What I’ve observed is that people are largely the same - the fears, behaviors, and relationships don’t vary much, regardless of belief systems. However, some individuals are rare; they seem to possess an authenticity and integrity that transcend labels. These are the people I find interesting. Anyone can claim to be a theist or an atheist, but I don’t think labels mean all that much. — Tom Storm

:ok: :ok:

God I love checking in with the kids table.

Oh, come now. You know that isn't true. Portnoy is an incredible drummer though, no doubt. But Carington is just... there's a reason he's the choice for all the old heads who need a Pat Masteloto/Ian Paice/John Bonham replacement :P

That's not the argument though - it was an additional reason I am a Tool enjoyer LOL. Nothing Portnoy has ever done sounds as good to me as any number of Carrington performances. That's another discussion, though, I'm sure (but i'm up for it lololol). According to Portnoy, Dance fo Eternity is his most technical piece and was written to be expressly that - it's not as technical as several Tool tracks.

Dragonforce really is awful. But their drummer isn't top tier either.

h man, I hate that stuff. I hate French pop. It's an abomination. Like, it's just too much. You have to draw the line somewhere, even if it's Mike Patton that we're talking about here. — Arcane Sandwich

The album is called Corpse Flower if that helps :P

I just stop listening to Tool, because if double meanings and Fibonacci sequences are all that I can get out of it, then, it's like, it's a mediocre band, objectively speaking. And if Maynard disagrees, then, well, go take a fucking anchor up your ass, know what I'm saying? You band sucks, Primus already did what you guys are trying to do. — Arcane Sandwich

Fair enough - I cannot recognize anything in here. Those two bands are very, very different for example. THey do very different things, and ahve had wildly divergent lives.

What I get out of Tool is the music. I listen to Tool like any other band (though, they aren't my favourite by a long shot). I enjoy their music at a very, very high level (and as a drummer, I am bound to continually exalt Daniel Carrington).

This oen is easy, and despite the obvious reality that history has not been kind to women who want to think, there are other considerations at play - mainly already mentioned:

Women tend to not want to wade into conflict, as a recreational choice. Women tend to want to be collaborative. Women tend to not want the confrontations and detail-oriented displays of prowess that come with philosophical (put well earlier) blowing-hard. I don't attach such disparagement to that as others might - I just think its patently obvious men and women differ on average, and that capability has little to do with it, but interest does and there's no harm or foul there.

Same difference, I would say.
Source: I'm a philosopher, Trust Me Bro. — Arcane Sandwich

LMAO - fair enough.

no Mr. Bungle? What would Mike Patton say? : D — Arcane Sandwich

I guess I don't really see Bungle as metal beyond the Easter Bunny EP(both versions). Try not to shoot me :P

Ironically, my current favourite project of his is French pop music (though, his vocals and lyrics are on-brand lol).

The Tool fandom is toxic, and the mentality of the Tool fandom is a virgin mentality. — Arcane Sandwich

Eh. I disagree. There's a coterie of mentally ill people in most fandoms. I think it's insular, and that gives an air of superiority but most Tool fans i've encountered aren't exemplary of these stereotypes... Then again, Maynard hates his fans so maybe you're right lol.

