Americans should get the chance to vote for this asshole, — Mikie

The US is a very stupid country, you see. — Mikie

LOL. I have to agree, in the Political arena anyway. It's all a bit of a joke from outside.

The science of morality can explain why our moral sense and cultural moral norms exist. — Mark S

I can't understand how this would be the case. Unless you take "the science of morality" to just be sociology focused on social norms? I would also posit that given the extreme expanses of time that would need to be "number crunched" in regard to their moral outputs, lets say, across history, that this science could never be used.

Yeah, Agreed.
I wonder if this will lessen as I move through my degree.. Hmm.

Don't want to import my interpretation to you words - Are you insinuating Radiohead are not artists? :smirk:

Turns out i am the typical overproductive 30-something.

I WILL organise this. I'll do it by setting a meeting today NZ time, and you guys can argue over the timing.

Hahahah; not intimating, but not entirely sure he's not.

I disagree, but I'm not going to get back into *the discussion. Because I ducked out :P

*leaving the discussion.
Clarifying things for other people is fine, as far as I'm concerned :) that said, I am impulsive and the above line took some effort to leave there without elaboration lol. The topics raised, I think about a lot.

Ever been working on something passionately and experienced a time warp via tons of productivity? That is the artist's method. — Vaskane

This often happens. But equally, in the style of Radiohead, intense scrutiny and slow, slogging technical adjustment results in similar feelings of achievement toward the end product.
Unsure what the implication for you might be, but I'm just saying that the method you outline seems to be one of, at least two, and possibly many.

Fwiw, I have seen this argument many, many times among psychedelic people.
I think the implication is that if you can take a thought and ferry it through the air to cause a thought in the other person, this constitutes telepathy. Obviously, the example doesn't even fit that loose definition of telepathy. There is a mediate causal chain. And even on that definition, it's merely using a word incorrectly.
No idea why this argument pops up, but i've seen it plenty of times with the lame reasoning above.

I’m not sure how something can in fact be orange but appears blue, so I cannot suppose it. — NOS4A2

To explain what I think is being said, I've noted previously that "blue" is defined by 'its' wavelength. Not it's experience. However, people can experience the wavelength defined as Blue as something that we define as a different colour (blue to gold in that stupid dress case). The experience varies, despite the wavelength "in the world" not changing (apparently).

If the the wavelength defined as "blue" can cause more than one experience of it, we must be not noticing something interesting going on here... Or alternately, if the experience of 'gold' can be accessed through several real-world objects (wavelengths of light), something interesting is going on

"Consciousness emerges as in the mode of presentational immediacy whereby an occasion in feeling the universe feels and recognizes its own feelings." - Alfred North Whitehead


In Whitehead's framework, consciousness emerges as a result of the interplay of various 'prehensions', and is not just a passive observer but an active participant in the creation of experience. This perspective breaks away from dualistic approaches that separate mind and matter, and instead emphasizes the interconnectedness and dynamic nature of the universe.

This seems to imply that 'feelings' or awareness of experience do not make a being conscious (or sentient, for that matter). It seems to imply, as does most of Process and Reality, that consciousness is not just secondary, but essentially unimportant in the development of an 'actual occasion' representing some individual animal body region of the world while being posited as fundamental in the process itself(qua "cosmic epoch" rather than qua an actual occasion(in an animal body - a person, for instance)), ...I can't quite get across this position, but Its interesting and might be cud to chew on for others.

No, totally a fair comment. I should be aware of what those i'm speaking to interpret me to be saying. I should have said Northern Ireland.

"Ireland", typically, includes both the Republic and Northern Ireland in everyday conversation, outside of those two geographical areas, in my experience. "Ireland" alone refers to the physical Island which is merely geopolitically divided.

I refer to places like Ballycastle and Armagh and Antrim here. That said, I would prefer to move somewhere like Wicklow or Cork.

