I see some, what I take to be, confusion in the direction of how these things work, so forgive if something seems out of step...

There are physical facts that are simple enough to be modelled by an equation — flannel jesus

I do not think causation is one, though. Predictability obtains, sure, but no explanations can be found. We can model effects from causes, but we can't model mechanisms sufficiently low-level to explain the causation. So I take your point that these are separate considerations, but..

We can predict, with 100% certainty, that a conscious thought will alter the body (or, vice verse.. we can't know, or even know if its' a reasonable question at this stage). That we cannot explain this doesn't seem to do much. We can't explain (properly) why momentum of body+another body = movement (inter alia) ). I entirely accept that these are things we can objectively model and that this sets them apart from what I'm suggesting. But I do not think the framework for understanding how to react to these facts changes. We know this thing happens, and we can't access even the right realm to figure out why (i presume you would nneed to not be a human mind to do this). Similar with physical causation, you'd need to be askance from it to explain it fully from without.

The issue for me here, and this goes direct to Kim i guess, is that we need not then fall into a "physicalism of a kind" to explain the oddities which physicalism proper doesn't seem to grasp fully.
We could just as well say well, the mind interacts with the body because that's how it is. We can't explain it, but we have literally endless evidence.

worthy of being taken seriously — Antony Nickles

It's this part that I think falters. For the person who rejects your moral position, you wont be taken seriously. There are plenty of 'woke' 'commands' (land acknowledgements, pronoun use etc..) which are routinely not taken seriously on expressly moral grounds. Again, i'm not saying anything moral about the two possible outcomes, but I'm trying to show that most 'moral' positions cannot be made to be sensible to others who don't intuitively get the point of the moral claim being made.

I think you may be using “irrational” as in something like unpredictable, but also claim reasons are “irrational” when maybe they are just not understood. — Antony Nickles

I see that this is something I've not accounted for, but I wasn't using it that way. When i say 'irrational' I mean not something "the right-thinking person" would actually engage in (vigilante justice is a good example here, where there's good self-interest and perhaps even community interest, but it is irrational to put one in the position of potentially facing life in prison for front-footing the law). Rationality would be something where you've assessed your goal and made a good faith deliberation about what might get you to your goal. This speaks, again, to the inability to legitimize one's moral positions to others. Some would say vigilante justice is 100% rational and its worth a life in prison to, say, remove ten child predators from the world. I can't understand that, but I don't call it irrational, once I know the person's position. I have no place to judge it that way, unless their actions expressly forego achieving their goal.

Analogously, everyone can have an opinion, but there are actual reasons we prioritize their value. — Antony Nickles

I agree, but our reasons are incoherent (when read acorss several avenues of application). We do not accept that 'lived experience' is a good metric for an accurate appraisal of anything, until it comes to how one has been victimized. But this may be the most skew-able reactionary device in the human mind. Over-reacting, post-hoc rationalization among other things seem to make this type of data-crunching immune to being helpful.

I pause here to make a carve-out for what's called Epistemic Injustice. In those cases, the lived experience and the reportage thereof is all we could possibly use to move ourselves forward in the sense wanted by the one reporting. This isn't the same as taking D'3'Vyon (de-tray-vee-on) at his word when he claims he found a noose on his school desk and that's why he robbed a store and punched a pregnant woman (or whatever - many such stories) and requires much more of, I think, what you're getting at. The former concept (i.e policy considerations, or instantiating social norms) doesn't seem to accept this type of assessment without falling into totally irrational nonsense in fairly short-order.

The final thought there, is that "valuing" opinions is insane, on a policy level, unless we're talking expertise. Life Experience is not expertise, in any sense, to my mind. Maybe there's a disconnect there.

There is no equal opportunity or equal productivity or equal pay - these are specific particular, diverse conditions that will never be equalized, and it is to the detriment of all of us to pretend otherwise. — Fire Ologist

This is the nail being struck, I think. The wishful thinking about wanting to remove disparities has been, and I think will continue to be, wholly destructive. People do different shit. Grow up.

You've done much more which I commend in the post below this one (not all, but I don't want this reply to go on and on).

Its been at least a year, and that's just since i've been here. I'll take a crack.

If "qualia" is a collective noun for "red", "loud" and so on, then I've no great problem with it. That seems ot be how it is used in the research named in the OP. — Banno

So far so good... That's one use (but much research is equivocal as to whether they mean an intangible entity of mind (i.e the "liking" aspect of your Hanover sentence used between this i've quoted post, and my reply) which no one would argue with. This could easily be reduced to describing a class of shades, though. "red' being a collective for anything from deep, crimson red to some kind of off-pink. Not anything about sensations. That could simply be a deeper consideration in the use of hte words. Anyway... generally, yep. That's fine.

