If you want a non-domain specific answer; an answer to the question of what ensures the connection between thought and being or mind and world — fdrake

Yup.

I dunno, I don't think that's relevant to the topic at hand. — fdrake

Aight then.

I would say nothing ensures a connection. But theories with more predictive power are probably closer to the truth.

I have... no idea what you just said. I wasn’t arguing towards whatever that kantian point was (I don’t even understand it) I was just asking when we can know our representations of the world actually match it.

knowledge works as an intersubjective/shared generation of concepts/theories/ideas about stuff which can be more or less adequate. — fdrake

“More or less adequate”? I thought you were claiming that eventually we’d get an “exact picture”

intersubjective procedures (like inquiry, experiment, argument) can reveal the objective aspects of entities — fdrake

I understand. But you said that intersubjective procedures can reveal the objective aspects of entities. I'm asking when we can know that we have successfully done this. That we "got it".

I'm asking when we can know our representations match reality, as you claim that by using these intersubjective procedures we can figure it out.

While intersubjective procedures (like inquiry, experiment, argument) can reveal the objective aspects of entities, the mechanism of revealing remains objective rather than intersubjective. — fdrake

At what point do we know that our inter subjective understanding has evolved to objectivity? When do we know we “got it”?

We thought we solved physics before...

No. I am saying they are the same thing, I figured you'd get that. — GLEN willows

No. I'm saying they are the same thing. Next I'll say "H20 is water" and you'll say "aha - you had to make a distinction!" — GLEN willows

Then you’re wrong. The experience of love is clearly different from the chemicals causing it.

A point to illustrate: People came up with words like “love” and “anger” way before they were able to scan the brain. How come? What were they referring to when using the words back then? It can’t have been any chemical. They didn’t even know what chemicals are!

Oy! I'm a materialist - you know this — GLEN willows

Anyway I've already agreed that consciousness/love/emotions can't be found in the brain. I can't find them, and you can't. Even fMRI's showing areas that light up when one is in love only show blood and electrical signals in your brain - they aren't love itself. — GLEN willows

What’s going on I’m confused... Are you parodying being a materialist?

How much does love weigh? How much do the chemicals that create the feeling of love weigh. — GLEN willows

That you had to make a distinction means they're not the same thing no?

Option 2: The concept of love - and all it IS is a concept created by neurons firing — GLEN willows

Ah so there is a concept (I would use the word "feeling") separate from the neurons?

Maybe we'll use a new technique to find them or more likely we'll realize they are sensations we have that correlate with some sort of activity in the brain. — GLEN willows

A sensation-o-meter. A very exciting idea. Imagine being able to point it at politicians speaking for example to make it apparent to all, that even the guy himself knows he's bullshitting out of his mind.

Wonder what would happen when you point it at priests and pastors....

My question posed at the beginning was what could consciousness be, if not simply a part of the brain? — GLEN willows

Then I'll reply with the same style of question. How much does consciousness weigh? What does it smell like? Is it edible?

There is no such thing as love — GLEN willows

Would be be what a materialist would say.

My response would be: “That’s just not true”.

Have you never had experiences before? I find that hard to believe.

in terms of something that exists outside of the brain. — GLEN willows

So love is in the brain? How much does it weigh? What does it smell like? Where is it? Can you send me a picture of that part of the brain that is love?

love is "more than just a chemical." I hear it a lot from non-academics. But if it is "more" then it has to be dualism, pure and simple? You can't argue "the brain and consciousness are two different things" and then claim you';re not talking about two different things. Can you — GLEN willows

I don’t think so. Yes this is dualism.

Am I getting annoying? — GLEN willows

Nah you’re good.

I'd express this as that the private experience is irrelevant; it's that the language has a use that gives the utterances meaning. — Banno

“The private experience” is what I call Qualia. Irrelevant? Outside of the purposes of writing sci-fi shows, yes.

