LOL extremely enjoy this written southern patois.

Yes, fair. I agree - probably why it hasn't been done. I think if one were to adapt, and remove that word, one is not fit to adapt it.

I agree with those points. It seems a risible misunderstanding of reality to prefer Gaza to Israel.

Curious due to several exchanges i've seen/had in the last few hours:

Is anyone here prepared to claim Elon Musk made a Nazi salute?

Why not?

You could add to this that fully half the country disagrees with much of the conceptual basis for those policies. Like, regardless of the pro/con table, it's morally wrong to do X.

I think that is going to be an issue for social liberalism across time. Optimism is usually not the worst thing int he world though

Trust in the processes which glean the information that I can piece together to understand the curvature, shape and orientation of the Earth in relation to my position on it.

The propensity evidence of the rest of the Solar System being spheroid (generally) is also helpful. I believe it because it would be pointless and time consuming to question generations of astronomy based on the fact that I don't personally know astronomy maths.

Numbers are markers of their predecessors.

2 means "1+1". 4 means any of "1+1+2". "1+1+1+1" etc... So not sure cause is the right word.

Thoughts are not facts, and neither are minds. I say that in the same sense that a table is not a fact. An apple is not a fact either. — Arcane Sandwich

It might be worth pointing out that these things are "states of affairs" which I think can be distinguished from 'fact's. That said, they are suspiciously close in concept. But "the table" is a state of affairs (with regard to its atoms, i guess) and "that there is a table in X position" is the fact about hte table as you point out. But hte table itself is a "something" in existence. A "State of affairs" seems apt.

Ah piss... And I used to read French (literally 25 years ago). Perhaps I can find a translation somewhere.. Thank you for the tip!

While the subjective methods of disciplining children may vary, .... and is a form of discipline to ensure greater harmony in a society. — Philosophim

I may not be getting what you want me to get from this paragraph. I say that, as I can't quite understand what that is. I read this as a description of why morality differs across cultures/religions. That seems to support, at least prima facie, that there's no underlying moral question to be asked. I mean, we could just drill in on the word 'success' as used here and be at a loss...

Generally the objective nature of a subjective thing is divorced from the emotions and experiences we attach to the subjective experience of it. — Philosophim

With you so far.. I agree with this, as a description of what objective could mean here.

I believe morality is a natural consequence of it being reasonable that existence should be instead of not. Y — Philosophim

Forgive if this is being a little.. uncharitable.. but this boils down to a belief? I'm unsure you can continue down an 'objective' path in this case, but that's preliminary thought.. Onward..

You're probably looking for some other force or intention that makes morality. — Philosophim

I'm looking for something that ties your belief to something objective (i.e what do you see which leads to this belief). I cannot see it I suppose. It seems to be reiterations of your belief/s in relation to morality.

If existence (as a whole) is to be, it should be — Philosophim

Huh? This doesn't seem reasonable to me. It seems helpful.

It is an illogical premise to say "It should not be," as something needs to exist to have the rule that it should not be without contradiction. — Philosophim

It shouldn't "either". It just is, as the wavelength just is. There's no moral question to be tried, upon existence. I would add to this (as, imo a fairly knock-down type of point, to be sure) that if humans did not exist, there wouldn't even be the concept of morality so it stands to reason (in my mind) that existence itself carries no morality. It couldn't. It's chance, for lack of a better term. It doesn't act. This is why I can't get away from the odour of divine intervention in your points..

People want to talk about morality in terms of the subjective human experience — Philosophim

That is the only context in which morality obtains. So, I not only could I not blame, I couldn't argue with them. It is the only known place moral thinking exists. Not getting past this isn't a flaw, it's a correct reading of that position (whether you agree with the position or not!).

Likewise. :) — Philosophim

Yaaay! :)

fwiw, I think these types really mean something a lot more nuanced that amounts to "the election was unfairly influenced by XYZ..." which I think is fair, and probably true of many elections. Thems the breaks bucko.

Thank you :)
FIrst response is out of order, for good reason:

Yes, I noted these are reasons to pursue an objective morality, I was not giving you evidence for it. — Philosophim

Ok, right, I fully misinterpreted what you were saying in this case, so please sit with this part of my response first. Yes, I think there's a very good reason to pursue it. My outlook as a philosopher is that "I am sure there must be an objective morality, because of the bullets I have to bite" but in reality, I have no reason to think there is one.

doesn't mean the wavelength doesn't exist. — Philosophim

I think you've captured my point while rejecting it - viz. yes, but that isn't redness/red - it's a wavelength. Otherwise, I agree with what you're getting at.

As I've noted, subjective experiences have been consistently discovered to have an underlying objective explanation. What used to once be insanity is now understood as schizophrenia and can be treated with proper medication — Philosophim

This doesn't, as far as I can tell, provide any reason to think morality is objective. Could you perhaps tie the point you're making (that there are objectives in the universe) to morality? I guess, hang about as further comments below will be relevant..