Shad K - Brother


Lyrics:
I try to hold some hope in my heart
For these African youths
Coming up where I'm from
Many traps to elude
Surrounded by
Mostly white and affluent dudes
And somehow, you expected to have
Mastered this smooth
Swagger and move
With the right walk, the right talk
Fashion and crews
Souls subtly attacked and abused
And what's funny's being black wasn't cool
Where I'm from til suddenly
You started hearing rap in the school
Hallways
Admist this madness I grew
With knack for amusing through this little skill
For rappin at dudes
An' we all like to laugh at the truth
But when you young and same facts
Pertain to who you rappin em to
Well, I opted not to bring
That to the booth
But after a while, it sort of starts naggin at you
The crazed infatuation with blackness
That trash that gets viewed
And the fact that the tube only showed blacks
Actin the fool and I was watching...
(saturated with negative images and a limited range of
Possibilities is strange...)
And it's sad cause that naturally do
Sort of condition your mind and over time
That's what's attractive to you
So young blacks don't see themselves in
Scholastic pursuits
Or the more practical routes
It's makin tracks or it's hoops
Or God-forbid movin packs for the loot
Even with this music we so limited - it's rap or produce
And that narrow conception of what's black isn't true
Of course, still we feel forced to adapt to this view
Like there's something that you're havin to prove
Now add that to the slew
Of justification the capitalists use
For the new blaxploitation
Many actions excused
In the name of getting cash
That's adversely impactin our youth
With mental slavery, the shackles is loose
And it's hard to cut chains when they attached at the roots
So what the new black activists do
For our freedom is just being them
Do what you're passionate to
Not confined by a sense that you have to disprove
Any stereotypes, so-called facts to refute
Or match any image of blackness
They've established as true
Perhaps we'll break thru the glass ceilings
Shatter the roof and emerge
From these boxes that they have us in cooped
And grow to smash the mold that they casted of you
I'll keep watching...

No, AI is not sentient.
To me, this comes down to a similar point Banno made in teh abortion thread a couple months back.

If you cannot recognize the difference between what a human mind, and an AI model is doing - I'm not sure this convo is the right place to start. AI is an S&R model taken to it's extreme. That's all it could be, from what I understand. Even it's internal 'learning' is not creative, but S&R. There are no inherent impulses for an AI.

If two people had differing subjective experiences of red, whether they liked it, whether they didn't, we wouldn't say that means that red itself has no objective basis. The confusion MoK has is he thinks that a debate over liking or not liking things means there's no underlying objective notion of morality that transcends simply like and dislike. — Philosophim

Perhaps i'm not hte best one to take this up, given my anti-realist stance to color, but I don't think this is really doing a lot.
If two people experience the wavelength you're talking about as different things, then the 'object' is not redness, but a wavelength of light. It is wholly subjective, between those two, what 'redness' is (under some constraints, for sure). Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying here..

"In my experience," — Philosophim

That's always fair.

Interestingly, I've never seen anyone seriously put forward either argument you make. The main motivator for the claim seems to be more an atheistic type of thinking. A thought akin to 'No one has ever provided a reasonable account of an objective morality which isn't imposed from without, and so we are free to reject the claim that there is one'. Is that a bit better for you? I mean, doesn't align with your experience, but just as a response to the egoic type of charge..

I truly have not found a good and unbiased rational argument which leads to morality only being a subjective outcome. — Philosophim

I think you are reversing the onus, then. The claim to objective morality must be proved. Not the rejection of the claim, surely? Proving a negative (which this amounts to) can obviously be done, but in this case it would require exhausting all possibility within our Universe before making a conclusion... surely, that's a less rational requirement. I think your position is fine, no issue, but impugning others on the basis that you require proof of a negative doesn't seem all that ...good?

reason to pursue objective morality — Philosophim

This, I can accept. There is always good reason to 'align' or 'unify'.

I have to say, your reasons don't appear to be reasons, but interpretations that would support an emotional attachment to objective morality ;) ;)

First, as I mentioned earlier ignorance is not bliss. It is powerlessness. The handling of ignorance results in superstitions and emotional decisions. Anytime we can replace this with rational thought, we as a species gain power to understand ourselves, the world, and make smart decisions that help us navigate through it better. — Philosophim

What is the reason here? You'd have to already accept ab objective morality for 'ignorance' to even come up here, right? So, I can't see how this supports the point - just the activity of 'sussing out' morality generally. Which I agree with, fully.

Only an objective morality can ensure that AI develops rightly and co-exists peacefully with the rest of life on Earth. — Philosophim

This paragraph sounds like pure fear to me, and not a rational argument in any sense of the word. Its practical argument to avoid what you foresee as a negative consequence of a technology. ANd sure, for programming, ab objective morality is best. This, however, smacks of exactly my issue: There is no rational basis for the claim from within. Here, we, the people, are imposing "a morality" on the AI which we want to constraint. We're playing God. We, the people, don't have this constraint... Unless that's what you want to posit? Not wild - just one i reject on lack of evidence grounds. I understand the concerns around AI - I grew up with T2 lol - but, I don't think fearing a possible outcome of a technology has to do with the metaethics of our universe.