If it is a name for an otherwise private sensation, then I can't see how to make sense of of it. — Banno

"otherwise" than..? A hotch-potch catch-all for we-really-know-not-what? That nit-pick aside, I'm unsure what's insensible. We all "sense" red as it were, and discuss our sensations. If we label that collective pool of agreed sensations "red" then we're doing something different than your first, accepted, use of the word 'red'. And it is clearly sensible. We can think about it, then chat about it and compare notes. We just cannot know ever, if when we say "I see what you mean" we actually do. An unfortunate reality of other minds existing, i suppose.

That is how it is used by some philosophers. — Banno

Yes, certainly. I think all that those philosophers are doing is noticing the difference in use I did earlier in this reply.

U1: A collective noun for all that humans report that they perceive as red (this being hte spectrum of shade/hue etc..)
U2: The various perceptions of red (this being not a spectrum, but a pool of closely-related reports (though, some will not be that closely related, tbf).

Colorblindness for instance matters to the first, not the second. "Where most see red, you see green" is not a discussion about sensations. The correlated qualia occur when taking U2 seriously, whether or not they fit into the labels used for U1. But if the correlated quale does not obtain in U2 terms, then that subject can't discuss it in U1 terms.

I just can't understand what you can't make sense of. Trying to layout how it makes sense...

So by, "Making guns scarce," one actually means, "Making guns scarce for one group while making them readily available for another group. — Leontiskos

I don't think too many people would shy away from this. It's the underlying justification and detail that makes people squirm.

Who holds the guns? You can name several classes that, prima facie, seem up for the job (as OP did, i think).
IN reality, they are all humans. Back to square 1. I'm unsure this is the biggest problem with modern political sophistry, but it is probably hte one popular discourse trips up on hte most (and why most discourse turns into yelling matches).

Morality can be rational, but there is absolutely no non-telelogical way to make it 'legitimate'. I think this is the majority of the problem people are having - substituting something rational for something irrational in order to legitimize moral behaviours (in this case, obviously we're going to be referring rationally immoral behaviour, say violently attacking ICE agents who are, at the time, doing nothing). The irrational substrate of the supporting framework for such behaviour is what's driving much of 'woke' moral discourse. This is irrational. If you then say "lived experience is the only true source of information one can rely on" we get a corner in which irrational behaviour is hte only justifiable behaviour (this is rather simplified, to be sure).

That said, I'm not standing behind that - it just explains, I think, what's being unseen in the exchange above this.

This said, i think the most intuitive problem is that, generally, the 'woke' claim that morality is rational, but relative. If so, they have absolutely no place to make moral commands of others, even in their own culture. That is to say: one ought not throw stones once one denounces stone-throwing.

I find it hard to understand causation, properly, in physical terms. I've been reading a bit of Kim lately and "near enough" seems the best level of explanation we can get for causation of any kind, really. Practically, there are inarguables: heat causes X, speed causes X and so on.. But how? *sigh*.

I'm not sure what you're talking about/referring to/wanting to clarify. So, maybe something below will help lol.

Only my first couple of lines were aimed at you, personally and are pretty banal. Besides that, my comments are general (though, I have edited in a response directly to you at the bottom). The bulk is, on reflection, a pretty clear attempt at understanding what in your thinking seems bogus to those of us on the other side. Wanting clear, simple descriptions of difficult circumstances of existence(sight, emotion, interaction) seems a good reason as any to go in those directions. That's all. Descriptions can be wrong, so simply, intuitive descriptions don't seem to give reason to assent to theories that rely on those descriptions (and in very large part eg "..the damn thing goes up.." )

The final, edited-in responses to you seem clear enough. Can't see what you're not getting there.. Your post hoping that it (the post itself) clarifies why you're skeptical on qualia doesn't, in fact, clarify why you're hesitant about qualia. I give reasons for that being so. I tried to find a connection in your post, and traversed a couple that didn't seem to do anything..

Yes, I agree with that. I think that's possibly where you and I have fallen out on this topic previously. We don't agree on what's also going on there. There's reportage happening, and I think we disagree on what's being reported.