I'm saying: that we might, or that we don't, is irrelevant. Isomorphism is not required. — Banno

What do you mean?

If we DO have experiences, and we can communicate them well, then the experiences are isomorphisms of each other (by definition).

So are you saying we don't have experiences? Or are you saying that those experiences need not be the same or we don't even need to be having the experiences (which is what I'm saying)?

Anyways I have to go now, some time later.

I don't know what moral mass means — GLEN willows

Relative molar* mass. It is how much a mole of a chemical would weigh.

My argument is simply that - I agree. — GLEN willows

Then you're not a materialist. Materialists would try to say that the experience of love doesn't exist. All that exists are the chemicals.

The feeling of love is a result of neurochemical interaction. Eventually science will prove this and we'll know that the "love" isn;t really a thing — GLEN willows

Doesn't follow. "The feeling of love is a result of neurochemical interaction" does not lead to "We'll know that (the feeling of) love isn't really a thing". No the feeling of love will remain a thing. A thing that results from a specific neurochemical interaction.

Good question. I'm dubious that it can be maintained, or that it is helpful. — Banno

I think it can be maintained but it is unhelpful.

But how could we possibly know that we "share common understandings"? If there is a private subjective world, then by definition you cannot see into mine, nor I into yours. and it would not be possible to confirm any commonality. — Banno

We don't need to. If we use the same words to describe the same things then who cares what we are actually experiencing.

How can subjectivity be shared? — Banno

By using the same words to describe the same situations often enough.

I have absolutely no problem with believing (yes it is a belief, as you have opposing beliefs) that love is an outgrowth of brain chemicals. — GLEN willows

No one is denying that. Every time "love" happens we see the same or similar brain activity (well I don't know about that but I'm assuming we do). That can't be coincidence.

The question is, is the experience of love, itself, a chemical. If so can you tell me its relative molar mass?

What makes you think that love is something floating outside of the brain — GLEN willows

I don't think it's a physical thing so I don't think it's "floating" anywhere.

But there can be no evidence of this isomorphism, and so the only direction the argument can go in is from the fact of communication to the supposition of isomorphism. — Banno

Maybe we're not on the same page here. "Isomorphism" is a relation of two sets. It means that all their elements are related to each other in the same way.

So our experiences of sight can be isomorphisms of each other. As in, anything you would call red, I would call green had I had the experience you were having.

What I am supposing, is that we both have some experience when looking at grass. I don't think we disagree there.

And when having that experience we can communicate it only by saying "I see green grass"

My point is the experience need not be the same for both of us to say "I see green grass" and for us to even understand each other.

It could be the case that if you had my experience you would say "I see red grass".

But as long as what seems red to me seems green to you at all times, we would both communicate our experiences using the word "green"

But maybe we ARE on the same page because this:

I'd go a step further and say that there is no "thing" to be isomorphic, that all we have is the communication. — Banno

Makes no sense to me. Had you said that there was a thing that we cannot talk about I would have understood that. But this just seems to be denying that we experience things.

The "thing" is experience. I am willing to wager experiences preceded our ability to communicate them. So I don't see how we can only have communication.

I remember the first time I felt angry and I didn't know what the word was. I learned after the fact that that experience is called "anger". Or maybe that's just a manufactured memory. Regardless, I am pretty sure children can feel angry or afraid before they know what the word means.

That doesn't mean my experience of anger is your experience of anger, only that we both call it anger and that we (hopefully) have it in similar situations (or else one of us has an anger issue)

You can (I am sure derisively) liken it to the Platonic philosopher-king seeing the forms. — schopenhauer1

The pessimist see it, and are trying to convey it. Thus the non-pessimist doesn't perhaps see this integration of understanding yet. — schopenhauer1

Which is to imply that the pessimists got the "right of it". That they see the forms accurately. And that the rest of us are deluding ourselves or just haven't seen these facts yet.

That is precisely being optimistic about the assuredness of pessimism. But you want to argue that that's not what he is doing. So he must NOT think that he is like a platonic philosopher-king seeing the forms. In which case, why is he arguing for the view?

