Details, Nickolasgaspar, details. What, exactly in his Critique is metaphysical speculation? — Constance

ITs irrelevant to this topic but you can always google it. Well here is the first link I got.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/

What makes the case of the brain so unique is that while exterior events are forthcoming for observation, the brain itself is problematic, because the only way to confirm its existence is through its own operations, thus, one would have to establish how the brain can be its own source of verification, and this can only be done through the very brain processes in question. — Constance

-And.....? its the same way. We observe people's brains like we observe all environmental phenomena. We gather systematic information for every aspect of that organ and its factions. That is a text book example of special pleading and an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Our ignorance of specialized knowledge on how the brain works doesn't justify to assume supernatural explanations.

How is it that one can stand apart from the brain and observe it apart from the very phenomena that are posited as brain generated? — Constance

-That is not true. Scientists use objective methodologies and criteria to study other people's brains and establish strong correlations between brain functions and specific properties of mind.
If you visit neurosciencenews.com and search papers on "how the brain +(the mind property you are interested) you will learn how we can objectively verify sufficiency and necessity between mechanism and emergent property of the brain.

-" All you ever get is the phenomena; you can never achieve that Archimedean point to truly witness the brain."
-That sounds like an argument from denial (Ignorance). This type of argument is used by flatearthers or creationists who use the absence of absolute certainty as an excuse to sneak in their belief.
We can observe the brain and we can establish Necessity and sufficiency....that's all we need. Absolute truth or certainty is a red herring that is not achievable in any of our frameworks.
The brain is not special. i.e. we can not prove that our digestive track is the source of digestion 100%.
Again by verifying necessity and sufficiency we establish Strong correlations between causes and effects.

What too many fallacies in your reasoning.

This, of course, problematizes all witnessed events, for how does one ever witness what is NOT a phenomenon? You need that perspective from another position that is not phenomenological. — Constance

This is why we don't use "witnesses" in science but we make Observations in order to verify objectively the ontology of a phenomenon.

Good luck with this. If you can respond in a way that shows the phenomenon can be bypassed, and an observer can jump into the "real" world that is not conditioned and constructed by thought and experience, not only will you win the Nobel Prize, but you will have discovered God's omniscient providence. — Constance

-Numerous Nobel prizes have being awarded to scientists that have provided objective observations of Necessary and Sufficient mechanisms responsible for a phenomenon.
Now god concepts do NOT belong to the real world (only anthropologically as ideas) since we are unable to objectively verify supernatural agents.
This is not an issue with our methods but with the nature of god claims themselves.

By virtue of them being labeled scientific hypotheses they are testable. Philosophical exploration might be any sort of babble. Quantum mysticism, etc. — jgill

-No it can't be. Philosophy needs to be based on credible knowledge and produce wise claims that we can use to understand the world around us.
babbles are not good at this.

I have no idea what this is about. What makes you think Kant talks about metaphysics?? — Constance

-Nothing really except his critique. I only pointed out that no matter how great the name of philosopher, a metaphysical speculation is just that.

Mind properties not contingent to natural processes? But of course they are. All I ask you is, what are natural processes? — Constance

Do you have objective evidence of mind properties rising independent of a functioning biological brain (natural process).
If you do have you then you should make some space on your shelves for a Nobel Prize...
That is a pseudo philosophy.

-" And how can one separate ontology from epistemology?"
-It depends....but basically by studying science.

-"There is nothing metaphysical about asking the simple question: what connects S to P in the equation, "S knows P"?"
I guess we are having two different discussions. I am pointing out that your supernatural and idealistic assumptions render your philosophy pseudo. That's all. What I say has nothing to do with asking simple questions.

-" Is this what you call science, ignoring glaring questions contradict your paradigms? "
-I am talking about failed principles that people believe to be philosophical.

I suspect you're heard of Thomas Kuhn? What do you think he would say about this? — Constance

-You are tap dancing. You are forcing a position I never expressed. Again I am only pointing out that your supernatural beliefs are not philosophical.
Most people don't understand Kuhn. His ideas were far from Popper's opinions but most of you seem to be ignorant about it.

-" Do you understand the scientific method?"
_common mistake. There isn't A scientific method. Science has many methodologies.
(the first link I got)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/there-is-no-scientific-method.html

-" Think this through: it is a method that connects knowledge with the world. How do you think this happens, magically? This has to be explained, and you don't turn away because it is difficult. "
-weird description. Science offers descriptive frameworks which we as thinking agents use them as knowledge. Knowledge is not an intrinsic feature in a description, but its an observer dependent value.
Any Instrumental value is applied....

This has to be explained, and you don't turn away because it is difficult. You engage it because it is difficult, but it is not the job of a scientist. It is the philosopher's job. It is NOT a metaphysical question. It simply accepts that the objects before us cannot be conceived apart from the experience in which they are found — Constance

-Irrelevant to our discussion though

Chronicling? You would have to say what you mean. Are you talking about recording history? — Constance

Quoting what people said even if what they said have no actual philosophical value.

There is only one goal set for philosophy--only one: to examine the world at the level of the most basic assumptions. Period. — Constance

That is only an approach in philosophy. The main goal is defined in the etymology of the word...to use knowledge as a way to produce wise claims.

Sometimes I fail to realize that people simply do not know what philosophy is. The presumption of knowing without, well, knowing, is common — Constance

Well you insist in using supernatural and idealistic principles in your interpretations ...So I can agree with your realization. People don't understand what philosophy is and how it works.

magical thinkers just hate those who remind them there are rules in reasoning and philosophy...