No issue for them either. All the relevant memories were conserved heh. But i see your point

If you create an identical body with an identical
brain in exactly the same condition as the original, you would have 2 identical conscious people, both with identical memories and emotions about those memories.
Going forward , their experience would diverge creating different memories and experiences. — Fess

This has been my solution to the Branch-line case. There is no numerical identity, and qualitatively, after any, even infintesimal, span of time after the 'event' of branching, the two 'people' have different mental quality. So, there is no issue. There are two people, on any account other than an Immaterial Soul-type of account.

I would never move back to the UK, unless it was Ireland. I cannot support this endeavour :sweat:

I think it's apt for ethical discussion probably because of my own personal history, of course. It seems to me that there are some environments which are better or worse than others, which means there's an evaluative element, which means -- well, if not ethics, at least aesthetics. Value theory. — Moliere

Yes, good. I think the important part here is the underlined. To my mind, this requires a workplace to begin discussing the ethics. "the work place" is not "a workplace" and therefore has no detail to be discussed, ethically.
It would be like saying "the court room" rather than a particular courtroom with particular policy/protocol/requirement etc... The Court Room, as it stands, doesn't refer to anything whcih could be discussed. Is how I see this.
Is that at all clearer? I do think this applies to any value-driven discussion.

None of this indicates I have any talent :lol: Just tenacity.

How am I doing so far? :razz: — Benkei

Hahah, this is genuinely the type of stuff I used to write. But, battle rap is very homophobic so it takes a certain type of skin to get on with it.

When I roll up, you fold up like confessing to a priest
Like a warlord in Africa, i'm coming for your teeth
Told you schmucks I'm the Lord here in these streets
Put here by God, you can't see me, like a ding-en sich.

Please kill me.

:gasp: and I thought my 9 not including EPs and bands was a lot for a hobbyist. Comfortable sharing any links? PM is fine. No worries if not. — Noble Dust

To be clear, I spent about a decade doing drugs and recording music. It wasn't a great time, but the resulting media is meaningful to me haha. Here's something from my Soundcloud. As you can see, this hasn't been updated in years... and every thing on it is demo - though, technically that's true for everything I've ever done bar one studio recording for a friends audio engineering course lol. I don't have access to the laptop with my library on it currently, but It's safe.

Any of your own?

Are you real, Amadeus, or are you an AI bot? :gasp: — jgill

Trying to be real! Hahah. Music above, Jiu Jitsu here but I've just realised it's private :( Here you can see I was nominated for a National comedy award (fifth row down, on the right).

I'm at work and can't find links for most of hte other stuff, but you get the picture. It's all horrid, but i'm doing it all! LOL

I also complete forgot to mention that I also spent abotu a decade advocating for Psychedelics in medicine in New Zealand and abroad. It was semi-successful and we got a couple of studies done, but I became disillusioned and moved away from it about 18 months ago.

And i used to lecture at Universities about Ancient History ala Graham Hancock. In fact, he is a good friend of mine. Yes. I am now showing off.

Hmm... Not in this discussion, no, as it violates the premise being asked about (though, i do intuit that this is by way of the OP being very imprecise in its aim). "the work environment" imports nothing to be discussed, ethically. You have to import some detail to get anywhere. You're basically not disagree with me, but still arguing that my position is off.

Can you just directly address why you think the abstract concept of 'work environment' without any indication of detail is apt for ethical discussion (and this, specifically in opposition to "a work environment, X")?

We're all replying to replies. I am agreeing with Moliere. I think his argument is approximately a million times better than yours. — Leontiskos

You're allowed - but my comments don't change simply because you're justifying ignoring the arguments to agree with a badly-formulated response. *shrug*.

No longer able to call Philosophy a hobby - which is good and bad. Outside Phil though:

- Brazillian Jiu jitsu;
- Drums, voice, guitar, bass, keys.. few others, including Irish Whistle!;
- Songwriting in light of the above - 23 albums and counting;
- Free Running/Parkour (mostly handstands and other power moves);
- Writing comedy for television and other stand-ups;
- Writing battle raps that will never see the light of day (though, there is footage of me doing several battles out there on the internet... )
- Collecting/enjoying Whisky/ey and fine Wine;
- Currently Learning Spanish and Arabic;
- Trying to solve the origins of the Voynich manuscript;
- Visiting puppy litters; and
- Writing science fiction (two pieces, thus far.. but one is a Trilogy for which i've only begun the first volume).