Are you able to outline a positive argument which would evidence an objective morality? I don't think you've done so. The three things I can see you've used to support here are are:

- Patterns of behaviour (this is one is unclear as your first para doesn't so what it says it will, so
I refrain from commenting further);
- An assumption that objective morality exists and gives rise to ignorance (which you reject - fairly, on it's face); and
- A fear of an unconstrained AI.

I can't see an answer to why you think there is an objective morality - but rather why you think it would be good to have one.

Big calls. Best rather than greatest?

1. Tool - Lateralus;
2. Pain of Salvation - Remedy Lane;
3. Faith No More - Angel Dust (if it counts, if not, shift everything up one)
4. Soundgarden - Badmotorfinger (or Louder Than Love if BMF isn't 'metal' enough);
5. Fantomas - The Director's Cut
5b. any of: Master of Puppets, Sad Wings.., Paranoid,

Tool fans are toxic virgins. — Arcane Sandwich

You really wanna go down this type of road on a philosophy forum? Hehehe.

Generally the base definition of good is, "What should be". There is of course a subjective view of what should be, but an objective view is what should be despite our personal biases and desires. The main reason people want to remove objectivity is because they think it gets in the way of what they want. This is just as short sighted as saying that any wavelength of light can be red because we want to. Objectivity is a reasoned ground to find a central understanding that hold between different subjective viewpoints. — Philosophim

Can you explain (and I think what I'm wanting here is a relatively content-less explanation that focusses on justification in reasoning, rather than "because of.." type reasons) why it is you're sure that objectivity is baked-in (or vice verse) to morality and that objections to this must necessarily be predicated on biases or rejections (as opposed to objection, that is)??

For context as to why: I feel the opposite. I feel that the cry for objectivity in morality is an indicator the person crying(not pejorative!) is at a loss as to how to function upon their own concepts of right and wrong. Many possible reasons.. which is invoked wouldn't change my position there. I cannot conceive an objective morality which isn't imposed from without (i.e divine, the simulation Lords etc...)

Nichomachean Ethics.

Anyone got pointers or a particularly interesting reader?

Islamaphobia is obviously made up. Scruton has obviously done nothing wrong here. It's a social media symptom. That's all. Outrage, outrage, outrage.

And Owen Jones is perhaps the second-worst commenter in recent memory, when it comes to British Media (there's another fellow who is worse - can't recall the name right now though). I can't see i've seen a single reasonable comment in this thread that lands on the side of Scruton having said anything wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent) and is wrong.

Nevertheless, yes, time to move on.

I support the social media ban in the sense that I think kids shouldn't be privvy to that horseshit, but think it's an utterly ridiculous thing to try to do

Appreciate it - But i'm a white belt :P I've just gotten lucky (and unlucky - my inability to get graded is a timing issue).

Yeah, i'm not very good hahahaa. That said, I held me own against Kendall Reusing, which is, while a total cheat, a decent feeling against a multiple-world champion.

Alas - he already has. LOL

The best joke about Australia that I heard is that Australia is just British Texas. — Arcane Sandwich

The problem is people tend to think it's not a joke, and that somehow they have a clear, complete view of an entire continent. Australia is nothing like Texas other than the wide open spaces. It's nothing like most places except NZ. Also, Texas is fantastic. LOL.

of being true (or false). — Michael

Would you delineate between this and "existing"? The phrase "there is gold in them hills" might not be open to the truth/false issue but if there are gold deposits in those hills, then those gold deposits exist, as does the state of affairs in the statement.

Let me know what i'm getting wrong here, as I assume I am.

Ethics requires intent. Evolution has intent the way ethics requires. I can't see my way to thinking this could be even a reasonable starting point.

