That might be, but we don't go by subjective reports for this. We make objective measurements. — Terrapin Station
We can't make objective measurements. — Isaac
You have to consider the possibility that other things have gone wrong, including the theory. — Terrapin Station
The measurement isn't in your mind. — Terrapin Station
Yes, hence my reluctance to go back over the several thousand experimental results firming the history of psychological research in order to demonstrate that this has already been considered. — Isaac
Where is it then? — Isaac
First off, there's been absolutely nothing to even suggest that anyone is forwarding a categorization of complex/compound versus simple/atomic moral stances. Has any of the research you're appealing to forwarded that? — Terrapin Station
socialization influences moral development and explains why moral rules change with space and historical time, human infants enter the world equipped with cognitions and motivations that incline them to be moral and prosocial (Hamlin, 2015)
Such early emerging predispositions toward prosocial behavior, and sociomoral evaluation reflect prewired capacities that were adaptive to our forebears.
However, this does not imply that morality is itself an adaptation favored by natural selection. Instead, the moral sense observed in humans may be a consequence of several cognitive, executive, and motivational capacities which are the attributes that natural selection directly promoted (Ayala, 2010)
The world outside of minds, obviously. — Terrapin Station
What, the measurement? I've never seen one. All that's in the world outside of mind is (if anything at all) a sea of heterogeneous stuff. All objects, measurements, laws, and concepts are constructions of the human mind. — Isaac
Your speech doesn't force my psychological states.
You don't see an ethical issue with removing any protection children would have against psychological abuse from their parents?
— Benkei
Correct. — Terrapin Station
They end in failure because they start with the charitable assumption that the other person can be reasoned with, but fail because the other person can't be. — S
When that's one's assessment, why wouldn't one simply move on and not bother with the person in question? Wouldn't that be a simple solution that wouldn't cause one so much apparent strife? — Terrapin Station
Well, for me, I almost can't help but want to reason with people in situations like that. I find it hard to move on. That's partly why banning me from the forum would be a good thing. — S
I suppose it's some sort of psychological thing where you figure you can always get folks to come around to your thinking if you just try hard enough? — Terrapin Station
I can't be the first person you've run into where that doesn't work. It would probably be a good idea to learn how to let that go if it's causing you frustration. — Terrapin Station
You think that device is just in your mind? Or the readings on the display are just in your mind? — Terrapin Station
Re the quotations, by the way, so then the answer is no, no one has suggested the complex/compound versus simple/atomic categorization you're suggesting? (Because the quotes you pasted sure don't suggest anything like that) — Terrapin Station
there are ways to parse things so that you don't have to be offended, you don't have to see difference as a problem. — Terrapin Station
Yes. As I said all there can really be (if there's anything at all) is a sea of heterogeneous stuff. The device (as opposed to its immediate surroundings) is an artificial division of that stuff I've made up, the readings are more artificial divisions of that stuff I made up. — Isaac
No, I think the device is an artificial division of the stuff reality is made of. — Isaac
I wasn't asking you anything like that. I'm asking you if you think it's literally mental content and not a piece of plastic etc. that's independent of your brain — Terrapin Station
No. I think it's independent of my brain — Isaac
So then you don't think that it's subjective. — Terrapin Station
Where does the stuff stop being 'air' and start being 'plastic'? That's subjective — Isaac
That's talking about the concepts. That's not what I'm asking about. — Terrapin Station
... Given what you said above about anomalies, how can you know this [that people can learn to not be offended etc]? Have you asked everyone in the world whether they're capable of doing what you're claiming can be done? Why is it when I claim humans can/can't do X, you say "show me evidence that they can/can't" and require an astonishingly high level of evidence to support it, but when you're supporting your outlandish ideas any old guess as to what human minds are capable of seems to be satisfactory?
the division by which we name it and think of it as one thing (as opposed to another) is not. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.