You argued that Immoral actions were those which caused a disruption in well-being which could be measured by a change in certain biochemicals. Changes in biochemicals away from base levels is a change in homeostasis. — Isaac

-Let me clarify. You and Tom asked reasons why Well Being qualifies as an objective criterion in our moral evaluations. I argued there are objective ways to demonstrate that our basic biological drives, urges and setup have evolved to ensure the well being of our organisms and moral behavior happens to add on that. By quantifying specific metrics of our biology we see that conditions that favor our well being are promoted by moral behavior from our peers and us.

We haven't established that at all. I asked you for a definition of well-being which excluded a child being denied sweets and so far you've only provided me with a definition which includes such a response. — Isaac

-Of course we have. Pleasure is not a metric for well being on its own. Again the definition of well being includes all the members, not just the member who is affected by a rule. His parents will have to pay for his teeth, his insulin shots, his larger clothes and witness his unhappiness when his reaches the age of dating etc et. So monitoring sugar intake in children is a promoter of well being for kids,parents and society(healthy members) and we only reduce some experiences of pleasure.

Right. So how do we establish, with the scientific rigour you're after, which of the many potential 'blows' was responsible for the chemical changes you're claiming as a measure of well-being? — Isaac

that is an irrelevant discussion IMHO. I referred to our ability to quantify Well being just to point out how moral acts reinforce those same metrics that our biological mechanisms strive to serve.

You claim has been one of objectivity. You can't cite our society happening to do something as evidence of objective moral facts. — Isaac

I don't understand your question, can you elaborate?

Yes, absolutely. I don't think it's an objective fact that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions. I just think that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions. — Isaac

So you don't think that it is objectively good for the society to remove a threat for their children and try to retrain that individual so he won't be a threat in the future?

its like accusing people for using logic mate......better work on your arguments.

It can't, for the reasons I've given - 1) Underdetermination - there are too many uncontrolled-for factors for us to say which one caused the change in homeostasis, and 2) Timescale - some activities (like exercise) cause a negative change in homeostasis in the short term but lower the rate of such changes in the long term as the body adapts, so the valence of most factors cannot be determined by immediate assessment of the impact on biochemistry. — Isaac

-what? nobody talked about what causes change in homeostasis. The argument is that changes in homeostasis drive behavior so that an organism can attend and "correct" those changes. Its time now to hear arguments that chemical do not drive behavior...because of Underdetermination...lol

2. Your comment is irrelevant to the matter in hand. Homeostasis is a desirable state that our organism strives to sustain.
The same is true for other desirable states like states free of pain, stress , anxiety etc.
Seeking states that promote our wellbeing means that our system is free from secretions of deleterious hormones like glucocorticoids, catecholamines which are the main cause of pathology and health issues in general.
So what we understand as well being is not arbitrary and subjective, it has strong biological (empirical) grounds. The actions that "ruffle" those fragile chemical balances can be evaluated. Again this doesn't mean that any action that affects the desire for pleasure of a kid qualify as immoral. As we have established in previous comments well being is more than pleasure and social rules.

We know nothing of the sort. Our 'biology' can only tell us that something in the entire current and recent past environment as caused a biochemical response which we, at the time, describe as a negative one. — Isaac

-Again...our biology receives all the "blows" from acts that are against our well being. Immoral acts do not manifest in a bubble above humans.

Says who? I thought you were arguing all this was objective. Where's the scientific fact that tells us a prisoner's well-being is no longer tied to the well-being of society? — Isaac

Says our action to remove them from our society for a necessary period of time. Do you think that its not an objective fact that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions?
Sure its an other ethical question how our systems treat our prisoners and we do have efforts, mainly in European countries to address their well being but you need to understand that there is a disconnection between those two population's well being for practical reasons.(economical).

I won't disagree with you on this one. Maybe the disconnection from our society and our inability to understand human biology has justified immoral practices against prisoners for far too long.
But again the principle of well being reigns supreme and can help us see what we do wrong.

But reading Kant does not yield zero information. That is, well, silly. Not that he's right about everything. Not the point. — Constance

First of all your answer doesn't really address any points made in my first paragraph. We don't have a way to be sure whether our feedback of an invisible underlying reality is accurate or not. What we can verify is that in different scales of reality we observe different characteristics that are quantifiable and verifiable.
What Kant or any philosopher says about metaphysical aspects of ontology is IRRELEVANT and an argument from false authority since there aren't any experts or authorities in metaphysical claims!

You toss terms like "pseudo" and "supernaturalism" around like you think they have some place in this disagreement. — Constance

Of course they have. If you talk about mind properties non contingent to natural processes or "post modern Theology" or accept unfalsifiable metaphysical statements as foundations for your philosophical views then both of my labels are justified in this conversation!
Those terms just point out that the promoted ideas do not carry epistemic foundations sot they can not be used as tools for the understanding of the world (not that they are wrong).

To me it is just the presumption of condescension usually found among those who are limited in their reading. People in science generally are philosophically clueless, which is to be forgiven; after all, they don't read philosophy, or, if they do, it ends up being the philosophy of science.
Generally, when I ask someone with your predilections, they really haven't read anything. — Constance

- Is it? Are they? Maybe you are right.
Two problems.
1. What do you mean by reading philosophy? Chronicling? Finding out who (philosopher) said what?
Do you really think that Chronicling is Philosophy or that it will help you to promote a metaphysical statement to an epistemic degree of value, by knowing about it?
The fact that those conclusions have never being evaluated or used to produce abbitional knowledge or wise claims that we can act upon..... doesn't raise any flags for you?
Sure some great names made some metaphysical claims that you agree with...this is all you have!
The question is What makes you think that they are philosophical or at least meaningful?