Any cliff notes that can set me right? The thread is muddled and unhelpful in that regard overall.

The differences across cultures and times make it quite obvious that 'the Good' in the terms you're using is just a group agreement to some moral boundaries. This is not particularly predictable as between groups, or across time. Your syllogism (as such) simply isn't giving what you want it to. — AmadeusD

I am unsure what wasn't 'precise' in this? You can statistically predict anything, even if it's arbitrary. I think what you're trying to get into the discussion is that, given certain aims we can predict what people will say is good. For Muslims, there's predictive power, for Christians there's predictive power - but overall its extremely hard to predict what people will think is 'good', partiicularly if you're going to be anymore fine-grained than calling it 'relative'. Which, i'll say, is totally acceptable, but stepping back from any particularly group which has (from any third party's perspective) arbitrary moral rules based on arbitrarily up-held traditions (arguable, just clarifying my point) it is not possible to predict with any accuracy. Groups agreement to moral boundaries aren't ipso facto reasonable. They can be arbitrary.

So, I don't grant hte premise. If it were true, I still reject the conclusion. That was my point with the first reply. My assent to P1 is irrelevant to the failure of the point, imo.

Too bad, that's the definition of good. — Philosophim

Nah my guy. The definitions of good vary between 'that which is desired', 'that which is required' and ; 'that which is morally right'. Circular, unless restrictive. Which is why it's such a problem, and why threads like this exist. Addressed briefly above, this is the exact cause of the vagueness of 'Good'. It is entirely relative.

Well then what is Dan's problem? He's been fruitlessly working on the same problem for almost ten years. If it isn't the case that he's trying to unite two incompatible principles, so he gets lost in contradiction, then what do you think his problem is? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think at this stage I would be entirely justified in saying "please, stop, for your own sake".
I literally said it is not Dan's problem.

If you could, perhaps, not entirely change the subject to attempt a further pointless and badly-worded impugning of Dan's work... That would be nice. But, it speaks to exactly what i"m saying - that's not his problem. It's yours. He's being a gentleman even giving you the time of day. That this has gone on months baffles me, as it probably does both of you - but for me, its his patience and your density that's baffling.

No, one would not think that AmadeusD; because for anyone who actually read my posts, I took a Moorean position on the nature of goodness which is not circular. Again, you just quoted me out of context when I was talking about how goodness is objective. — Bob Ross

You're beginning to come across genuinely incapable of having this type exchange - the amount of genuinely unreasonable statements you're making is quite distracting from anything of substance you might be sandwiching in there. This response makes absolutely zero sense in the face of what I have said. That makes it close to impossible to respond adequately.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is about God and God’s relation to any objective goodness to demonstrate that God can’t really be the standard for it; and does not provide any reason to believe that an objective morality cannot exist — Bob Ross

This is a prime example. IF you were being charitable, it would be painfully obvious (and, i've checked this by running the set of exchanges by a third party who has no skin in the exchange) that what I have said there is exactly what it says - an example that ab objective Good would need to be circular. As every single thing you have posited shows, clearly. Your assertion to the opposite is simply false.

Suffice to say all my responses stand on their own two feet. You can respond how you want :)

There is no legitimate warrant for determining how good a thing is, re: its goodness, without an a priori sense of good itself. Just as you can’t say of a thing its beauty without that to which its beauty relates. — Mww

b-b-b-bingo.

Of which the phrase "what is good is good" clearly refers to the idea it is objective, and not that I am defining 'good' circularly. — Bob Ross

I have responded to this as presented in several of your posts in this thread. Not the bare quote which I used to represent it. That bare quote would, one would think, cast you back to your entire position. It seems more likely you have someone disingenuous assumed that's all there was to respond to, in my mind which is not the case.

If your harshness is borne out of what's there in the full post i've quoted above, that is a misunderstanding on your part. I have adequately responded to your position. Your notion of 'objective good' is circular. I have made that much clear about my position, whether you agree with it or not. Unless you're actually obfuscating, in which case, maybe take a bit of time before replying (but i assume this is not hte case)

I should say, the two elements don't seem mutually exclusive - which is why i've been saying unhelpful rather htan unreasonable. It could be objective and circular, as Euthyphro shows is almost certainly the case, if an objective good were to obtain.

