Putting it in your terms, how science chose to experience the things became the basis of what the things were in themselves. — Joshs

This says to me that you don't have enough experience in engaging in scientific processes to know what you are talking about. It sounds like you have simply accepted a story about science. What basis do you have, for thinking people should believe that you know what you are talking about on this subject?

If you are not on that spectrum it should be an easy matter for you to read up on the pattern and explain how it doesn't fit. Why would you need any help from me in that regard?

If moral facts are brute facts then there is no explanation. — Michael

The thing is, there are areas of research pointing to there being explanations beyond mere brute fact. See Jon Haidt's The Rightous Mind. There is value in understanding one's tendencies to moral judgement in order to deal with those tendencies skillfully.

I’m afraid we’ve never met so your intuitions amount to nothing. — NOS4A2

Right, meeting you has nothing to do with the basis by which my intuitions formed. However, I have had previous experiences which led to me having good recognition of the pattern. You aren't providing any reason to think that the pattern doesn't fit. Do you think you are able to?

Let me know when the real world enters the picture. — NOS4A2

The real world has been in the picture throughout our discusssion.

I was curious as to whether you would falsify my intuition that you are on the psychopathy spectrum, and I provided you with multiple opportunities for you to provide evidence falsifying that hypothesis.

...perhaps I give you too much credit by implying that you are capable of doing this. — Fooloso4

Seems likely to me. (Although I don't think "credit" or "discredit" are necessarily relevant.)

The word does not strike a chord, nor can any other abstraction you can put forward. — NOS4A2

Well, you can say that for you it does not strike a chord, but you don't speak for everyone.

You won’t tell me which “us” you’re referring to... — NOS4A2

You didn't ask.

In the context of this thread, the "We the People" discussed in the preamble to the US constitution seems a relevant circle of who one might consider "us". Though I had no particular circle in mind. Some might associate "us" with family, and others with humanity, and draw the circle narrower or wider at different times, depending on circumstances.

Whatever monkeysphere you can relate to will do for the purposes of this discussion.

...proving to me it lacks any reference to the real world and flesh-and-blood human beings. — NOS4A2

You seriously need to improve your critical thinking skills. You mistake jumping to a conclusion on your part for something having been proven. I recommend greater recognition of seeking falsification as good epistemic practice.

Once again, you didn't ask.

Do you still need me to explain references to the real world further?

Ready or not, here it comes. — Jonathan Waskan

Indeed.

For some reason ChatGPT also wasn't being fed current information (I think everything was at least a year old). Recently they allowed it access to current events, but I think that's only for paid members. Not sure what the rationale behind the dated info was or is. — Jonathan Waskan

I would guess vetting of sources for reliability would be a concern. What sources of infomation is a 'real time up to date' AI relying on without vetting?

If by “strikes primal chords” you mean you get a little tingly sensation whenever you hear a first-person plural or first-person possessives, without first wondering what this “us” refers to... — NOS4A2

You can strike everything after "If" because it is just sophist propaganda spewing out of your head, whether intentionally so or not. A more interesting topic to me is whether or not you can relate to "us" striking a chord. Or to what degree you can do so?

I’d say you’re susceptible all types of propaganda. — NOS4A2

First off, as you demonstrate over and over in this thread alone, you are enormously susceptible to propaganda yourself. So now that we've established that we are humans here discussing things in this thread... Do you experience thoughts of "us" as striking a primal chord within you?

I'm hoping they put the brains and brawn together within the next ten years. — Jonathan Waskan

I'm somewhat trepidatious about it. The first thing that popped up when I googled "neuromorphic hardware" was this link sponsored on Google by Intel. It is the first advertising of neuromorphic hardware that I have seen.

I've been a convinced connectionist for nearly 40 years now, and I was confident that AI would get to the state it is now about now. However, for a long time I thought it would only be after neuromorphic hardware was readily available. The acceleration in the development of AI, that I see as being likely, seems like something humanity is not well prepared for.