Regarding Chalmers and the couple of notes above, its clear that Qualia is the Hard Problem (or, explanation thereof). I think what's happening is similar to with Austin(with sense-data) - we want to ignore the Hard part, instead opting for descriptions that don't require them. That is often hard (i.,e you need to be truly clever to make sense) and takes some seriously doing in terms of getting others on board (from outside, it looks a little like hiding the ball, but I know that's not the intent, or the claimed result). But simpler descriptions with less room for disagreement or error are generally preferable so those two outcomes (i.e removing Qualia ala Dennett and removing sense-data ala Austin) are totally reasonable, and almost certainly preferable intellectually speaking. If the case is that consciousness is somehow magical, we're kind of fucked, intellectually, in understand much of anything from there.

The problem is descriptions can be wrong. In these two cases, there seems no adjudicator. So I think what Outland is asking might be the correct way to go about theorizing on this subject.

Compare: What is it like to be in love? Well, it's not any one thing. In a very real sense there is not a thing it is like to be in love. — Banno

Hmm interesting. I'm unsure this says much about the premise there though. I'd say "What it's like to be..." something is a bundle of sensations which cohere, in some way - rather than a specific state that can be distilled into a direct description. "What it's like to be in love" for Amadeus Diamond is, presumably, quite qualitatively different to "What it's like for Sir Bannock to be in love". I don't think that tells us anything besides our qualia differ, and have common features. Its common for several, unrelated films to include explosions, but they occur very different depending on the whole of the preceding detail.

This is all to say: Its not clear to me how that post (or, from memory, related comments elsewhere) supports hesitancy around Qualia. Not that there aren't good reasons, It's just not clear to me how this does it for you.

Embarrassingly just picked up Spinozas Ethics

My basic objection is that if they are private experiences then they are unavailable for discussion, and if they are available for discussion then they seem to be just what we ordinarily talk about using words like "red" and "loud".

So not of much use. — Banno

I'm not really making an argument here, but comment (and on the two parts of the above quote separately).

If qualia are private experiences, we can still talk about them. It is a total non-sequitur to suggest otherwise. Pain is a private sensation, differing almost universallly between subjects. But we discuss it ad nauseum. Usually to our detriment (this comes into play in a moment..). We can discuss our private experiences. That qualia is the category in which these occur (presuming they are 'some-thing'). Doesn't seem to change this. We can discuss pain the abstract too. What's the difference with catch-all qualia (as opposed to more specific internal sensations) that you're seeing to preclude us from discussing it (if private)?

If qualia are available for discussion, it just means someone brought up their internal sensations. Approximation is a pretty nifty tool.

But that's all we get. Approximation. Might even be quite close approximation, but ultimately, qualia is not helpful for understanding consciousness. It is helpful for presenting which questions are(might be?) apt for exploration. Facts are no one has solved these problems, so on we go..

One of their best.



I'm-a gonna go,
Gonna load my shot gun
Point that barrel right where it hurts
Ain't no telling where I'll go after;
Might not be better but it can't get worse

And I could tell you but you can't imagine,
The first breath on the edge of this chasm (sometimes "After nothing happens)
You ain't cried like that since you come out your mother
Only thing holding back the great hereafter

Is bad primers
With good timing

I'm-a gonna go,
Gonna load my.....

Random. Big fan - saw them in a little club here a few years back.

Please try to say something relevant instead of drive-by emotional outbursts, lest ye be hypocrite #1 :)

Hmm. Having read several of the more substantial responses, I think I am further pushed into my position: Guns are necessary to level the field, whether between or intra-species. This seems enough.

Control, though, is tricky for one reason only: The enforcement of gun control requires gun use. I'm unsure I need to explain why that's tricky.

Very much enjoying most comments here.

The only thing I'd say is that it seems to me we're still in the middle of all this. We're not really past, or prior to 'peak' anything. Things are just moving as they always have, in hte face of both the increase in technology (this could mean reporting, live-streaming, accessibility issues, presentation issues, networking issues, misinformation... anything technologically-driven that relates to our topic) and in turn, the increase in leisure (as mentioned earlier in the thread).

These both lead to people capable of doing things out of boredom and becoming convinced it's meaningful. This, it seems, hasn't peaked.

So, I have three points. Please take hte first one gently, as I conclude somewhat different to how this reads (also, ignore the bolds until the conclusion which references them):

1. I think much of the above is self-involved wittering in the style of the Continentals, and I do not think you will be surprised by my position; HOWEVER;
2. You are not wrong. This, for example:

rejects the Kuhnian implication of critical theoretic approaches to objective truth — Joshs

and

languaged concepts hook up to objective truths which transcend cultural dynamics — Joshs

I think are true, regardless of Kuhn (though, obviously one of the best to articulate it). I think you're simply over-playing the hand this gives you, I guess. Not a massive objection but I think it means our approach to what Doyle is saying will necessarily come apart.