Who would want to be a pessimist unless it was more genuine somehow? It is clearly the less enjoyable state to be in. And so you would need some special reason to adopt it such as it being "more genuine". You and Ligotti supposedly think it is not any more genuine. So why argue for it? Instead of trying to find a way out of a bad state why try to pull people into it? Unless, again, Ligotti thinks there is some reason we should be pessimists.

If truly there was no reason to adopt pessimism over optimism then Ligotti would be doing something equivalent to spreading a virus. He would be trying to promote a bad state, for no reason at all. As he supposedly doesn't think there is any more genuinity behind his view.

I think you are caught up in concrete arguments. Sometimes people just present their views — schopenhauer1

But to do so they must think those view are NOT a problem. In other words, that there are genuine reasons to be a pessimist.

You don't see people writing books about how addicted they are to meth for example.


I'd like to clarify that I don't mind if someone writes a book about why you should be a pessimist. What I mind is when they do so and yet pretend they are not doing so. Like what's happening here. Because pretending to be an impartial commentator makes your interpretation seem factual when it isn't so, making it way more convincing than it actually should be to the uncritical reader. Also because it's dishonest.

I'm not sure I want to start this again. I would simply just restate the whole isomorphism thing I said last time. Love can feel radically different to different people but as long as the feelings are isomorphisms of each other then communication is possible.

Color would be easier. We all know what inverted colors are. If I was born with "inverted vision" I would still be able to talk to you just fine. Because when I look at grass and see what you would call red, and you see what you would call green, we would still use the word "green" to describe it.

Sorry - my phrase just means I'm a full reductive materialist. Full stop! — GLEN willows

Depends on what you mean by "material". How heavy is the smell of the ocean? Or are you saying the experience doesn't exist?

"Material" started out being things we can touch and smell like rocks and grass. Then the category broadened to include things we can neither touch, smell, nor see like electrons (at the time they were proposed we couldn't see them). And now the category includes things that don't make any sense like quantum wave functions, that we cannot touch smell or see.

Point is, whenever I see people say "everything is material" usually they are using such a wide definition of "material" that they might as well have just said "Everything is a thing". The way they use the word is so broad so as to somehow include experiences as "material". In that case, what is left to be described by the category "mind"? That would just make them monists.

That or they think that experiences don't exist, and I don't know how they could.

but that no causal link need be constructed between some physical state or process and a given mind state. So being in love might never be equated to the excitation of specific nerve clusters; and yet remain entirely a result of activity within the mind. — Banno

The more I read you the less I understand about your position. From a glance this seems to be exactly what I think. Yet you don't like the word "Qualia" even though it seems there is plenty of room for them (The sense of being in love which is not the same as the excitation of specific nerve clusters). I'll check out the SEP page.

He is putting pessimism in the spotlight but not fully committing to the conclusions. He entertains the notions and presents the case but is apathetic about it. — schopenhauer1

From my reading, he seemed to be fully committing to the conclusions while claiming he is not.

But if he is not fully committing to the conclusions then who would read the book? If the conclusions are not objective or more genuine or anything like that, then why would anyone want to be a pessimist? That's just self harm at that point.

Pessimists usually either cannot see what is so great about life or believe their pessimism is somehow more "genuine" and so hold onto it. If he is of the former disposition, then he should be looking for ways out. Pessimists who are pessimists simply because they cannot bring themselves to cheer up try to look for ways to cheer up, be it antidepressants or therapy as nobody has any reason to be a pessimist if they believe that the alternative is just as genuine. But only pessimists of the latter disposition, who think that there is some "self deception" involved in our common view of the world, would write a book making a case for their beliefs by showing these "deceptions".