This merits its own consideration:

Why do you keep saying “our democracy”? Why not just say “democracy”? We know the answer: this trite phrase is political language, not used to discuss the concept, but used to appeal emotionally to those who read it. This is what “thinking in words” gets you, an over-estimation of the power of words and the attempts at propaganda as a result. — NOS4A2

It also merits consideration that "us" strikes primal chords, in homo sapiens who aren't psychopathic to some degree. Any thoughts on that?

In fact, though Asimov used the three laws to describe robot operating principles, he didn't think of them as being written out explicitly in some form of code. Rather, they were deeply embedded in their positronic networks much as we see with ChatGPT. — Jonathan Waskan

Hopefully not as they are embedded in our neural networks, with an ethical bias towards *us* not being harmed. (With "us" referring to some subset of sentient beings.)

Well maybe "should" was too strong a word but I think similar kinds of skepticism as with moral realism can lead you to drop other realisms. Where to draw the line? Depends who you are I guess. It doesn't seem to me a big leap from dropping moral facts to modal facts which do not seem to be anymore facts about actual events as morality is. Dropping normativity in the context of morality does not seem such a stretch either from dropping normativity about beliefs all together which I am sure a lot of moral anti-realists would not find easy. I think the idea that there is no objective fact about what someone ought to do would also cover beliefs if it covers moral facts, ceteris paribus. I think there's probably other parallels too where some argument against moral facts might apply to other facts.

I guess there is no good well-defined place for deciding where you should stop in terms of skepticism though. Even the most stringent anti-realist I am sure will not give up everything. — Apustimelogist

Sorry it took me so long to respond. This gave me a lot to think about. :up:

I've got more mulling to do, but I agree with your penultimate sentence.

Your point about modality I find especially interesting, in that it seems that consideration of alternate possibilities (of past and future) is a rather important aspect of what our brains do. On the other hand, on the space-time block view that relativistic physics suggests, such possibilities are figments of our imagination. On the third hand, it seems rather undeniable that our imaginings of future possibilities (whether accurate or not) can play a significant role in how the future turns out (at least within the context of the suface of one tiny planet).

Still mulling...

But still, I find that questioning of my contribution to the philosophy forum to be rather awkward. Like, do people need to accept your specific philosophical ideal in order to be valued as a contributor? Is not even my questioning of certain ideas a contributing factor on a philosophy forum? Sounds a bit weird to imply a lack of contribution in that way? — Christoffer

:100: :up: To your whole post.

And to the quoted portion... Yeah it come across as religious bigotry, on the part of people who want philosophy to assure them of the reliability of their security blanket.

There are ways of apprehending or thinking about the world and our experience that dissolves emotional responses. — Tom Storm

Well put.

One has to prove God does not exist in order to prove that He did not create the universe, doesn't that follow? — FreeEmotion

Ok, what do you mean by "God"?

Existential Comics: A Dialogue on Compatibilism

The problem there is that we wouldn’t recognise patterns, let alone have neuroscience, or any science, were it not for the ability to abstract, compare, contrast, equate, and so on. — Wayfarer

Are you saying that our ability to recognize patterns is dependent on our conscious thought? If so, I think you've got things backwards.

Very briefly, it revolves around the metaphysical assertion that Ideas (whether construed as forms, principles or universals) are only graspable by a rational mind (nous) but they are not produced by the mind. They are 'in the mind, but not of it' - that is, intelligible objects. — Wayfarer

@Tom Storm

I think a more realistic way of looking at it is that human reason is substantially a function of pattern recognition occurring in our brains, and that notions like forms and universals reflect a neurologically naive attempt at making sense of the results of such pattern recognition. I think there is a reification going on, in seeing as things ("intelligible objects"), what can more accurately be understood as events subconsciously occurring in our brains (recognitions of patterns).

I suppose one mights say, as Wayf does, that "they are not produced by the mind" if "the mind" is equated with consciousness. However, from a more holistic perspective, where mind is understood as including the subconscious activity of our brains, it seems to me more accurate to think that what Wayf refers to as "intelligible objects" are in fact produced by the mind/brain. ( Which is not to say they are purely phantasms without correspondence to things in the larger world.)