I really can't figure out what you're getting at.

I don't quite grant your premise, anyway. The differences across cultures and times make it quite obvious that 'the Good' in the terms you're using is just a group agreement to some moral boundaries. This is not particularly predictable as between groups, or across time. Your syllogism (as such) simply isn't giving what you want it to.

What people deem to be good is predictable.
What is predictable is not arbitrary.
Therefore what people deem to be good is not arbitrary. — Leontiskos

Which people? Predictable by whom, to what degree, and under what circumstances? Is this simpyl a statistical reading of past attitudes? None of this helps... "what people deem to be good" is insufficiently specific, anyway. This is a hodge-podge at best, giving nothing reasonably helpful.

Those boundaries are arbitrary. The collective agreement to them doesn't touch that. To be non-arbitrary you need to be pointing to something which has informed them, which is universally recognized. I see nothing of the kind, until we move into religion. But then, non-arbitrariness is baked in there exactly to get around this problem. Both issues seem to support my contention.

None of this is true. No idea where you're getting this from. I literally quoted you and responded to it. My comment is in line with all of your responses to a similar thing. Your view is that the Good, is the Good.

I would recommend not immediately getting defensive and difficult because someone has put you to something.

I don't care what you find interesting.

The study (non-replicated - extremely good reason to be sceptical) doesn't give us any empirical facts at all. It makes assumptions, infers certain reason for an, assumed, innate fear or reaction, without actually confirming that this is the case. I don't know how you read papers, but this one isn't particularly sound for the reasons above, and hte obvious reason: There is no such thing as a snake before you are born. It would require some form of magic for a baby (who can't even recognize colours) to recognize an organism, all that entails, particularly given the statistically vanishing likelihood of being hurt by a snake.

The workers conclude that they think there may be an evolutionary reason for the reaction. That is bare. It's not conclusive. You seem to have read an abstract and just run with it.

Aside from this, it's probably unbecoming of someone trying to support a point to literally not engage and hten call someone's opinion 'boring' without any inquiry. That's, to put it bluntly, childish crap.

Is one able to predict with some level of accuracy what others will deem good? If so, how could the good be arbitrary or disconnected from "extrinsic facts"? — Leontiskos

Lets grant the proposition.

How would that connect with any extrinsic facts? That people have opinions has nothing to do with fact-finding, or defining Good. This simply isn't relevant to the question. It is arbitrary - it might just be shared by groups of affinity. Nothing interesting going on there in my view.

it is nothing but contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

It clearly, patently isn't, and you're just digging your feet in. That's not Dan's problem. He's being an absolute gentleman trying to walk you through this. Your refusal doesn't reflect anything on he or his arguments. All of my comments about your posts stand, entirely. Your responses are just re-assertions of the same tired cop-outs at this stage.

What is good is good — Bob Ross

This is tautological. This is unhelpful. This is not an answer to any of the questions. What's good is *insert definition* is the correct form of this statement. Everyone has their own. And that's absolutely fine.

I define good as that which elicits feelings of contentment within me. That's an extremely broad, and changing concept. That's why it works (for me).

I can't see a way to 'defining' good as anything other than a personal subjective concept. OR some teleological thing - i.e, "Good in order to achieve..." or "good in order to avoid.." in whatever scenario.

I call moral anti-realism only ethics insofar as it is its negation. — Bob Ross

That's an interesting point, but i think is entirely inapt. Moral anti-realism is literally a species of ethical thought as to "what one ought to do". It just doesn't demand a universal answer.

I primarily use my phone to blue-tooth music to my stereo. I never answer it and make about 1 call a month. I do return texts from friends but even that is only about 10 a month. — Arne

I use my phone for plenty - but Unless there is already something to use it for (i.e as a tool) why would I pick it up? There is hay to be made.