Is there some reason, other than avoidance, that you're replying to a reply, instead of hte points made in the comment being replied to?

I ask because both of your comments are made utterly redundant by my response before yours. Seems like you might be trying to avoid? I've directly addressed why your positions make no sense (though, in response to Moliere). I cannot help but have this thought...

The relationship between employer and employee has no relationship beyond the fact that they have a relationship, and yet that relationship doesn't involve any interaction or disposition -- ever? — Moliere

I can dispossess you of an erroneous take with this:

on it's face, — AmadeusD

which means.. You are leapfrogging over the discussion into one which I am not having. Though, I have very, VERY clearly stated that once there are details(i.e an example of), that discussion is apt and important. Unless you involve some specifics, there is nothing to discuss. "the workplace" doesn't even exist unless you are talking about a workplace. In that case, go for gold and I likely have as many, and similar critiques to yourself. But the concept itself means nothing but that there is a relationship. Not what it is, or that it requires any interaction.

So, you want to talk about specifics.
I'm saying, the concept doesn't hoild ethical water until you talk about specifics. I'm unsure that we disagree?

under capital it's a time-for-money system. — Moliere

This could be said, and It would be hard to argue against, but there are millions of examples within capitalism where this is not the exchange. Exploitative trade is very much a thing (and imo, a good thing) which doesn't involve any direct relationship with value per se, and instead, value per individual but is definition part of, if not intrinsic to the mechanics of modern capitalism (i would posit that this is marked by multiple hierarchies, rather than a single state-peaked hierarchy).

It's the organization that's similar between jobs that make "working conditions" coherent. — Moliere

I reject your premise. That is not a catch-all description of all work places. That's my entire point, though. I did point out that once you've got 'a workplace' of some kind (i.e, a particular) then you can start the ethical discussion based on what actually happens in that case. There is no universal relationship between employer and employee beyond the "fact of" (which doesn't, on it's face, involve any interaction or disposition at all). If there was a specific relationship that could be threaded through every single workplace in the metaphysical world, as it were, there would be no acceptable economic system given that 'work' is literally unavoidable within society.

As an example that defeats the premise there are many companies with a a flat structure where employees earn exactly what they bill for (some types of Law Firms have a 30/30/30 rule for every single employee based on their fee-earner's work.. which they are usually partly responsible for) entirely regardless of their position but decision making is obviously the arena of the owners of a company.

Shareholding might actually hold water for your point, though, as the relationship is one of pure exploitation (arguable, but I can't see it another way).

Whatever you take it to be.

I know mathematicians who react the way I do to Allegri's choral pieces when they see/understand a 'beautiful' proof. I've known architects who see, literally, a specific angle and jizz themselves. I've seen astronomers see a new piece of equipment and be beside themselves. They all seem to be reacting to the 'closing in on perfect' - these are unique examples in disparate fields, but its only meant to support my opener.

Attainment of some 'perfection' seems to be the aim of art, even if it's out of reach, or isn't explicit. The perfect expression of something(being entirely subjective, it's hard to know exactly how to frame this - but it seems clearly the intention from all cases I've ever surveyed).

Other domains don't seem to include this particular aim. 'perfection' in other areas seems to relegate emotion to irrelevancy. Art seems to hold fast to emotional responses as if they are paramount to the success of the work/piece.

And just for the record, if you take an institutional theory of Art seriously, I have to seriously question your framing of almost every item you interact with.