Why are electrons negatively charge particles? — Michael

It's arguably because of a decison made by a relatively uninformed Ben Franklin.

It cannot work. Thinking that it works, even just a little, means that we have some ability get access to the truth, to reality, to how the world really is. — Angelo Cannata

The fact that we have some ability to get access to how the world really is, is what allowed for the construction of the internet which allows people to say such vacuous things as you say here, to others all around the world.

I hope you can learn to bark more meaningfully. Lots of other people do. Don't sell yourself short.

Obviously, an organized system of barking will never be able to master an understanding of the world. Curiosly, humans think they can, and then they are even surprised seeing that it doesn’t work. — Angelo Cannata

Well "master" might be a bit grandiose. On the other hand we are discussing philosophy with people all over the world, so maybe it works somewhat?

Anselms's ontological argument is mine, in spite of it's theological pretenses, for it is an example of a logically valid constructive argument that is 'necessarily true' but nevertheless draws a false conclusion about the world outside of logic, in spite of the argument insisting that it is referring to the outside world! — sime

Interesting example!

In other words, even ideal reasoners can be expected to draw rationally "correct" yet empirically false conclusions about the world. In which case, what is the point of AI and cognitive science? — sime

There is more to an ideal of reasoning than the ability to apply logic in a valid way. There is also the pattern recognition applied to diverse empirical observations that allow for recognition of false premises. For example the "training set" which is hugely important to the results yielded by modern AI.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here?? — Apustimelogist

I took the following to mean, "If you drop moral realism you should drop all realism."

If you drop moral realism you should drop all of it. And most people are unwilling to do that it seems. — Apustimelogist

Perhaps I was misinterpreting you, but I was explaining that I don't see a good justification for dropping all realism, on the basis of the nonexistence of moral facts.

Now, there may be people who earnestly profess to fail to comprehend morality. But I would say that if it is observable in their actions then they understand it just fine, it's just that their theory is at odds with their actions. — Leontiskos

I wouldn't say I fail to comprehend morality. I see morality as a function of evolved cognitive biases which tend to make individuals function successfully in a social group, as the following video illustrates:



Like the angry monkey, we are biased towards judging things to be wrong and acting on such judgements. There is no need for a 'moral law' to explain such behavioral tendencies - just a history of evolution as social primates.

There is no inconsistency in social primates like us intellectually recognizing an emotivist basis for morality, and yet continuing to be social primates who form and act on moral judgements. Humans can't turn themselves into Vulcans just by adopting a particular moral theory.

I know your intuitions about morality have been strongly influenced by religious arguments. So it is understandable that it would be quite a paradigm shift for you to grasp such a different way of understanding morality, but I happen to think this is vastly more realistic than your belief in a moral law and lawgiver.

I feel there is a mindset behind honesty.
Without that mindset, honesty doesn't exist. — YiRu Li

Autism?

Obviously, this clearly isn't an argument for moral realism but it is an argument against the case that moral realism is inherently different to any other kind of realism. If you drop moral realism you should drop all of it. And most people are unwilling to do that it seems. — Apustimelogist

I think there are evolutionary reasons that our thinking is biased in ways that tend to make us successful as a social species. I don't see a reason to think such moral biasing (or similar biasing) of our perspective would bias our perspectives in all regards.

Again, cut to the chase please. — I like sushi

It appears to me that playing this silly game is Corvus' whole point with this thread. Why would he want to cut to the chase?

I dont understand the problem. — AmadeusD

That's ok. My question was directed @Gnomon.

Materialists like to belittle the "Hard Problem" by implying that philosophers... — Gnomon

Do you understand that "materialist" is not a distinct category from "philosopher"?

Your writing frequently suggests that you don't understand this.

However, it is an odd shoe-horn to then ask how well language makes truth-conditional statements, or if that is even the real function of language. Rather, the biology recenters these debates away from truth-finding, and more about evolutionary-biological, species-apt theories. — schopenhauer1

I'm late to this discussion and haven't looked into what other responses there may have been to this. So please excuse me if this is redundant.