2.People in science are generally philosophically clueless....meaning that they are really bad in Chronicling. THis is because they ignore ideas that are not proven Wise and with zero epistemic potential.
They are only familiar with Philosophical ideas that are epistemically and instrumentally valuable. (Naturalism, Objectivism, Humanism, Situational ethics etc etc etc ).
So at least in my case I don't give much attention to philosophical claims that do not achieve the goal set by Philosophy itself....to provide Wise claims about our world on solid epistemic grounds.
Sorry If I sound condescending...that was not my intention.

Personally?? The idea here is that a CT scan is not a mirror of the mind in the truest sense of what a mirror is. We can talk like this, but this is a metaphor at work here."

-Brain scans detects and records function while a mirror reflects an image. We know that Mirrors don't even display the light correctly, due to imperfections(distortions) and the fact that they flip images.
So the mirror is a bad metaphor.
In fMRI scans we are not interested in accuracy or reflecting light. We are tracking the role of every area of the brain and their connections. We can test any specific mental state by disturbing specific functions and connections allowing us to establish necessity and sufficiency of a function for a specific mental state.


-". In the matter at hand, imagine you had a CT scan of something, but you were told you had to dismiss all familiar possibilities for its interpretation. So much for interpretation. But then, you do have what is there before you to be taken not as something impossibly beyond the phenomenon itself, but simply AS itself. That is where we are. — Constance

"
-Dismiss familiar possibilities???? By studying brain scans we establish strong correlations between mechanisms and produced outcome of the system (thought, action etc). He don't dismiss possibilities (that we don't even know whether they are possible or not) we describe functions and how they are linked to phenomena. Our interpretations are forced to work with available descriptions due to Practical Necessity not of a bias opinion against unknown possibilities! IN science , Philosophy and Logic we can never include Unfalsifiable assumptions or mechanisms that we can not demonstrate their possible nature in our interpretations. That is an irrational behavior.

. If you want to declare the epistemic relation to be a causal one, then you will have a lot of explaining to do. For one thing, the very notion of causality itself would have to be causally accounted for. — Constance

-In science we don't arbitrary declare causality.We test and verify causality by building a case on the accumulation of Strong Correlation between Necessary mechanisms by proving them sufficiency in the process.
Your argument is based on tour inability to prove a Universal Negative (we can not prove that there is an additional invisible underlying mechanism that drives the causality we observe).
That is a fallacy (argument from ignorance). This is your burden not a weakness of our methods. You need to provide evidence that could prove the observable causal mechanisms secondary or superficial.

.The idea here is not to deny what science does, nor its conclusions nor its theorizing. It is to say something really quite simple and without argument: all science has to say rests with what lies before the perceiving intelligence. This is, if you will, a horizon of intuition. Nobody disagrees with this. The most devoted analytic philosopher understands that phenomenology cannot be refuted, only ignored by people why prefer to think of other things. Who cares? You may thematize the world as you please as long as the world has those themes there for the inquiry. — Constance

I will agree with that statement.
-"all science has to say rests with what lies before the perceiving intelligence."
Science can only evaluate frames of what is provided by our Cataleptic Impressions.

-"This is, if you will, a horizon of intuition."
-That is a sophistry in my opinion. Intuition doesn't rest on Systematic accumulation of Objective facts...so equating science to intuition is unfair and troubling to be honest.

Not to ignore neuroscience's epistemology. To realize that this epistemology is based upon something more foundational: intuitive givenness. Science is left alone since no one is denying its claims. It is a different world of inquiry altogether.
If you are looking for evidence, and you want to be a good neuroscientist, consider how you would you would translate neurological events into events that are not neurological. There is no assumed ignorance. Just do it. If I asked you to do this in any other case of identifiable connectivity, you wouldl be appalled at the presumption that one could make a scientific claim with out this connection in place. So, just make it. If you cannot, and you can't, you may continue on in your fashion. But you would be thoroughly disabused about the foundational validity of your claims.
Or you can exercise your curiosity and ask questions like, how is it that ideas and object are related? I cannot apprehend an object apart from the understanding, so is it that objects cannot be considered as a "stand alone" presence? What does stand alone even mean at the basic level of inquiry? And on and on.
Pseudo metaphysics? Yes, I despise this sort of thing. I am interested in authentic metaphysics. — Constance

-How this answer of yours is relevant to the fallacious nature of the main excuse you use to accept claims that aren't epistemically founded.
No, we don't know how accurate our most advanced scientific observations are and we don't have a way to test them. This is the reality and this defines the Pragmatic Necessity that we need to accept.The default position is NOT to assume that they are not accurate, without any indications or evidence and go on presuming invisible realms and substances interacting with the accessible reality!
Science doesn't produce epistemology on intuition. It challenges our intuitive thoughts and preferred assumptions by contrasting them head to head them with objective facts.
Asking questions is a good thing but you need to know that NOT all questions are philosophical. If your questions beg the questions for specific supernatural artifacts or assume what you need to demonstrate they are fallacious in nature. (Again they are not necessarily wrong).

I do suspect your problem is that you don't have a capacity to think beyond the models provided the science text. — Constance

-No my problem is thoughts that ignore that their starting point should always be epistemically supported, free of fallacies and they shouldn't assume what they need to prove.