Ligotti pretends to be of the former disposition but I think is demonstrably from the latter. If he truly didn't think there was anything more genuine about a pessimistic attitude he wouldn't argue for it. Or if he did argue for it then we should treat his book with the same seriousness as someone who writes a whole book about why chocolate ice cream is superior to vanilla ice cream. But it seems to me he wants his work to be taken a bit more seriously than that.

About being objective.. the name of the book is The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. I'm not sure he's objective here. — schopenhauer1

"Conspiracy" implies that the actual case is being hidden by from a us in a veil of lies. Which is to imply that the "truth of things" is expressed in a pessimistic attitude and that the optimists are deluding themselves. Even in the title, he has an agenda.

One can say life itself is a certain set of things on repeat. — schopenhauer1

I don't know about you but I don't see how reading this:

God forbid! I am not pushing for any particular agenda. How dare you! Are you implying that being a pessimist is in any way more genuine or “grown up” than an optimist!?!? I would NEEEVER say that!

Anyways, so as I was saying.... life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease and if you don't think so you are deluding yourself. These view are being suppressed by all you naïve fools just so you can all continue to suffer in a never ending hell.

What do you MEAN I'm arguing for pessimism? Of course I'm not! Where have I done that!?!?!?! — khaled

on repeat is not a waste of time. The whole book read like a shitpost to me. Even back when I was AN.

My argument is more that the whole belief in a separate consciousness is based on folk psychology....as the Churchlands would suggest. — GLEN willows

Possibly. But the origins of the belief do not determine its truth value.

But what of people like Chalmers who still cling to a form of dualism. — GLEN willows

I happen to agree with him. But the site is generally very divided on the issue. The last time someone mentioned the cursed word “Qualia” it went on for 2000+ posts I think. And no one changed their minds (or brains).

But you haven't answered my question though, what does it mean that the mind is an "integral part of the material brain". Because

If you just mean the brain causes or creates the mind then everyone can agree there I think. — khaled

an integral aspect of the material brain — GLEN willows

What does that mean? If you just mean the brain causes or creates the mind then everyone can agree there I think.

and thinks everyone is too deluded to talk about. — Albero

God forbid! Ligotti is not pushing for any particular agenda. How dare you! Are you implying that being a pessimist is in any way more genuine or “grown up” than an optimist!?!? He would NEEEVER say that!

Anyways, so as I was saying.... life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease.


The book is basically the above on repeat.

But you cannot complain to your boss or your friends

Must be pretty bad friends.

But regardless all that quote establishes is that pessimistic attitudes will be "phased out" by natural selection so to speak. The pessimists are put at a disadvantage so there will eventually be fewer and fewer of them. It does not establish that the pessimistic attitude is more genuine or more correct, only that it is more oppressed.

It's the reason I dropped the book after a few chapters. Ligotti pretends to always take a neutral position. "Oh I am a pessimist but that is by no means the objective or correct way to view life, that would be ridiculous!" then spends a whole book framing existing as a dystopia. I don't understand what the purpose of the book is if he doesn't want to claim objectivity.

And he does everything just short of that. For example, making fun of optimists, liking his situation to being oppressed by Big Brother, etc. What really is the purpose of the book?

Ok got it.

biology replaced ethics in the sense of providing an account of human obligations. — Banno

What do you mean?

1 is false. People I come across have quite the different moral compass when it comes to a variety of issues. I'm still reminded of abortion debates or welfare or government assistance. Folks don't have a moral compass. — Darkneos

Notice “generally”. I don’t think anyone thinks murder and theft are ok. And we have been consolidating ethical views in general throughout time.

2 isn't entirely true and some "immoral" acts are quite legal and people can and do perform and get away with them. Repeatedly. — Darkneos

Fair enough, but a good chunk aren’t.

3 is on you to say why they should even start to begin with. — Darkneos

No. Since it’s all a matter of opinion I don’t have to provide a reason. It’s my opinion (and the majority of people’s opinions) that they should be punished so that’s that.