In fact the very claim that two people see the dress to be two different colours requires that colour words (in this context) refer to the quality of the experience and not the wavelength of the light as the wavelength is the same for all of us. — Michael

it’s important to recognise that the term “blue” now has two different meanings. — Michael

This is exactly my point noted here:

"Blue" is definitional, in terms of wavelengths and we ascertain an aberration from that definition. Not from disparate experiences themselves. — AmadeusD

Only the wavelengths are defined. My point is this is arbitrary (or "convention") so we're speaking about hte same thing, I think. Blue is defined as a certain range of wavelengths. (I should have said..) but is understood within each specific personally private experience of blue.
Yet, we have disparate experiences, so whence comes the definition into play?
This is why I'm saying its a 'naive realist' position to suppose that, ipso facto, those who 'do not see a blue dress', for example, have aberrant perception. The reliance on a convention to deduce where teh aberration is doesn't sit too well with me.

Perception, therefore, isn’t online hallucination; it’s sensorimotor engagement with the world.

This seems to entirely miss the point. Perception may well be sensorimotor engagement. Experience is absolutely not, and suggestions that it is seem to fly in the face of every position except naive Realism.
The experience of an orange (sight, touch, taste etc...) does not consist in the sensorimotor engagement. It consists in some secondary, brain-generated imagining. So, I don't think the quoted passage quite addresses the issue at hand (re: the previous poster) while outlining an important way in whcih we need to understand our data input.

We aren’t dreaming machines but imaginative beings. We don’t hallucinate at the world; we imaginatively perceive it.

This seems to pretend that "imaginatively perceive' is not the same as 'hallucinate'. Perhaps not a 1:1, but it is extremely close. I guess the difference is that in a True Hallucination there is no "real world" input, but in general perception there is. I'm unsure that Picasso and Caravaggio can be considered to be doing the same 'imagining'.

New muscle stimulates CNS growth in the brain as well. — Vaskane

So do magic mushrooms ;)

That is, does it offer protections against rascim, sexism and violence in the workplace? Are the benefits promised (like vacation time, daily work schedule) honored? Do you receive credit where due and are you now blamed for things you did not do? Are you treated with respect and given honest feedback? That it what an ethical environment is to me. — Hanover

Ditto. My current work environment meets all of these criteria and more. My previous workplace met none of them. And that is why i left.

I do think capitlistic systems grow more ethical over time, making life in a 21st century factory a more ethical work environment than one built when the industrial revolution was first underway. — Hanover

This comes back to my point to Tom - If we speak about systems outside of Western Capitalism, absolutely not. The lack of ethical regulation is rife. Within Western Capitalism, it's a mixed bag but I do agree we're getting there. The problem is Western companies exploiting non western, non-capitalist economic systems for value. Which has, for some reason, been entirely missed by anti-Capitalist drivel. That said, they often exploit us right back (ME oil trade, for instance). Ironically, usery is a big no-no in the ME and compared to Capitalism, that's probably a plus on paper.

I had avoided pointing this out (and I had this example in mind because of its ubiquity). Thanks for doing so. It's a real issue for 'direct'ness of any kind. "Blue" is definitional, in terms of wavelengths and we ascertain an aberration from that definition. Not from disparate experiences themselves.

I can't see that you're interacting with my claim.. Which is that 'the work environment' as a concept is literally a tool that appears in infinite forms. It is not a moral concept. It couldn't be, at this stage of analysis.

Whether a workplace is ethical/unethical obviously is apt. Every example of a work place has its ethical boundaries, and they are to be discussed in context. The concept is not moral or ethical unless you think 'work' is an ethical or moral proposition.

Maybe this is intended as a conversation about the ethics of Western capitalism. — Tom Storm

I tried to avoid assuming this because almost all comparators are very, very much worse, making a discussion without that being pointed out probably an unintended political argument.

It's the organization that's similar between jobs that make "working conditions" coherent. — Moliere

I reject your premise. That is not a catch-all description of all work places. That's my entire point, though, so I'll it there.

I have very much enjoyed the spirited discussions going on here. But, surprising and alarming no one, I take my leave.
This has become a roundabout of unhelpful disagreements about facts, with everyone pretending to agree on the facts.