Sure, someone can use "square" in a way which does not exclude a circle from being a type of square, and assert "this is the way I choose to use that term", insisting that the other person in the discussion must accept such incoherency if they want to continue discussion, but what's the point? How could this be conducive to understanding? — Metaphysician Undercover

This is, I think, a pretty clear indicator you're either not connecting with what's being said, or are simply avoiding it.

Your analogy is entirely inapt, to the point of ridiculousness.

"the way it is" simply has no static restriction. Plain and simple.

The matter of what the user of the phrase is demanding is not relevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

This explains the entire exchange. So be it.

In a lot of ethical thought, it is "good for you" to be good. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Surely you can see the circularity? No further seems to clarify this. It seems to me, the biggest reason ethical thinking is so muddled and hard to reconcile as between differing views. It is always recourse to a subjective "good" which is, in turn, supported by the notion that its "good to be good". ?????? LOL.

Here is the analogy Boethius draws in the later parts of the Consolation for this situation. Flourishing is like trying to climb a mountain. At the top is the highest good, which is good per se, but also good for us. You'll be happiest if you make it to the top, but you'll also be happier if you make it higher up the mountain. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is relatively incoherent. I like the Consolation, and I think Boethius is undoubtedly one of the better medieval writers (particularly the lack of inherent divinity despite his obvious leanings). It is quite easy to read the above conceptualisation as nonsense. It's a nice metaphor, if you already know what "good" means, but here we don't. There's no reason to be climbing, other than accepting an assertion.

The vice addled — Count Timothy von Icarus

Quite different to 'non-good' or somehow 'bad'.

Socrates gets sentenced to death and quips that "nothing bad can happen to a good man; — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which appears, on it's face, ridiculous. There's no reason to think Socrates was good, other than his assertion.

I appreciate this response, but I do not think it has addressed any of the issue. The question remains moot, in the absence of a non-circular, or at least non-self-referential concept of 'good'. The above amounts to "good is conceptualised as that which it is good to do".

This isn't particularly convincing... I've had a look at the lit on this several times. I was wondering whether you had an answer beyond relying on this. Apologies if that's not open to you, perhaps the question was misplaced.

fear of snakes, for instance, is innate. — Benkei

This isn't really challenge (though, i probably would choose to challenge the use of innate here) but do you propose a reason many (significant numbers) of people are naturally not predisposed to be fearful of snakes? I'm one, so i'm genuinely curious here.

Everywhere I look I see zombies wondering around chained to their phones. It is scary! Sometimes I feel like I am the only normal person in a never ending freak show. — I like sushi

I own a phone (smart phone), but I have this same experience. I chuckle constantly to and from the bus in my city watching for people walking into things, and each other.

In my experience, this (bolded part) is not how ethics is usually taught. Instead, teaching ethics goes something like this:

"You don't know what is good and right and so you need to be told so.
X is good and right.
You should do X."


If anything, the direct answer to "Why ought one do that which is good?" is "Because one is bad" and perhaps with the addition "so that by doing good, one may become good as well." — baker

Sure, and I understand (roughly) how Ethics is taught. But this literally foregoes any meaningful answer to the question, and returns to circularity. I'm not particularly intending to further some philosophical position but to address why I think the question itself is a bit moot. "X is good" requires my bolded to be sorted through. "You should do X" requires the previous sentence to be adequately addressed. So, I think this is prima facie a pretty unhelpful way to think about what to do in life.

Ignoring that "good" and "right" can come apart readily, I can't see how this conceptualisation is anything more than paternalism, rather than learning how to think and assess claims. Have I maybe missed something in what you've presented? It's likely.

Again, you want "the way the world is" to mean more than it does. And, again, the condition of changing is a claim about the way something is, because "the way something is" does not imply that the thing is not changing. — Dan

It seems this is a hang up in the last couple of pages.

Fwiw, this (Dan's description) is patently true. Reducing "the way X is" to only ever apply to static description is not reasonable - particularly in the face of the user of the phrase telling you that's not baked in.