I suggest that Doyle’s rejection of this crucial philosophical underpinning of wokism motivates his rejection of it. — Joshs

To some degree that's going to be unavoidable: If we do not believe language creates structures "in the world" then we cannot assent to an ideology which takes this as fundamentally inarguable (which it is - Iand thats the main problem I have with Wokists. There is no discussion to be had. Its a brick wall. Contrary to their fundamental positions). I think Doyle is grokking this and it is almost impossible to see from inside the bubble. From, i expect, your perspective, these are simply "the way things are" type of statements you're making. I don't take them as such when considering them. They are arguable.

he would still find it wanting in comparison with his non-relativistic liberalism — Joshs

That is also, possibly, true, but something peculiar to Doyle and his own outlook - not his reasoning and research skills. I think I, too, would probably want to critique many views and beliefs thought of in this category despite not being asked to participate (which is what wokists do, generally usually with threats) the way I used to critique Vera constantly. Not because she wanted me to believe what she did, but because much of what she had to say was patently irrational, historically inaccurate or incoherent within her own worldview. These aren't critiques of a category, per se, but critiques of bad thinking. I suggest this is what Doyle is doing, but his current purpose is firmly embedded in taking to task the bolded items above as they appear to be features of those carrying the Woke ideology currentrly

what would that process entail in a shop? — Lael

It would be a database. The US is woefully inadequate when it comes to record keeping, particularly cross-state and cross-department, it seems. I don't know the inner workings, but not having gun owners who had mental health issues on a register is insane. Gun dealers should be licensed and given access to a database through which any potential buyer must be screened for several things,mental health being one (or at least, reported mental health issues). It wont be perfect, and wont catch "after the fact" mental health issues, but nothing would. So there's that...

Though, this brings up a pretty nuance point I am not sure where I fall on: Veterans with guns. I am unsure that's a safe proposition for some of them. But surely, more htan most, veterans are capable of handling guns in the absence of mental illness. Tough one.

LMAO. Ooof. Luckily I'm Irish. But i did find the FOTC pretty funny. Banana balls is still one of the funniest insults i've heard.

pontificating about subjects where you have no credibility and where your opinion doesn't matter, no matter how self-satisfied it makes you feel. — T Clark

Wow. Dude, what the fuck side of hte bed did you wake up on.

Well I do imagine that Trump and his followers are anti-woke because I hear them say so. — unenlightened

A fair point, but from their perspective woke is expressly not what you say it is. That's sort of the issue - the two groups are either seeing, or pretending to see 'woke' as capturing different behaviours. I, personally, think neither side has this chess move open to them.
Woke is a cultural phenomenon which has superseded an older cultural phenomenon under the same name. I think its possible OP's response to me lays out what that is, in it's current form (and thus, by inference, pretty self-defeating).

Otherwise, yes, it's grey and greyer. I can only give perspectives and note where facts come apart from them, as best I can tell.

that are felt by many as totalitarian, repressive or McCarhyesque. I’m interested in your knowledge of the underlying philosohies that these practices are drawn from. You see, the practices can change and become much less repressive without significantly altering the underlying worldview that generates them. — Joshs

I agree wholeheartedly with both of these positions. As noted, I used to claim Woke as it used to be a useful catch-all for some genuinely helpful social activities that did not harm anyone, basically. Now, as noted in a previous post, those activities are both self-defeating, and dangerous in a lot of cases on my view (and, the wider view from outside the bubble that 'woke' is intended to capture).

I’m interested in your knowledge of the underlying philosohies that these practices are drawn from. — Joshs

This is a rather tricky question. If you me Crenshaw et al.. stemming from Marxist thinking, then yes. I am versed (though, some time ago now - don't ask me to cite lol) in what those 'structures' are. This is not what 'woke' captures.
If you mean the actual underlying philosophy held by those currently in the bubble? Largely white man bad, minority good, disparity = bigotry, oppression=social status. This explains most of the hypocrisy, ignorance and self-aggrandizing we see (and no, this is not an over-simplification. The only thing I am missing is the wording those people use to justify it - which is identity and emotion. There is no further argument made by hte group in question - it seems perhaps not hte group you want to defend). A prime example is Karmelo Anthony. We've seen a decidedly woke response to a cold-blooded murder by an emotional dysregulated dickhead. But, it's white people's fault, he's black so can't be racist, and should have been given more money on go fund me.

To be sure, these beliefs and behaviours exist in a certain group. That is the group Doyle is talking about. Setting yourself aside, and still claiming ot be 'woke' seems incoherent.