I do in fact have a basis that murderers should not be punished, mainly that there isn't a basis to begin with when punishing them. — Darkneos

But why would you require a basis? It’s all a matter of opinion right? Your opinion vs theirs.

When they kill on no basis, why should they not be killed on no basis?

Watch out! It’s almost as if you’re suggesting that it’s not all baseless opinion and that we require valid reasons to hurt others and the lack of such reasons makes it wrong to do so!

You keep trying to foot the whole thing on me but the reality is that it's on YOU and anyone espousing morality as to why such things are right or wrong to begin with. — Darkneos

I’m not trying to “foot” anything on you. I’m trying to show that your belief has no practical consequences. You cannot say “Morality doesn’t exist therefore criminals shouldn’t be punished” or anything to that effect. Nothing follows from the belief. And it changes nothing about the way we act outside of online forums.

Plus isn’t that a fallacy or appealing to popularity? — Darkneos

The scientific method is based on people agreeing on observations and coming up with theories based on the agreement. Does that make Einstein’s laws an appeal to popularity?

I mean...when you get down to it the whole thing IS arbitrary and capricious opinion. That’s not my opinion that’s a fact. — Darkneos

Brought about by the way you choose to define your words.

But how many times have people done that and it led to ruin? — Darkneos

Newton was wrong. So should we give up on physics?

Regardless though, if you agree that:

1- People generally have the same moral compass.
2- There are and will continue to be punishments for immoral acts
3- You have no basis on which to say those should stop.

Then really your view is practically the same as meta ethical realism or relativism. You will continue to try to be moral and avoid being immoral to avoid punishment. And you will not have a basis to argue something like “Murderers should not be punished”. And you will probably also continue to feel like murderers and such “deserved it”.

Which is why I think meta ethical questions are usually a waste of time.

When did I say that?

the choice of words is misleading to say the least because subjectivity has nothing to do with it. Why cause confusion by choosing words that could, like inter"subjectivity"? — TheMadFool

Because “objectivity” is booked by religions to refer to things that are the case regardless of what anyone perceives or thinks.

A consensus relies on what people perceive and think.

Sarcasm travels poorly online. — baker

Ha! Case in point, I tend to think that the more difficult thing to believe is the case. I miss sarcasm often (because taking it seriously is the more hurtful option) especially online. Even though I’m very sarcastic myself.

Well, an objective X, as I discern it, is intersubjectivity-invariant — 180 Proof

That's the more useful definition. To avoid confusion I just spell out "Inter subjective" though. Don't want people assuming I'm referring to "objective" in the useless religious sense.

2+2=4 doesn't hurt.

"I should kill myself" is about the most hurtful belief I can think of, that makes it true?

By objective I denote subjectivity [perspective, consensus (intersubjective), language, gauge]–invariance e.g. arithmetic, gravity, boiling point of water, species functional defects of homo sapien sapiens, etc. — 180 Proof

Yea that's what I call "intersubjective"

Because the term "Objective" seems to have been booked by religions to denote something that is right to do regardless of what us mere mortals think is right to do. Which often instruct one to do things that everyone would agree subjectively suck. Like killing heretics occasionally. Or not eating certain foods even though they are harmless. Which is a case where the "Objectively right thing to do" (what God commands) is at direct odds with the "Intersubjectively right thing to do" (what seems right).

Ok! — TheMadFool

So... we done or are we gonna go back to argue?

which is wrong because you, yourself said "...Something can be intersubjective and also objective..." — TheMadFool

Something CAN be intersubjective and also objective.

Not in this case, I don't think.

You think morality is objective. I don't know if you think it is intersubjective or not.

In other words: Do you think we have "figured out" morality? That what we agree on right now is, in fact, the "true moral code for all time"?

If yes then you think it is objective and intersubjective. If no then you think it is only objective, but we haven't figured it out yet.

Then you're misusing the term "intersubjective". — TheMadFool

How so? I find that unlikely since I'm the one that introduced it.

Intersubjective just means everyone agrees on it. Morality is something (almost) everyone agrees on. But no more than that.

