physicality of an asteroid make it less artificial than an opinion? Are opinions and asteroids even ontically different?
That depends on whether or not the physical universe exists as we perceive it. Provided the physical universe is real then asteroids exist whether there is any observer or not. Opinions differ in That they do not exist unless there is someone to have them.
I guess I object to the final deciding nature of definitons. I agree they are important but believe they should change as the thing being investigated becomes clearer.
It is true that a definition should be dependent on reality not the other way around but we must still agree on what to call things or we may not be talking about the same things. When we finally realize that we are not having the same conversation we would have to stop and define terms anyway. It is better in my opinion to have the discussion before we begin.
(As an example) like I said above even though there can be agreement, it may not necessarily be freedom that is good. It may be something more fundamental that freedom shares with other good things. If that can be elucidated then the definiton should be tweaked. Same thing if it is initially agreed that repression is evil.
My whole point is that there may not be any objective good or evil. My personal preferred standard for what is moral is human wellbeing followed closely by wellbeing in general. If something promotes harm it is generally speaking in my opinion immoral and if it promotes wellbeing then generally speaking in my opinion it is moral. If you do not agree with this standard and do not have one to offer we are probably at the end of this conversation but in either case wellbeing is only my subjective personal standard.
Topic's author
#94
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
"Are humans meaningful?"
- Shed12

Only to other humans and the animals we share our environment with. If there is any further meaning it has not been demonstrated to me.
Has it been demonstrated that humans are meaningful to other humans and the animals that share environments with them?

"Does the physicality of an asteroid make it less artificial than an opinion? Are opinions and asteroids even ontically different?"
- Shed12

That depends on whether or not the physical universe exists as we perceive it. Provided the physical universe is real then asteroids exist whether there is any observer or not. Opinions differ in That they do not exist unless there is someone to have them.
By physical universe do you mean one that is purely physical?

Are opinions not also observed by an observer?

"I guess I object to the final deciding nature of definitons. I agree they are important but believe they should change as the thing being investigated becomes clearer."
- Shed12

It is true that a definition should be dependent on reality not the other way around but we must still agree on what to call things or we may not be talking about the same things. When we finally realize that we are not having the same conversation we would have to stop and define terms anyway. It is better in my opinion to have the discussion before we begin.
That's fair.

"(As an example) like I said above even though there can be agreement, it may not necessarily be freedom that is good. It may be something more fundamental that freedom shares with other good things. If that can be elucidated then the definiton should be tweaked. Same thing if it is initially agreed that repression is evil."
- Shed12

My whole point is that there may not be any objective good or evil. My personal preferred standard for what is moral is human wellbeing followed closely by wellbeing in general. If something promotes harm it is generally speaking in my opinion immoral and if it promotes wellbeing then generally speaking in my opinion it is moral. If you do not agree with this standard and do not have one to offer we are probably at the end of this conversation but in either case wellbeing is only my subjective personal standard.
I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't think the subjectivity of morality precludes its objectivity. In fact I believe that subjectivity necessitates objectivity. I can explain why I think so in another post.

#95
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
Has it been demonstrated that humans are meaningful to other humans and the animals that share environments with them?
Demonstrated is probably the wrong word. If their behavior is any indicator then I have observed that humans are worthwhile to other humans and many of their pets and also to the animals they eat. Anything beyond this is just conjecture. 
By physical universe do you mean one that is purely physical?
I mean the observable physical universe. Anything beyond that is unobservable and therefore beyond our understanding by definition.
Are opinions not also observed by an observer?
They are observed by the opinion holder and by any observer the opinion holder shares their opinions with. That does not change the fact that without the opinion holder there is no opinion to be observed.
I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't think the subjectivity of morality precludes its objectivity. In fact I believe that subjectivity necessitates objectivity. I can explain why I think so in another post.
Explain all you like but without proof of this necessity I may be unable to believe that.
Topic's author
#96
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Demonstrated is probably the wrong word. If their behavior is any indicator then I have observed that humans are worthwhile to other humans and many of their pets and also to the animals they eat. Anything beyond this is just conjecture. 
Is this not also conjecture? Is it any more veridical than water being meaningful to plants? Than the ground being meaningful to unsupported objects? Surely this observation is based on more than just behavior.