Observe the thought, the experience rising within. Observe that YOU are in a believing state. To observe this is an obvious and simple matter. You have beliefs and you know this. So, there you are believing the sun is out or the cat is sleeping, and conviction is, say, upon you. Now ask, how is it this belief state has verification? That is, clearly you believe and trust your belief, but what is this trust grounded upon? It is purely an intuitive presence of belief that determines this, but because this is given without a justificatory grounding, then it sits there, indeterminate, believing, but at its basis, indeterminate. Of course, you can say, this indeterminacy is the best we can do. We do not live in the mind of God, and so all knowledge claims are like this. And I say, brilliant. This is our indeterminacy. — Constance

-No you are oversimplifying states of beliefs and how they arise.
Belief is the state when someone accepts a claims to be true.
There are Knowledge based beliefs and faith based beliefs.
Knowledge based beliefs are those which are objectively verified by facts accessible by any one.
I can test the claim "the cat sleep on the couch", by pointing it to my gf and seeing her smile, by taking a photo of my cat and sending it to friends and be verified by their reactions, by physically checking she is there etc etc.
Objective empirical verification is how we verify the knowledge value of a belief.

Faith based belief are those claims that aren't based on sufficient evidence and they can not be verified Objectively. Intuition or subjective experience or other bad evidence are offered as an excuse for accept such claims.

Of course we have limitations in the quality and the quantify of the evidence we can gather for a claim.This is why we always aim to satisfy Sufficiency and Necessity and our position are Tentative in the case where new evidence might force us to change our narrative.
Again Intuition has nothing to do with Scientific knowledge. Sure none of our knowledge claim can be accepted as 100% correct but its the best material we have to work with and they are the standards by which we define a belief rational/irrational and our Arguments Sound or Unsound.

The more time you spend trying to see this, the more you understand that this condition is not remote from our existence. It is only remote FROM the pov of the presumption of knowing, which is pervasive in all things, like passing the salt and taking a bus. This philosophical perspective is THE perspective: a suspension of the "pass the salt" affairs in order to examine things at a level where presumption itself can be interrogated. Philosophy asks, what is belief? — Constance

_we are aware of all those problems in our attempt to verify claims and distinguish epistemology from faith
The problem rises when you use this as a way to lower the epistemic value of Scientific frameworks but you have no issues to promote ideas that do not even reach the half way of those standards.
In short an argument of ignorance doesn't raise its value if we admit the uncertainty in our epistemology. A fallacy is a fallacy and we should dismiss it.

This is just evasion. Or you really can't understand the question. Empirical interactions? But this is exactly what is being questioned. You can't say, oh well, these are just the way of it. Is this how science works?? Is a cloud just a cloud, with no care given to its anatomical analysis? — Constance

What is your argument COnstance?? What are you trying to say? I defined what a knowledge claim is
thus describing our limits in what we can accept as a knowledge claim.
How is this an evasion, how is this me not understanding the question.
The problem is with the question.
The problem is that you deny the standards by which we can verify a knowledge claim
the problem is that you reject empirical methods(which is ok) but you are unable to suggest an alternative method that can also provide objective evaluations.!
NOT all sentences with a questionmark at the end qualify as good questions or they can be answered?
Just because you can form a question that doesn't takes any value of our current standards or epistemic acknowledgments.
Your presuppositions will need to meet the same standards of logic in order to be accepted as reasonable.

You are questioning the ontology of reality and the picture we have without any fact to argue against or even indication for our picture being constantly wrong!
That is an irrational practice.

Quite the opposite. What is magical are unexamined assumptions. You are fond of the world magical. This is a sure sign of a dogmatic personality. — Constance

-No, Magic is a sign of a claim that attempts to describe a phenomenon based on an assumption without including the describing a of mechanism that obeys known rules of reality.
Its an intrinsic issue of a claim (magical) not an observer depended one.

. There is therapy for this; it is called reading outside what dictates your thoughts. It is not magic your fear. It is the unknown, the disconnect from the ready grasp, the letting go of certainty and familiarity, this frightens you. Understandable. It is disquieting to learn that the world is, at the basic level, alien to your ability to know. — Constance

_I am pointing out the weaknesses in your assumptions.
1. the logical fallacy of assuming a wrong picture of reality without being able to demonstrate it
2. Assuming transcendent causality without being able to demonstrate it
3. Arguing from false authority and chronicling instead of providing evidence on why this type of "philosophy" should be trusted.
4. Now you are using ad hominem arguments because you are unable to accept that something is wrong with your reasoning...but it is easy to accept that something is wrong with my personality!

The proof is in the pudding. You will need to based your assumptions on evidence.
Can you really do that? Philosophy without epistemic foundations is theology.

You're right to bow out of this conversation with your tail between your legs — Xtrix — Agent Smith

lol....the above comment is from the mind who gave us the statement "Natura derives from the Greek Physis"....lol
Anyone can make an ad hominem...but he is evaluated by his valid arguments.

An act is moral when it promotes the well being of the society and its individual members.
Here are two statements that might help us leave those two arguments behind.

The act of keeping kids from satisfying their opioid rewarding mechanisms in their brains doesn't qualify as an act against their Well Being.

The act of isolating people (prisoners) who acted against the well being of their society is moral. Whether our methods of correcting are moral or not is irrelevant(an additional discussion). After all their well being is not linked to the well being of the society any more.