Then why are we arguing. We're on the same side. — TheMadFool

No because I think morality is ONLY intersubjective. It is only based on agreement. It is not "out in the world" like a rock is. It's not written in stone (metaphorically) somewhere. Do you also think so?

Which definition of objective though? Why aren't you answering?

I'll give you an empirical example to get my point across. If 1 person sees a boat on the horizon, you would be more doubtful than if 10 people had made the same claim. In essence, the rule of thumb for objectivity seems to be more the merrier. Thus my belief that the overlap in moral codes among various culitures and religion points to some objective moral facts that people seem to have intuited. — TheMadFool

But that doesn't apply in this case.

Propose that the "Objective moral code" was "Kill whenever you can and steal whenever you can". If tribe A believes this and tribe B believes that you should not kill and you should not steal, tribe A would all perish. And tribe B would survive. We are tribe B as we have survived. See? A situation where everyone thinks morality is one way but it is actually another way. And the tribe that perished were right all along!

Point is, if you want to divorce morality from agreement, and propose that there is some "Objective moral code" that is set in stone and unchanged by whether or not people believe it then you cannot assume that the smoke is pointing to a fire in this case. Or rather, the fire it is pointing to is the "Evolutionarily advantageous morality" not the "Objective morality" you want.

The difference with empirical sciences is, if tribe A wishes to believe that there is no flood incoming, but tribe B rightly believes that there is a flood coming and so they move, tribe A will perish, as they were wrong. In other words, being wrong about the "objective morality" has no practical consequences but being wrong about empirical observations does have practical consequences. And since we are all alive, we can assume that our empirical observations are correct. Because, if like tribe A we were not able to see floods, we would have perished.

To say moral convergence could be intersubjective would mean we already know that morality is subjective. Begging the question situation, no? — TheMadFool

No. Something can be intersubjective and also objective. Nothing wrong there. It can happen that everyone agrees on something and that something is the case.

It should also be theoretically possible for something to be objective and NOT intersubjective. As in, something is the case but not everyone agrees it is the case. Which is why I asked:

Is it possible for everyone to simultaneously think that something is wrong and it be right anyways and vice versa? If so, then what is the method you use for determining what is moral? — khaled

First, which definition? If everyone agrees that something is moral does that make it objective? Or is it a bit more than just agreement?

Is it possible for everyone to simultaneously think that something is wrong and it be right anyways and vice versa? If so, then what is the method you use for determining what is moral?

that all of us see eye to eye on the value of that moral principle can't be a coincidence. — TheMadFool

Definitely not coincidence. But it IS evolutionary. It's just that the ones that didn't see eye to eye with us were killed, jailed, or died out.

You have argued that we generally tend to agree on what is good and bad. And we generally tend to agree on what hurts (starvation, depravation, etc). However:

It really depends on what you mean by objective. If objective just means everyone agrees on it, then yes your statement above would apply (that there is an objective morality).

However if you want to divorce "objective" from "inter-subjective" (as in everyone agrees on it) then your statement doesn't apply. We would just have a hint that there is an "inter-subjective" morality but no reason to think it matches whatever the "objective" morality is. Now, having divorced them, I have no clue how you would ascertain what the "objective" morality is but that's a problem for moral realists. — khaled

big hint that there are objective moral truths that our gut-feelings zero in on, no? — TheMadFool

It really depends on what you mean by objective. If objective just means everyone agrees on it, then yes your statement above would apply.

However if you want to divorce "objective" from "inter-subjective" (as in everyone agrees on it) then your statement doesn't apply. We would just have a hint that there is an "inter-subjective" morality but no reason to think it matches whatever the "objective" morality is. Now, having divorced them, I have no clue how you would ascertain what the "objective" morality is but that's a problem for moral realists.

You maybe right but then how does one distinguish intuitions from knowledge? — TheMadFool

Knowledge implies a much higher degree of certainty.