They are observed by the opinion holder and by any observer the opinion holder shares their opinions with. That does not change the fact that without the opinion holder there is no opinion to be observed.
"'I don't understand how a supposedly meaningless universe could spawn meaningful things'

As far as I can tell it did not. I am unaware of any meaning or value that was not assigned or imposed subjectively and artificially by humans" (#91).

So then I asked you if humans are meaningful and to paraphrase you said they are to other humans. But what about those humans? Are they then meaningful to other humans? Who are meaningful to others and others to others? Where does the meaning come from? From humans who are otherwise meaningless?

"'nor do I understand how subjective values are any more made up or artificial than anything else that exists.'

I'm just not sure what you mean by this. An asteroid exists physically an opinion does not exist beyond the opinion holder" (#91).

I meant that opinions are just as "made up" as asteroids, even if they are contingent on an opinion holder.

And before all of that:

"Subjective values give things meaning but they are not real they are made up. They are artificial constructs we use to relate to a meaningless universe" (#87).

What does that say about humans? Supposedly they find each other meaningful.

Explain all you like but without proof of this necessity I may be unable to believe that.
Are subjectivity and objectivity not dichotomous? What are they without the other to contrast?
#97
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
If anything is objectively true then it is objectively true regardless of our ability to know it is objectively true. Objective truth does not have meaning however. We can assign meaning to it but we do so subjectively. We did make up the word objective in order to discuss the subject and we could have called the concept of actual but ultimately meaningless reality anything so in that way I suppose you could day that we assigned a subjective meaning to objective meaninglessness but that is just a dissection of terms not an understanding of the concepts involved. 
Topic's author
#98
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Who or what is we?
#99
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,674
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shed12

I don't see why it would.
If something is good, is it necessary that there be any justification or any reason why? If you didn't know that something was good, how could any amount of investigation lead you to conclude it was good? And if it could, then it mustn't be obvious. It could be mistaken as bad (if it is good) or there might be an argument for its badness.

There is an old Taoist parable that might better illustrate the flexibility of determining whether any given event in your life is "good" or "bad".



There was a farmer who one day left his stable door ajar and his horse wandered away.

His neighbor notes, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, for now you have lost your only horse."

The farmer doesn't reply.

A few days later his horse returned with a wild horse.

His neighbor is surprised and exclaims, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable! Because now you have two horses!"

The farmer doesn't reply.

A week later the farmer's son is training the new horse and is thrown onto a rock and breaks his leg.

The neighbor sympathetically comments, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because now your son is lame."

The farmer doesn't reply.

The next year their king declares war and forcibly recruits all of the able bodied young men to fight.

The neighbor chuckles, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because your son, being lame, will not have to face the horrors of battle."

The farmer doesn't reply.
#100
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,674
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
If anything is objectively true then it is objectively true regardless of our ability to know it is objectively true. Objective truth does not have meaning however. We can assign meaning to it but we do so subjectively. We did make up the word objective in order to discuss the subject and we could have called the concept of actual but ultimately meaningless reality anything so in that way I suppose you could day that we assigned a subjective meaning to objective meaninglessness but that is just a dissection of terms not an understanding of the concepts involved. 
Well stated.
#101
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,674
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shed12
A thing is made good by what degree it fulfills a function. For example, for banging nails, a hammer is more good than a pencil, and for writing, a pencil is more good than a hammer.
Ah, the teleological fallacy.

You've also made a classic category error, using a Quanta example to infer a Qualia corollary.

1 + 1 = 2 (THEREFORE) I will love you till the end of time.
#102
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
In this context we is you and I since we are the ones having this discussion but you could broaden the term to include all humans.
Topic's author
#103
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Are "you and I" or "all humans" apart from the universe?
Topic's author
#104
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@3RU7AL
If by the teleological fallacy you meant that I was saying a hammer has a purpose or function it is meant to fulfill, I didn't mean that. You can use a hammer for whatever you can imagine. I meant that with the goal of banging a nail in mind, a hammer can do it and compared to a pencil it does it better.