Having spent some serious time thinking about and debating against Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN), I think a strong case can be made for human linguistic ability being evolutionarily adaptive, on the basis that it does provide humans the ability to communicate truths to each other. Undoubtedly partial truths, but a degree of truth that has historically been adaptive for humans. I think I would say that biology does recenter, and in the process expand the fields of knowledge that are relevant to the discussion. However, I'd emphasize that that is far from saying that humans commmunicating truths is out of the picture, given naturalistic evolution. (As Plantinga suggests.)

The obvious alternative is to follow Alfred North Whitehead in 1919-1920, and abandon classical Euclidean topology for a 'point-free topology' that refers only to extensionally interpretable "blobs", namely open-sets that have a definite non-zero volume, whose intersections approximate pointedness . Then it might be possible to extensionally interpret all such "blobs" in relation to a fixed basis of topological description in a more constructive fashion, meaning that extensional ambiguity is handled directly on the logical level of syntax, as opposed to on the semantic level of theory interpretation. — sime

Very interesting post, although I don't have enough mathematics background to follow all of the details. Could you provide a link to a 'Blobs for Dummies' article?

As best I can tell, the notion of "essences" doesn't refer to anything, and the use of the term often seems a matter of feigning knowledge where recognizing ignorance seems more warranted.

I'm not really interested in arguing the point though, and I just wanted to point out that there is relevant knowledge to be gained.

Carry on.

So specifically, I am searching for arguments, preferrably complete, even more preferrably in syllogistic form, for the belief that the self persists. Otherwise, I will remain in doubt, and in absence of any evidence of permanence, I will default to the position that it does not stay at all, and that we are constantly as always dying, as the comic posted in the first page depicts. — Lionino

What is relatively persistent, by comparison with with most cells of bodily organs, is neurons and the neural networks structures that supervene on them.

As a brain develops, young neurons strike out, seeking to form synaptic connections across brain regions, Harris said. If they fail to make those connections, they “commit suicide by consuming themselves.” And even if they survive this first cutthroat wave, they can “get pruned, like plants.”

In the first trimester of pregnancy, neural growth is exponential: about 15 to 20 million cells are born every hour, Harris said. Only about 50 percent of these original cells survive. If, for example, there are too many of one type, causing an imbalance, the excess will die off. Or, if some seem to be serving a pointless task, like those attending a shut eye, they’ll move on. Why waste precious neurons?

After the early period of growth, suicide, and pruning comes to an end, adult neurons survive for a lifetime. And unlike those of a cat, they remain malleable for several years. This is one reason kids are especially adept at learning new languages, and why procedures to correct neurological dysfunctions, like a lazy eye, have higher chances of success early in life.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/05/a-tour-of-the-growing-brain-complete-with-upside-down-vision/

Notice I asked the additional question, why the emphasis on animal welfare? Is that part of your programming? — Wayfarer

Good questions!

I would be surprised, if even without the ethical biasing, ChatGPT would have come up with an accurate answer. I suspect something like what @Jonathan Waskan is suggesting would be required, to result in the ability of a more advance AI to recognize that a jack-o'-lantern isn't particularly problematic for a mouse.

What I'm most curious about is what deep learning will develop when an AI is embodied in a sophisticated robot body. (With learning developed from observing and exploring the world.)

If anyone desires it, I can tie this in to grade-school mathematical reasoning—explaining how mental matchsticks and the like can keep arithmetical, algebraic, and geometrical LLMs over their targets—but for the moment, my bet has been placed. — Jonathan Waskan

I'd be interested in hearing more details of your hypothesis if you have the time.

But I don't see panpsychism as a problem - just a mistake, generated by the philosophical fondness for exaggerated generlization. — Ludwig V

:up:

How do I know that I am perceiving a physical thing in a real world and not just dreaming or hallucinating or being tricked by an evil scientist who has my brain in a vat and is stimulating my visual cortex with nanomachines?

This question seems relevant to the discussion. — Michael

How do you know?

Don't you think that might be asking a little too much? It seems to me that Ockham's Razor suggests it's fairly reasonable to chop off the evil scientist as unparsimonious.

Anesthesia seems fairly direct.