There are probably many scenarios where wellbeing is not all that helpful and I think Issac's question of 'whose wellbeing' is a good one. When there is competing wellbeing, whose are we chiefly concerned with? — Tom Storm

This is why Secular Morality stresses the need that our moral laws SHOULD serve the wellbeing of all members and the society as a whole.
i.e. kids might like sweets, but we know we need to limit their pleasure because it has implications to other members of a society.(health expenses, changes in brain chemistry). Do you know that the consumption of junk food(sweets) has been used as an argument in the court for the defense of a crime? (Stanford Molecular biology- Robert Sapolsky).
So we need to understand since morality refers to the impact human behavior has on others our judgments on well being SHOULD never be limited to one individual's seek for pleasure.

I suspect they probably are, but you'll find an increase in stress hormones in a child denied sweets, you'll find a decrease in oxytocin in a prisoner. You dismissed both as measures of well-being.
-Yes you will but this is why we use more than one metric .
i.e. the biology of a kid reacting to sugar intake shows similarities with other addictive substances.
So we need to "train" the behavior for ITS WELL BEING...not to just seek pleasure.
As I explained a prisoner is removed from a society because his actions affect the well being of its members. A prisoner is NO longer(for now or for ever)
— Isaac

I do indeed know what homeostasis is, I'm not sure what it has to do with our valuing well-being. — Isaac

Homeostasis drives our chemicals responsible for our emotions and feelings. Feeling are how we are informed that we i.e. have low blood sugar, thirsty, suppressed, happy etc etc thus affecting our biological chemistry even more. its a top -down- top causation recorded by our chemistry and it can be used to objectively diagnose whether an organism experiences situation that promote his/her well being.

No, I doubt that. — Isaac

-We agree on that.

At the time we can, yes. How do you propose we measure the effects of our actions after a decade via observing our chemisty and brain function. — Isaac

-Why should we do that? We already know from our biology what we "should value". What we need to do is construct a society that servers those values (our well being).

-"And there's the problem. Human language lacks the preciseness of mathematics. "
-correct and Mathematics needs philosophy for its symbols and conclusions to be interpreted.
We don't disagree on the differences pros and cons of philosophy and math. I only pointed out that Mathematics are not science, but a tool of reasoning.

-"Philosophy of mathematics. Foundations of mathematics? Perhaps the formations of logical principles by observations of natural phenomena."
-Again your statement is irrelevant to what I wrote.
I said."You can not do philosophy without having basic empirical observations to start with . First we interact empirically with your environment, we form our philosophical questions and hypotheses and we look back at nature for additional information that could provide answers and validate some of our hypothesis."
We need to observe analogies and relation in order to form philosophical or mathematical frameworks.

-"
My interpretation: Philosophical explorations in science are speculations in science. "
-No. Philosophical exploration in science is known as Scientific hypotheses. Those hypotheses need to be testable in order to be scientific.

-"When they are not done by those well-versed in a science they rarely have any intellectual depth.""
-correct.

-"Thus we differ. "
-where and why?

Scientifically we can hook individuals in brain scans and analyze their bloods and diagnose frustration or happiness or anxiety or being in love just by studying basic metrics that give away their current state and by knowing the goals set by our homeostasis, our drives and urges.
This is a Scientific topic, not a purely philosophical one.

Then how do you expect to arrive to WISE conclusions about a biological by product?????
This is what I am talking about in all the threads of this forum.
People want to participate in these discussions without bringing any facts in these conversations but they demand others to respect their opinions.
This is not an accusation for you since you have been one of the most rational individuals I have interacted in here.
The problem is much bigger since most people hold strong beliefs on ideas that are unfounded in zero epistemology.

i

Those are not metrics. I'm asking you how you measure whether someone (or society's) well-being has been harmed. That measurement is required for the objectivity of your proposed scheme. — Isaac

So Stress hormones or the presence of endorphins to deal with pain or the lack of metabolic molecules due to undernourishment or the absence of oxytocin during social interactions(lack of trust) etc etc are not objective metrics of well being??????
What do you even think well being is? How and why we value well being. Do you even know what Homeostasis is?
Do you really think that well being is a ''bubble" in our world without any connections to our biological nature? Actions affect our biology either physically or mentally and we can objectively measure the impact by observing our chemisty and brain function.
By identifying the evolved drives and urges we can easily learn what is valuable for an organism to survive and flourish.

In relation to morality I don't really care for science or biology based arguments. — Tom Storm

I am not sure you have the luxury to dismiss Knowledge from a philosophical inquire and biology from your efforts to understand a biological by product!
Both practices are the main ingredients for a pseudo philosophical soufflé

ok....

Questioning relegated to the causal relations in nature is natural philosophy. Its ontological foundations are just that: natural. “Natura” derives from the Greek: phusis — Xtrix

:lol: :joke:

There are no “facts” involved. So this statement is just stupid. — Xtrix

-I agree....."“Natura” derives from the Greek: phusis" is a factually wrong and stupid statement!
:razz:

Look - you have no idea — Xtrix

-Yes I know you don't have a clue. lol

I doubt if one person on this forum takes you seriously. A normal person would look at this feedback and perhaps reflect…but self-deluded liars like you apparently can’t. — Xtrix

- This is your expert opinion as a translator? lol

I think you have summarised nicely the shortfalls in the wellbeing argument. I have generally taken the view that for secular morality, wellbeing can work as a tentative foundation - subject to ongoing clarifications and refinements - which for me is an improvement on debating the putative will of gods which humans can't agree on. It's definitely flawed or incomplete, but I'm not aware of anything better for now. — Tom Storm

-The shortalls he summarised have being debunked. MAybe you can point out which ones in your opinion still fly.

I don't disagree that the framework is "under construction" with huge holes but the excuses I hear for not accepting well being as the auxiliary principle of the system are disconnected from reality.
i.e. Well being doesn't have a destructive side, while uncontrolled pleasure can easily lead to destruction.(diminished well being).