The fundamental philosophical insights guiding it are here to stay, and will become accepted by the mainstream within the next 50 years. — Joshs

It is not possible to know this. It is also contrary to the actual reality which is that the underlying tenets are rejected by almost all structures and authorities once hte harms are made obvious. Happy to revisit in 50 years.

This critique has no clue what the underlying philosophies are talking about, and just sees wokists as bossy moralistic people who want to act like dictators. — Joshs

Once again, obviously not true and a weird trick to avoid accepting third party critique. If your position, as noted here, amounts to "only we can critique ourselves" then that's absurd. If this is just to sa yyou have seen a critique outside the bubble which you agree with, then that stands exactly in line with my entire response. You will not be emotionally capable of doing so if you claim to be woke.

it wouldn’t take me very long to demonstrate that he never even attempts to analyze the underlying philosophy — Joshs

For for it. Review his entire output on this topic, including books, podcasts, lengthy posts and articles. I'm not going to claim to hav ea citation to hand, but he has explicitly spoken about the Marxist, and then Frankfurtian bases through Critical Theory and on into CRT - running that through the milieu of the 60s-70s civil rights activations and then making his conclusions from there. He is not an idiot. I do recall him going relatively deep into this in The New Puritans.

It seems you've rejected his position without knowing it. Odd.

Absolutely. Not just that, when they are reached out to, it tends to be condescending. And condescending to people who work manual labour for decades is probably not a good move.

As long as women exists, guns will have a (in my opinion) virtuous purpose. As long as stronger, less-scrupulous people exist (relative to the bulk of people) guns will have a virtuous purpose.

I live in a country with next-to-no gun violence. It works because it's small, generally close-knit, and sparsely populated. But the gangs who do run with guns are such a ridiculous threat to others that It seems clear keeping guns from those who must protect themselves from violent criminals may not be the best move. Luckily, we're early enough in our journey to this type of violence that we can still curtail the illegal gun use currently, so I don't see that manifesting, just noting it works here because its small.

Somewhere like the US, it is incumbent on a family with children or anyone vulnerable counted among, to protect their own. Education, responsible use and decent training are needed in pretty much a social overhaul that, as OP says, is probably a pipe-dream. The gun violence among urban populations is astounding, and not something legislation is going to deal with. Obviously.

I think gun control, like many modern causes, uses good intentions to mask bad ideas. — MrLiminal

Bingo.

he doesn’t understand the basic philosophical grounding for them and ends up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. — Joshs

This is patently untrue. I think its more likely this stems from those who share views not noticing what it looks like from the outside. For instance. many will claim that "woke" is:

Wokism is giving a fuck about someone else's difficulties in a complex society. — unenlightened

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is obviously, to anyone who has the patience to pay attention, untrue and an explicitly rejection of almost everything that 'woke' (in Doyle's sense - which is not something one would actively claim, obviously) encompasses. Most 'woke' behaviour, in the relevant sense, is destructive, narcissistic and clearly illogical not to mention hypocritical, historically ignorant among other things. I imagine what unenlightened wants to say is that this is what 'woke' should be and roughly, I agree. It even used to be that. I used to be actively, proudly 'woke'. But it is simply not true to claim that anymore. I can't, in good conscience, claim the area of ideology that has harmed almost everyone I know constantly for years, has caused more civil unrest than any competing ideology over the last two decades and has supported murder, street-level violence, clear and disgusting crimes if carried out by someone sufficiently 'marginalized', attacks on civil servants and the general acceptance of incredibly distrusting and discriminatory personal beliefs. It borders on McCarthyism except more people are being hurt.

Almost all 'woke' academia has a whiff of performance art to it. Look at this disaster of a paper I was just alerted to. The abstract reads like a Dr Seuss paragraph:

"The parasite, in blurring the distinctions between active subjects and passive environments, poses a problem for western epistemology. By thinking the parasite, I try to re-member precolonial Māori discourses of what being means. Helped by new materialist thought, what I uncover is an oblique and ecological model of relations in which nothing is quite separable from anything else. Through the parasite, this paper explores posthuman pasts and futures, and gestures towards the potential for a radical revision of how we understand ourselves as subjects."

As it turns out, I've interacted with this writer several times over the years. She is not capable of explaining what she writes effectively, or answering questions that pose any challenge, whatsoever, to her view points. She is also unable to understand simple concepts like "crime" (she is a strict abolitionist about prisons). Confused, buzz-word-laden work like this is a perfect exemplar of why 'woke' is so incapable of upholding either it's own tenets or those which are considered, generally, to be the 'morally correct' ways of being: non-discrimination, non-hypocrisy, honestly and accountability.