I was trying to explain what makes things good but I didn't know how to do it without relating it to things at least in the beginning. This is done anyway in colloquial language. But according to secularmerlin this is actually an example of utility. Still I doubt a thing is good by itself unless it's goodness itself. Is there nothing Quanta-like about Qualia?

#105
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
I'm not sure what you are asking to be honest. The universe is not a single object it is an unimaginable number of moving parts that are all separate from each other. If that does not answer your question please reword it and I will try to be more informative.
Topic's author
#106
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
I mean, are we separate from the universe? Is that better?
#107
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
The universe is not cohesive. The universe is a collection of separate things all separate from each other. I'm not sure what your asking. 
Topic's author
#108
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Is a hand separate from the body?

Topic's author
#109
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
I guess I mean, are we in it.
#110
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
The universe is just a place. A very big place to be sure but just a place. Living in Idaho does not make one into Idaho. We are certainly not connected to the universe in the way that your hand is connected to you. 

Put another way saying that we assign value is not analogous to saying that the universe assigns value.
#111
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,674
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shed12
I mean, are we separate from the universe? Is that better?
I'd say, with some non-trivial support from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, that all things are part of all things.

In other words, no one (single isolated) thing is "complete".

For example you might generally think of a single automobile as a "separate thing".  However, that automobile is utterly and completely useless without a person to drive it.  That single automobile is utterly and completely useless without trillions of dollars worth of paved roads and oil refineries and factories manufacturing replacement parts.  That automobile is not a "separate thing" but is rather a small part of a much larger complex web of systems.  Not to mention the long and unlikely history of events that has led us to the development of the modern automobile in its current form.
Topic's author
#112
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@3RU7AL
I think that is what I was trying to get at with secularmerlin. Is this true only of Quanta? I concede I was making a category error earlier.
Topic's author
#113
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
So from what you've last said, it sounds to me universe is a set. I don't think it is accurate to call it a place unless that is exactly what you mean.

What is meaning, then? And, if the universe must be a place, there is still, for whatever reason, experience and ideas and values and whatever else. Humans are in a "place," along with other things.
Topic's author
#114
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
Is meaning (or whatever other things you'd call subjective) a thing that is included in the "collection of separate things all separate from each other."?
#115
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,674
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shed12
Is this true only of Quanta?
Any identifiable (nameable) bit of Qualia is also technically incomplete.

Every word, feeling and/or concept we know and experience is couched in an often unspoken dynamic and complicated context.
#116
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
You could call the universe a place but if so it is an area of three dimensional space not the things contained in that space or you could call it a collection of separate things which together comprise the universe in neither case are we connected to the universe in the way that your hand is connected to our body at least not so far as I can tell as for meaning that is a human notion if humans did not exist then meaning would not exist either you can call it real in the same sense that Harry Potter is real which is to say that the idea of Harry Potter exists in our minds but not in three-dimensional space
Topic's author
#117
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Where do minds exist?
#118
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
Mindscexist as an emergent quality of an organic brain. Im not sure that this qualifies as a where or not.
#119
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,674
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shed12
Where do minds exist?
The fact that your own mind exists is indisputable.

Where your mind exists - is beyond your epistemological limits.

What are the comprehensive characteristics and attributes of your mind - is also beyond your epistemological limits.

The question of whether or not "other minds" exist - is also beyond your epistemological limits.
Topic's author
#120
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@secularmerlin
It doesn't, not because it's emergent but because it doesn't exist in space, three-dimensional or otherwise. If emergence already entails this, then what I've said is redundant.

Before when I said I don't know meaningful things could come from a meaningless universe, I actually meant how could it come from meaningless things; I did not consider things to be other than the universe.

It's been said that humans assign value to things. That minds emerge from "organic brains" is about as apparent as things being good. Maybe some things aren't actually good and only appear to be good, but couldn't the same be said about minds and brains? For a example, food appears to be good but isn't really; brains appear to have minds but don't really.