-"In what storyline do you think I'm someone who doesn't know that? I presume none (you may imagine a young child has joined, but a simple check of my vocabulary should eliminate that possibility). So simply telling me stuff I clearly already know doesn't constitute an argument.'
-So why do you use them as an argument against well being when by putting limits in their pleasures we expand their well being and ours.

How do you measure well-being? — Isaac

There are specific metrics like
1.our biological drives to survive( belong to a group,), to flourish(ensure safety) and to procreate.
1.our biological urges Address our biological need, Seek non destructive pleasure and avoid pain/suffering
3.Behavior fueled by our mirror neurons that enable sympathy and empathy
those are some of the most essential.

You keep dismissing things (pleasure, desires...) but you've not replaced those with anything. If well-being is your key metric it needs a clear definition, no? — Isaac

-I don't dismiss them. The problem with them is that they can be destructive and they need to be managed. Many rules of our society help us keep them under control while you can not see that. Its the sweet spot that allows us to avoid destruction and maximize our well being through our pleasures.

Yes, it does. Natura is the Latin translation of phusis. — Xtrix

:lol:
first of all its one thing to feel the need to point out how the word is translated in Greek and a different to say it derives from the Greek word.
I quote...lol

Questioning relegated to the causal relations in nature is natural philosophy. Its ontological foundations are just that: natural. “Natura” derives from the Greek: phusis — Xtrix

First we interact empirically with your environment — Nickolasgaspar
No. First we are. — Xtrix

We are not arguing the about our existence...lol.
You claimed that:

Before we take a look at nature — which is one aspect of being — we are doing philosophy. Science is derived from ontology. — Nickolasgaspar

That is a factually wrong statement. We first start as "stupid" babies, kids and youngsters and by accumulating facts about the world thus feeding our philosophical narrative. Put your ducks straight mate.
First is our existence then our empirical interactions then our ability to compose meanings. You need material to work upon in order to produce a narrative.

Yes, you can. — Xtrix

Well you can but then you can only be able to produce pseudo philosophy.

The issue is as I've described it, one of underdetermination. — Isaac

-And I've already explained why that is irrelevant to a system based on a core principle that enables objective evaluations on any given evidence.

Sugar intake is not fatal, so excess does not limit 'being'. — Isaac

Obviously moderate sugar intake is not a problem but since we are in a middle of an obesity epidemic (for decades) any intake adds to the problem. In addition to that the mechanism of sugar in the brain resembles that of opioids.
Societies have all kind of rules that t put limits on human behavior, especial to those who don't have the brain to deal with more mature decisions (kids) and those who can become a victim of addiction.


Do you really equate rules that train people to avoid easy ways to reward their brains with morality and well being????
So according to your opinion, because guys who live in the city center enjoy speeding we shouldn't remove all the rules that govern those streets?
Seeking pleasure in life can have negative effects on our well being.

I'm not in need of an explanation for criminal punishment, I'm pointing out that it harms the well-being of some in the short-term to benefit the well-being of many in the long term. — Isaac

Sure but that doesn't have an impact on well being as a principle for morality within a society. Criminals owe to society or a society needs to keep them away. Depending on the individual, either we can either train him to respect the well being of others or if that is impossible we need to keep him away for good. In both cases his actions turned society against him and his well being is located outside of his society.

Well, no. Again, that's what underdetermination describes (did you read the link?). The 'evaluations' will always support more than one course of action in any moral dilemma (in your system) because the data on well-being will always underdetermine the theory (what course of action is most 'moral'). — Isaac

-Again no, underdetermination addresses evidence ,not moral evaluations based on an objective principles. There is a reason why our morality has being evolving for thousands of years....because we constantly have being dealing with new evidence (and old minds). The issue is more with outdated minds and biases than completely new evidence. I.e. there aren't any evidence that could render the act of owning other people as property moral. We are done with that.

Do I think that it is a recipe with a guaranteed 100% success and no room for improvement!? OF course not but the good news is that we have an objective foundation to work with even if new evidence might delay our decisions. Underdetermination is not an unmovable obstacle in interpreting evidence and you shouldn't present it as such.

To the first question, yes. We can agree, but that's just because you and I already think that way. — Isaac

What do you mean "just because you and we already think that way. Do you think that you would like as a kid(would increase your well being) to live in a society where raping you was thought to be a moral act? Our thoughts are IRRELEVANT. ITs our biology and reality that decide what is moral and what is not( I explained that to Tom). Does it mean that there are ideas that affect our thoughts and moral judgments? Sure but that is the whole reason why I advocate an objective System.
A society that justifies kid rapping doesn't act in favor of its member's well being. Violated individuals will have to deal with psychopathy in the future....and you know what that means for that society.

-"Others disagree and we cannot persuade them objectively, by using your 'metrics'."
-no no no, others might disagree but that doesn't make our evaluation subjective
Don't present it as if it does. Those individuals do not use objective criteria and principles.

We might say "keeping slaves harms the well-being of the slaves and so is immoral". Someone else might say "keeping slaves does cause that harm, but it is outweighed by the greater benefit to society's well-being brought about by the increased economic growth, so the slaves ought to put up with their bonds for the greater good". — Isaac

-Do you think it subjective moral evaluation if your society allows you one day to become a slave?

You see most of you make a huge error in your moral evaluations. You talk about the act as if your are not part of the scenario.
You need to place yourself in the middle of this scenario and you should evaluate how an act feels when it affects YOUR well being.
I think this is the most important point I can stress in our conversation.