I think probably people who see themselves as part of 'woke' will be unable to accept the facts about its manifestations and so will clamour about how Woke represents something they are comfortable copping to. By way of example, the idea that half the country is racist usually isn't accepted despite indirect claims of the same. Like "Trump lovers are racist". This is acceptable to the Wokist as 'trump' has to be ipso facto bad-causing, in any association he is found. Ignoring that this condemns half the country, incl much of the productive (in terms of industry) population.

Another is the claim that 'nobody is illegal'. Well, they literally are, if they've entered the country illegal. The 'woke' wont acknowledge things like illegals committing crimes, and then being removed, is actually fine. They also routinely attribute to their enemy that which their allies have done. Obama's walk-through of his detention centres are being touted as Trump-era offerings. This is a lie, and one they buy. Then when confronted, claim "Oh well Trump is worse" because it avoids the embarrassment of being entirely wrong, over-emotional and incapable of conversing with the other side effectively. If any of this seems untrue, or you need examples please do ask. There are thousands out there. I'm being purposefully high-level in my descriptions.

I add a final note that its probably not going to be accurate that you understand "wokism" over professionals writing about it. You are claiming so, it seems, so worth noting that this is extremely unlikely. It will also be unlikely that I understand better than many, but I am certainly able to see merits and failings on many levels. The above is just what I'm currently feeling about this particular thing.

T Clark below, I think, is saying this more succinctly. I just attacked many more aspects of the playing field.

(it was a statement, nonetheless, my man). And is that a position you take, or was the conclusion just part of conversation?

Not all paintings, then, are pictures. — Banno

An interesting statement. I am bent to think every painting is a picture, as ever 'image' is a picture. Of what, is an interesting thought.

This flies in the face of almost all of your responses, which are exactly in line with that description. I'll leave you to it.

Ah, you're a much more patient person than I.

but we live in a state of denial and rationalize what we are doing so we can do it even though we know it is bad. — Athena

I don't think this is remotely true, for most people. Ignorance is the more likely culprit. But more than this, I think most people are negotiating with their future self/selves. Most morality isn't considering self-regarding anyway, but that aside, most people make decisions in a negotiation. Not many people are 100% principled and most of those people end up on the losing end of most things because they refuse to adapt. Hence 'negotiation' being a bit of a default.

Is it not more reasonable to say that bad comes in degrees, as does good. We can muck with the ratios.. but at some stage, everyone has a ratio they cannot stomach (killing one, for one other vs killing one for 10 others should illustrate what I mean).

This is entirely out of step with what's going on between us. I am saying that pain is not 'bad' because you're conflating suffering with pain. I am pointing out that problem.

Pain does not equal suffering.

I don't know what you want me to get from this.. .

I don't know, because that's not the case. Almost impossible to know if I would 'love the burn' as they say, if it lead nowhere but its certainly plausible. It's a fun type of pain. I just cannot tell whether its fun because of some underlying expectation.

Pain without a moral claim: change this to pain without a moral dimension or possibility, and now you have a contradiction. Claims can be made or not, and they are often complicated, but what it is for something to BE pain at all, that is, IN the analytic unpacking of the term, carries in it the moral possibility, and since it is impossible to conceive of pain without agency, any pain at all is a moral actuality, putting aside the ambiguity of what pain IS in entanglements and involvements, for pain, it has to be kept in mind, as a concept is an abstraction from actuality. — Astrophel

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems a perfect "non-sense" paragraph. It says nothing to me at all. What I can respond to is the bolded. There are plenty of scenarios without this, like random bodily malfunction or pain from sources unknown. The facts are that there is pain. That's all. The person can then react how they react and that has a moral dimension to it, i suppose (though, realistically, if the person isn't affecting anyone else there's an argument that's till not a moral dimension).

Does much pain have a moral aspect? Yep. But its not in the pain. Other than these comments, I do not think the above says much that can be talked about. The point I made, and i still make, is that pain is a sensation which we can all agree is "x" when described adequately. It involves (or need not involve) any claim to good bad, moral immoral or anything of the kind. Causing pain would fall into your bucket, at any time.

That does cut to the chase. — Astrophel

You seem to have now moved into the causing pain discussion. Unfair play, but I agree with your points. They say nothing for the above, though.

for surely you are not objecting to calling pain bad — Astrophel

That is precisely what I am saying. Some kind of pain can be bad. "Pain" is just a thing that can obtain. It isn't moral. It is just is. I cannot see that you're addressing this beyond trying to curtail the discussion into human reactions to pain - but even there, you're on shaky ground as plenty of pain is not considered bad.