G'luck fellas :)

You might like Process & Reality NWH posits that consciousness only arises in a prehension of contrast between a nexus of physical fact and negated potential, borne out of the nexus of the 'actualities' that formed the nexus proving the physical fact (i think i have that right!).

Basically, consciousness isn't required for any kind of comprehension, until a 'decision' has to be made ABOUT the valuation of a physical feeling. Weird stuff, but i'm liking it.

But we do not feel the impulses, we feel the sandpaper. — Banno

Nothing can be done for you. Enjoy.

You have it backwards: I'm saying you cannot rely on empirical facts to support any conclusion at all if you assume we have no access to empirical facts — Janus

Then i have it completely right and cannot grok how its possible you could be saying something so opposite to the reality of this discussion. I'll leave it there.

If you were consistent, you would say we have no access to empirical facts — Janus

I do. And yuou've just responded to the comment in which I had to point that out, because no one seemed to be capable of figuring out that if you claim empirical knowledge, yet accept the 'fact' of our sight system scientifically, you are incoherent in your position. I have no clue how you could miss the intensity of the self-own you're putting forth here.

I've been using your own terms to defeat your posiition. And here, you're pretending to do the same in reverse? incoherent. However:

I think the very framing of perception in terms of 'direct' and 'indirect' is wrongheaded from the get-go. — Janus

Yet you (in the same comment) accept that sight is ipso fact indirect. So, yeah. Incoherent as anything posted here. If there were actually your position, I'd like to hear how you then deal with the issues we're talking about. But, your comments betray that this is essentially an attempt to get around your already-established reliance on the empirical facts to (erroneously, you'll notice) support a Direct Realist position. So weird.

That said, I'll leave you to the sophistry so appropriate to the lower quarters of your profession — Janus

It was inevitable you'd have to give up at some point. And here we are. Ad hominem and all.

We feel the sandpaper, not the electrical impulses. — Banno

Nope. This is factually not the case. We 'feel' electrical impulses. That is the case. No idea how you're supporting a pretense that this isn't the case, and i've been asking for your(and others) account of that for pages and pages and yet nothing but obfuscation. The only reasonable response to this is to outline how it is the case that you feel ANYTHING without those electrical impulses. And you don't. So, maybe just adjust your position instead of having a short-circuit on a forum :)

You do not say :"the impulses here have a finer character than the impulses there"; you say "This sandpaper is finer than that". — Banno

Because you're having to simply reality in order to get on with things. But pretending that the fact isn't |Touch -> nerve->brain via electric impulse is either dishonest or so intensely wrong that I cannot take you seriously. (you'll need to see above for why this is so incredibly funny).

To feel electrical impulses, try sticking your fingers in a light socket. — Banno

Are you denying that nerves work by ferrying electrical impulses to the brain? Ha....ha?

My point to Amadeus was that if he denies we have access to the world, to empirical facts, then he has no justification based on the science of perception to claim that perception is either direct or direct. — Janus

Which is the exact case for you "realist"s. You rely on the exact same form of sense. For some reason, you do not get that using your own account is how to show your account as incoherent. We cannot access empirical facts. I know this. Because we cannot access objects as they are. You seem to accept hte latter, and deny the former. Suffice to say, this is not a reaosnable position and you're not saying anything other than 1+1=54. Unfortuantely, though, you're still wrong. As an indirect realist I am able to claim there are actual objects in teh world, but that we do not have reliable data about them.
I cannot grasp why you are so intense resistant to the obvious. Unless you have a physically coherent account of how our experience is informed by objects, rather than our sense data, I can , again, do nothing more than laugh. It is silly, on its face, and on further investigation.
|
You might even be right - You'll notice, i'm not claiming to be 'right' - i'm making it patently clear that the position od Direct Realism is self-contradictory. You rely on 'sight' to establish it, while accepting that sight is indirect. Patently incongruent. So weird. Indirect Realism allows for both knowledge OF objects, and rejecting empirical knowledge ABOUT objects. Again, that this has been missed seems to me obtuseness rather than that you and Banno aren't capable of moving beyond your commitments. I don't have much more time for plum contradicting yourself,

So if you'd like to move on from accepting that our sight system is indirect, and yet claiming a direct realist account of hte world, I'm all ears. But if you continue to hold two contradictory positions in service of laying out adhominems, I'm out my dude, unless you want to stop fucking about and actually put forward you position (since, you apparently reject this entire formulation).