If, on the other hand, you say that no-one's well-being should be harmed at all for the greater good, — Isaac

-This notion of "greater good" is your artifact. I don't use it since, as I said before it sound like a political excuse used to undermine the well being of the society and all its members.
The metric is Well being.

All moral dilemmas involve some sacrifice in well-being either at the individual level, or the short-term. — Isaac

Are you including the suppressed sexual appetite of a child molester? You do understand that our well being must not to suppress other people's well being. You need to realize that from the moment a an individual affects the well being of others and their society, there is no DILEMMAS no matter how suppressed they feel.
This is why I constantly mention all the members and their society as a whole.

unfortunately I have to agree with you on that...lol =p
The fact is that majority of humans are not responsible for this think called human history.

first of all reasoning and arriving to wise claims is not a job. Its a property that is essential for all societies since it affects politics public opinion etc.

-" The history of the world is but the biography of great men (sic)."
What does that say for those great men, when our history is a mesh?

wow I am getting old. I just remember reading a really think book "the moral landscape" by Sam Harris many years ago!

Can morality be absolute? — PhilosophyRunner
-The correct answer for the initial question is No since moral declarations ignore different situation and cases.

-"Sure, in two ways: internally and externally... — bongo fury

"
-that claim carries no epistemic value without defining the aspect the spatial designations you use.

If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind. — Hanover

But rape is something that moral language has made an obvious example of "not good". So no, the language doesn't have to allow disagreement on the issue — bongo fury

-The correct question should be "is sex immoral" and the answer is "it depends"....proving once again that moral evaluations of specific acts can not be absolute. Now if one asks Is sex without consent immoral (rape) then the answer is yes for that specific situation.

To be honest I am not familiar with Sam Harri's philosophy on morality or better I have listened to a talk of his many years ago but I don't recall his opinions.
And yes...that should be a "what"...lol

Here is a set of questions for you.

Do you care about your well being, are you ok with acts by others that affect it?
Do you know many people that do not care about their well being, are they ok with acts that reduce it?
How can you call acts that endanger your well being ?

Those evaluations are clearly predictions. "the effect on well-being of X will be", not "the effect on well-being of X was" — Isaac

even it they are "predictions"what is the issue? The accepted principles and our extended list of examples remove the risk.

Well-being definitely drops just after being denied sweets, raises again on enjoying a healthy weight and full set of teeth in later life. — Isaac

Again Pleasure is not a metric for well being on its own. As I pointed out to you forbidding small children to swim alone in deep water, or playing with matches or doing drugs might limit their pleasure but NOT their well being....since well being except of being "well" also has the condition of "being" (being/staying alive).
So limiting the sugar intake of children only affects instant pleasure, not their well being.

A more extreme example is in every form of criminal punishment - the well-being of the person concerned drops during the punishment, but supposedly rises again as they enjoy being a member of a society in which their particular crime is thereby discouraged — Isaac

A criminal is consider an enemy of society and this is why he is isolated from it. They are people who undermined the well being of others and society's as a whole.

There are correction systems in Northern Europe where the well being of convicts is taken in to account . The main priority of their system is for the individual to be able to returning back to his society without suffering. So the correction period is much different from conventional solutions that aim to make those people value well being by depriving it from them.

No. That's not what underderemination describes. — Isaac

Again you are confusing a steady principle with fluctuating facts of different cases. The objective principle will allow objective evaluations independent of how different random cases are.

That's what I'm saying. All such acts do in one timescale and do not in others. It cannot be determined. they all cause harm in the short term to individuals with the intention of reducing harm in the long term to society, but since the term is not fixed it cannot ever be demonstrated that they do, in fact, achieve this end. — Isaac

-I will try, once again to bring some facts in this conversation of abstracts by listing two acts that are objectively immoral.
1. a society that allows kid raping
2. a society that allows owning other people as property
Can we agree that ending up as a slave or being rapped during our childhood years are both immoral under any context?
Can we agree that a society allowing such acts will reduce the well being of its members.
Can you identify any other metric that would be affected and that could be used as a principle in our evaluations on what is moral or immoral?

It's not about the metrics, it's about what we do with the uncertainty over their application. even if I were determined to cause no harm, such determination would not be sufficient as I would not have any way of knowing which behaviours avoided harm over any given timescale. — Isaac

-I feel like we are talking about two different things and the problem is that none of the interlocutors in this thread is willing to test the principle by checking whether well being is a common denominator in all our moral judgements.!

But there are still issues to iron out - hypothetically :- — Tom Storm

-I agree with that statement...this is why we are discussing it.

-"Why make the choice to privilege wellbeing? Let's look again at your examples.
killing a terrorist before blowing up a school. — Nickolasgaspar
What if we don't give a shit about the school or its children? What if we agree with the terrorist's aims?"
- Well for many "biological" reasons. For a start its the main reason why species evolve to be social. Being and well being is promoted through social organizations.
Our 3 basic biological drives in our biology are to survive, thrive and procreate.
Our urges to seek pleasure and avoid pain have powerful mechanisms in our brain.
Our mirror neurons, a mechanisms that reproduces the emotions experienced by other people's while we observing them, enable empathy and sympathy for anyone.
All these facts explain why we give a damn about our kids in that school and why we wouldn't want our society to allow our school to be blown up when we were kids.

There's a choice made here to care about strangers who don't really matter to us. They are not our children, right? — Tom Storm

-Sure, we talk about total strangers in our society. Would it be at our interested if we lived in a society that allows people to blow up public buildings? Is this a society that would qualify as ideal?