How bad is it? she screams bloody murder in your face for asking such a silly question. You are saying, with Mackie, that yes, you understand all of this, but in a very special analytic of pain, a philosophical analytic, the term "bad" has no place at all, for it carries with it a moral dimension that cannot be evidentially grounded in actual conditions like screaming agony ( I am assuming you are willing to allow there to be screaming agony). — Astrophel

You are very, very much not talking about the right things here. Pain isn't agential. It has no moral valence (take this, just for now). "she" being in pain is bad, because I dislike seeing people in pain (usually). The pain itself is the cause of her behaviour which is bad, to me (awkward wording, but yeah). The pain, itself, is bad to her in this instance. There will have been plenty of pains she did not consider bad in her past. You cannot design scenarios which are emotionally bad and claim we are talking about 'pain'. We are not. We are talking about human reactions to pain, as above noted. If you feel these cannot be extricated, so be it. I do, and I cannot see why not.

But what is evidentially absent from the agony, which is so profoundly manifest? — Astrophel

This is not the question. You're talking about agony - a human emotion - not pain, a physical sensation presumably felt by all sufficiently ccomplex conscious entities.

I think you want to regard the agony just what you would regard the sun shining — Astrophel

As above, exactly not what is being said. Please take heed.

it is simply classificatory for things that are intersubjectively "taken as" good and bad. — Astrophel

This is precisely what labeling things good and bad is. It isn't referring to any higher order reasoning, it doesn't draw on some objective measure, it simply tells me what you think. You've done quite a bit of it here, without giving me anything more than exactly that.

Facts are facts, and moral affairs are really just facts, called moral affairs in preanalytical contexts — Astrophel

This seems totally senseless. Facts are facts. "moral affairs" doesn't really mean anything. Morality is literally the dispositions of humans about facts (including what to do about them). You haven't presented anything to the contrary.

Call them moral facts, if you like: Moral facts are qualitatively distinct from "mere" facts. — Astrophel

They don't even obtain, so no (on my view. They aren't even distinct from nonsense.

e may intersubjectively agree that, yes, there is agony, and we have a good idea what it is. — Astrophel

Again, you are not talking about pain. You are talking about agony. They are without doubt different things which come apart. I cannot understand most of what you're saying because of this confusion.

This makes for an error in category for this discussion. — Astrophel

The irony is quite strong here, and I am having an extremely hard time not quipping becuase of how intensely obviously, from line one, the reverse of this was. You have made the category error, and consistently interchanged "agony" for "pain". Agony is pain with a negative moral valence. You have baked in a winning argument, but about somehting I am not talking.

ust to be clear, you did say agreement is all that constitutes pain? — Astrophel

Nope. I said agreement leads to us labeling pain. The agreement is about a description, which we can all recognize. It does not constitute anything but the narrative under the word 'pain' which (as clearly noted, and is not really in question) does not require any moral evaluation at all (beside, perhaps, mentioning that sometimes pain causes suffering, and sometimes it does not where suffering is clear a moral term). This, again, seems a total misunderstanding of what's going on both in this discussion and with "pain" in general. The reason I've used to the term "constitutes pain to a human" is because the word "pain" must be constituted by something, and its construction involves only that agreement aforementioned. I should have scare-quoted the word 'pain' there, but hopefully you now understand what you've missed: We wouldn't know how to use the word 'pain' or what to apply it to unless we had that agreement underling it. To be brutally clear: The use of the word pain, and what pain is are clearly different things which require different treatments in discussion. You have picked up two separate points and run them together - reasonable, as I was imprecise, but please understand it is not what was being said.

So, are you saying screaming agony in its essence is entirely exhaustible in the analysis of what is SAID about it? — Astrophel

To some degree, but that's far less interesting and nuanced that what I'm getting at. Various descriptions of pain (not our reactions to it, but it - stinging, dull, major, minor, niggling and them comparisons with other sensations (too hot, v just hot enough)) can be amalgamated to represent a category of sensation which includes much variation, but generally speaking (with grey areas) distinguishes it from other sensations. Is it the case that these sensations have a tendency to cause certain reactions in us? Yep. And those reactions are moral. The pain (inarguably, now) is not the same and (almost inarguably) is not liable to those same considerations without adding the reactions.

It stands unrefuted — Astrophel

If this is your position, I cannot understand why you're here doing this, or the vast majority of what you've said in this reply. It is, as best I can tell, patently, obviously and demonstrably (as I feel I have done) wrong. "the bad" is nothing more than something you think everyone else agrees on, apparently. They don't and there is no criteria for "the bad". Even if there were, "pain" would not be liable to it's confines. So, yeah. I shall leave htis here given that response.