This doesn't seem to be anything more than some rambling (not in a negative sense) about the topic. I don't think you've said anything that addreses what i've pointed out at all.

I'm hedging nothing. Without further context "the work environment" refers to nothing that can be discussed. So, If the point was to ttease out biases in the response, sure this is reasonable. But if the point was to discuss "the work environment" with anything approximating value or meaning, then this is a dead end thread.

The fact is the concept presented for discussion differs from case-to-case-to-case in such wildly intense degrees that this is not a coherent concept in and of itself. Not really apt to be discussed other than....

Giving up your biases and personal desires/offenses in response to OP seems to me the exact opposite of what would be helpful to the poster.

This is an extremely unserious objection.

"Nothing" excludes boredom or stasis. Clearly. So, not sure how you think I would respond, but im laughing.

I'm unsure how to approach this without just saying 'Well, it appears rto me you are clearly wrong and you're not paying much attention to my posts. I recognize very little of what I've said in your replies'.

But that's basically a tantrum, so I want to avoid it. Unfortunately, you have not pointed out any inconsistency at all - rather, you have made it quite clear you are not actually engaging with the account on the terms i've put forward. So, i'll ignore that little discrepancy and see if I can't tease something out of you instead...

If what you mean to say is that I cannot rely on the "empirical facts" of our sight system to deduce that we do not directly experience an object (of sight) then you've proved my case far better than I ever could. We cannot. And if we cannot, then the entire concept of 'Direct Realism' is laughable.

So, either you accept that our sight system is factually an indirect system (which, on what's considered the empirical facts, it is without debate) or you think there's something other than what is considered the empirical facts of our system of sight is going on.

in either case, I can do little more than wait for your life raft to arrive :)

Decision does not precede the registering of sense data. — Leontiskos

As noted, that doesn't appear to be the case. And, either way, that's not actually operative here. A space for a decision need exist only prior to experience, not 'registering sense data' whcih can be entirely unconscious.

I've never held another position, so if i've misspoken, apologies. I don't see it though. This just seems like you spitting the dummy a little given that I've never pretended that 'objects' are what we receive in experience. That's Banno's position, and my points about language solve the daylight between our collective comments.
No idea why such resistance has been met with on an empirical fact coupled with an attempt at congruent and accurate language to represent it.

Well, no. I feel the different grit of the sandpaper. I don't feel my nerves. I feel using nerves — Banno

No. You don't. You feel electrical impulses taking on a certain character when decoded into conscious experience - and given we don't know anything abou tthat process, your conclusion is wanting for support. So is mine, though. Its just more parsimonious on the facts.

Feeling only one's nerves would provide you with no information about the sandpaper. — Banno

Luckily, you've missed what i'm trying to say here. Whether that's my fault or yours, you have. This hasn't been suggested. You feel the experience, not the object. That much is plain - it could be no other way without the intercession of magic. The process in getting there is the problem of direct/indirectness.

Very true. But, this reconsideration is the aim I take and it tends ot be successful.

From your post, I couldn't know what you actually want a response to.

What work place? What environment? What factors are relevant to your assertion? Is this just anecdote about where you work?

At base, I vehemently disagree with Moliere there - fundamentally 'the work environment' is not an object of ethical value. It is functional, to my mind. What one does in that environment, though, is obviously ethically-informed and in that sense I'd need some detail about what behaviour or structure you're having a go at..

No need to overthink it mate - nothing is factually less of a burden than something. How you feel about that could be considered depraved. But I didn't say how I felt :)

(Another odd presupposition here is that everything a parent subjects their child to is necessarily a burden.) — Leontiskos

This isn’t in any way odd. Compared to not existing, it’s inarguably a burden to be, do or know anything