Are you sure that your concern for wellbeing isn't just a form of sentimentalism based on a fading Christian ethic and its concern for underdogs and losers?
Why not just take care of ourselves and our own circle and not care about other's wellbeing? — Tom Storm

-No, morality is not that altruistic. ITs more about us not being pleased living in societies where our existence and well being can be affected by others at any time.
We value our existence and our well being and by allowing others not to value them that is a treat for everyone alive.

because we are talking about a "job" called reason and wisdom.?

I'm not talking about finding out in future, I'm talking about a disagreement in predictions. If your metric is the harm to well-being an action might cause then you're always predicting the future since you're always talking about consequences. You say "hitting that person is bad because it will cause then harm, not "hitting that person is bad because it has caused them harm". — Isaac

A moral system do not offer predictions. It offers evaluations based on contemporary knowledge on the implications specific acts have on well being.

I'm pointing out that one could then say "yes, but it will cause them an even greater well-being further on" — Isaac

-You will need to provide an example on that where the well being of people changes dramatically during time.

What I'm describing, in a roundabout way, is really just an example of the general problem of underdetermination applied to your 'moral science' - the same body of evidence can used to support multiple theories — Isaac

-The principle is the tool by which we choose our "theory". The principle stays unchanged.

You're already describing the behaviour in question as immoral and we're talking about determining whether a behaviour is immoral or not. If what you mean to say is "no harmful behaviour against a specific population or members of a society can be justified as moral just because other larger populations (in future or contemporary) are benefited by it — Isaac

We are drifting away from the point in question. Take any act you accept as objectively moral or immoral and check whether it shares the same characteristic with any other act that you can thing (promotes or reduces the well being of members). IF that is the case then we have a metric that we can use as a principles in order to judge different acts under different situations. Surely we can identify a list of acts that we both found moral.
Can you imagine other metrics that are affected by moral or immoral acts and can be used as an objective principle for new evaluations?
I am not saying that my metric is absolutely true. I am on a quest to find out whether we can agree on that objective standard.

so an interesting philosophical question would be why they don't do it?

those qualities do not demand special skills...anyone can do it.

I see your icon only lists physics as a part of philosophy. Are you saying all the other branches of science are spin-offs? Or is this icon from the distant past? — jgill

-Those are steps of the Philosophical method, and all major branches of Philosophy are included!
Aristotle presupposed Logic as a tool necessary to do philosophy this is why it isn't in his list.
But its should have been since Logic is shaped by our epistemology too.

-"What is "Total Apochavnosis"? "
-its a diagnosis relevant to how Philosophy is done!

take any act that you could accept as moral.
From helping small kids cross the street to killing a terrorist before blowing up a school.
You will find out that all actions share one thing in common. They promote the well being of those who are benefited and those who perform the action.
So by investigating as many cases as we can think, can we might agree that "well being" for the members of a society is the common denominator in every case.
If not and we do find a moral act that reduces the well being of members but it is objectively moral can we agree that it is an exception to the rule.
Do we also agree that we will need at least more than one act t (objectively wrong but against our well being) for this principle to be rejected?

So if we agree on the principle....are we reasonable to thing that if we choose the act that increases our well being ..can we be sure we have a Moral system that can produce objective moral values?
If not why?

Thinking is an activity that human beings do. — Xtrix

-so this statement raises on important question....what went wrong with you?lol

Philosophy is universal phenomenological ontology. — Xtrix

It might be. I can recall people struggling with such concepts. The important question is...are such ontological speculations meaningful. Can we arrive to meaningful and wise conclusions?

Questioning relegated to the causal relations in nature is natural philosophy. Its ontological foundations are just that: natural. “Natura” derives from the Greek: phusis — Xtrix

-let me get this straight now.... the term Nature derives from the Greek physis(φυση)lol????
What exactly the term nature obtains from the term physis? They don't even share letters or etymologies.(nat-born, natura birth/ physis sprout).
This comment take us to my initial question what went wrong....

Before we take a look at nature — which is one aspect of being — we are doing philosophy. Science is derived from ontology. — Xtrix

-Dude stop saying unfounded deepities. You can not do philosophy without having basic empirical observations to start with . First we interact empirically with your environment, we form our philosophical questions and hypotheses and we look back at nature for additional information that could provide answers and validate some of our hypothesis.

You can NOT have science without philosophy and philosophy without science.
Science is the best tool we have to verify ontological descriptions of the observable reality.

The Philosophy you are referring to as" universal phenomenological ontology" is filled mostly with pseudo philosophical assumptions about unfalsifiable ontological speculations.
Most of the ideas will never be confirmed or dismissed but people will form their comforting worldviews mainly because most of them imply some type of immortality a.k.a. Magical Thinking.

So even tools can be metaphysical. — jgill

No tools thus mathetmatics aren't metaphysical. Metaphysical views on ideas produced by mathematics (like abstract mathematical objects) ....are metaphysics.
Its in the text you quote!

↪Banno
You are posting an abstract that is irrelevant to a specific method I am describing. Whether we ought to follow the outcome of the system in question IS IRRELEVANT.
I am trying to evaluate the system itself...and you avoid this challenge.
My system doesn't use "what is" to arrive to what "ought to be". IT identifies a common characteristic shared by KNOWN acts with positive moral value and uses it as an objective standard in our future evaluation. The system arrives to the "oughts" through the principles without taking in to account "what is the case".
Why this is so difficult for you??? — Nickolasgaspar

So are you willing to support your objections with objective facts?