I've given you one. In the morning when I put my body through hell to achieve a better body (inter alia, to be sure. I'm not a pure narcissist).

It entirely depends on the scenario, and whether you want me to admit to enjoying it tout court or as an indirect indicator of some other positive (i.e, the pain of healing from a surgery is almost always "a good" in some sense, but may not be pleasant). I do not enjoy arbitrary suffering.

Its better to answer this in reverse:

No, it wouldn't be better. I would have no reason to expect a positive outcome, as to my goals.

It is the pain i enjoy. I am also an old-school self-harmer. I enjoyed the pain.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jul/no-evidence-depression-caused-low-serotonin-levels-finds-comprehensive-review
Interesting, but something I had anticipated based on my prior knowledge of how shoddy the work had been leading to these conclusions.

tl;dr: best evidence through a comprehensive academic review shows nothing to link chemical imbalance with depression.

At this stage, all you have done is denied reality. No one (and this clear from your responses) takes your points seriously - we have all provided proof positive of the opposite of your position.

If I stand infront of a fire and tell you it's not hot, what do you do? laugh? Probably.

Luckily for me you're responding to my posts. Which is proof in itself.

Odd things you say, I think. Are their facts about logical principles? Is it a fact the sun shines today, when it does? — Astrophel

Yes.

how is it that pain as such is not bad? — Astrophel

Pain 'as such' is simply a sensation. There is no moral valence without human deliberative judgement going on. PLenty of examples, but one I gave elsewhere was the pain I put my body through each morning to achieve a better body. I enjoy this (mostly).

the matter is not about how agreements differ, but of the pain as it IS in privately experienced, as only pain can be. — Astrophel

I agree. But we all agree about pain without a moral claim. When moral claims come in, we start having to 'make points'.

This question is logically PRIOR to anything that can occur in Intersubjective agreement — Astrophel

Perhaps. But it is not about good or bad. It is quite hard to see that you've tried to tie them together here, even, beyond hte initial (lets call it incredulous) question.

Then the matter has to be made public for others to agree, and agreement simply means there is shared content, but it being shared begs the same question, what is shared? — Astrophel

Descriptions (though, it may be more 'accurate' to say 'sense of sensation' which is awkward, but hopefully makes the point hehe). Then we intersubjectively agree that our descriptions match. That is what we then label pain. Again, no moral claim to be made (though, i understand most will want to make one here if asked).

agreement rests with whether or not one's descriptive account aligns with others — Astrophel

And that is all that constitutes 'pain' to a human. Otherwise, we wouldn't know what to call it when we feel pain. Again, 'obviousness' is a truly terrible line to take here.

My end stands unrefuted, because the bad is as clear as day, more clear than the principle of the excluded middle or De Morgan's theorem. It locality doesn't enter into it, nor does agreement. — Astrophel

This is just patently false, and supported by nothing that you've said. I'm unsure what to do with that... You have an emotional reaction to cigars. That's up to you. That doesn't make it 'bad'. I can think it's bad that you don't like cigars, if I were disposed to. I don't, though. It would have been more interesting to bring forth the question whether you think your disgust is bad or not. But in every one of these cases, it is just your personal thoughts involved and nothing more. There is no fact other than about your reaction or disposition depending on how you approach it - and these are empirical, post-hoc considerations. They tell us nothing.

This does not address anything I've said, unfortunately.

I think I should have used the word "like" instead of "enjoy" to avoid confusion: There are plenty of people who like evil, such as masochists. — MoK

This doesn't solve the issue. If Evil is as you describe, no amount of enjoyment is acceptable under that category. That's a serious problem here.

I already illustrated in the OP what I mean by good and evil and what I mean by good and evil creatures. — MoK

And you have not used htem consistently, as noted here and prior. That's the entire point of these replies. The inconsistency is, I believe, leading you claim things you don't hold true.

by a good person I mean that you prefer pleasure instead of suffering. You expressed that you don't like pain in your first post in this thread. Therefore, you could not be an evil creature. — MoK

1. No i didn't. At all. And the post is right there. Here's the post:

Do you want to maybe qualify this? I suffer every morning when I put my body under immense pressure to achieve a better body. — AmadeusD

That's the entire post. So, either you're lying or thinking of something else. I am unsure whether you're having some trouble, or you just forgot what thread you were in?

2. That concept of a Good person is a non sequitur. As noted.

3. That doesn't fit with either your conception, or general conceptions. If you 'like' pain, then you enjoy it and prefer pleasure to suffering (you have confused suffering and pain here, to be sure).

Non sequiturs all the way down, it seems.