Further, there are certain common moral precepts that tend to align across cultures — Philosophim

That is true. Hmm. I guess I think some of these are demonstrably destructive (eye for an eye is, at least socially, almost ubiquitous). Some are demonstrably the result of outside influence (judeo-christian Morality). But there are also plenty of shared cultural beliefs/feelings/behaviours which aren't even in the question. An example would be the discipline of children. This is wiiiiiildly variable. What would be the difference between those issues and ones you're purporting to invoke here?

The fact we have a common understanding of the term 'morality' and its not a completely foreign concept across different cultures. — Philosophim

Hmm. Some are completely foreign, as between cultures. I think this is quite intensely overstating the overlap between various moral thought. Some of which is codified and hasn't 'developed' in any real sense. But, I take it the point is that your view is that these are actually extremely closely aligned, and so somehow speaks to an objective moral. I can grok it, but I can't see how it speaks to an objective moral... What's the connection between multiple cultures holding a view, and it being an objective moral? What would actually be the source of it?

No, that wasn't what I was attempting to respond to in your first query, just explaining why I think we need to look for an objective morality. My apologies if I wasn't too clear on that. — Philosophim

Its possibly, but equally I probably misread your intentionality. No worries - a good exchange imo :)

Fwiw, Yes, the OP is fun. Doesn't bear repeating for me.

It's possible I'm misinterpreting or taking too seriously what you're saying but I don't think I have any views here.

Some people think T is an existential threat. Some think he isn't.
SOme think Biden was a threat (though, not many have said existential in the way they have for T).

I don't care. What will happen will happen, and there's literally fuck all anything I do could possibly change about it. I enjoy my life and choose not to fall into the kind of paddling pool arguments being had here.

Definitely a good move!

Suffice to say I don't agree with much of that :) Glad we're at least in the same areas of taste though

Ignoring that it didn't come close.... that's a fucking insane move on day one.

Not sure I understand this question enough to even come back with a quip..

Maybe. But playful Gods. Not angry ones.

Power Metal is the most technical subgenre in Heavy Metal. — Arcane Sandwich

I think the correct genre is 'Animals as Leaders' hehehe.

Not sure what the rant about Dragonforce is for haha. I said they were awful.

I think Dream Theater are the absolute epitome of tasteless wankery. And I still enjoy a handful of their tracks. So there you go lol.

I've now been briefly entertained for several exchanges, while bored at work, in the lounge, in a thread full of absolutely wild comments. Don't think its peculiar at all :P

Finally :sweat:

Responded to like a true thread-enjoyer :P

What I’ve observed is that people are largely the same - the fears, behaviors, and relationships don’t vary much, regardless of belief systems. However, some individuals are rare; they seem to possess an authenticity and integrity that transcend labels. These are the people I find interesting. Anyone can claim to be a theist or an atheist, but I don’t think labels mean all that much. — Tom Storm

:ok: :ok:

God I love checking in with the kids table.

Oh, come now. You know that isn't true. Portnoy is an incredible drummer though, no doubt. But Carington is just... there's a reason he's the choice for all the old heads who need a Pat Masteloto/Ian Paice/John Bonham replacement :P

That's not the argument though - it was an additional reason I am a Tool enjoyer LOL. Nothing Portnoy has ever done sounds as good to me as any number of Carrington performances. That's another discussion, though, I'm sure (but i'm up for it lololol). According to Portnoy, Dance fo Eternity is his most technical piece and was written to be expressly that - it's not as technical as several Tool tracks.

Dragonforce really is awful. But their drummer isn't top tier either.

h man, I hate that stuff. I hate French pop. It's an abomination. Like, it's just too much. You have to draw the line somewhere, even if it's Mike Patton that we're talking about here. — Arcane Sandwich

The album is called Corpse Flower if that helps :P

I just stop listening to Tool, because if double meanings and Fibonacci sequences are all that I can get out of it, then, it's like, it's a mediocre band, objectively speaking. And if Maynard disagrees, then, well, go take a fucking anchor up your ass, know what I'm saying? You band sucks, Primus already did what you guys are trying to do. — Arcane Sandwich

Fair enough - I cannot recognize anything in here. Those two bands are very, very different for example. THey do very different things, and ahve had wildly divergent lives.

What I get out of Tool is the music. I listen to Tool like any other band (though, they aren't my favourite by a long shot). I enjoy their music at a very, very high level (and as a drummer, I am bound to continually exalt Daniel Carrington).

This oen is easy, and despite the obvious reality that history has not been kind to women who want to think, there are other considerations at play - mainly already mentioned:

Women tend to not want to wade into conflict, as a recreational choice. Women tend to want to be collaborative. Women tend to not want the confrontations and detail-oriented displays of prowess that come with philosophical (put well earlier) blowing-hard. I don't attach such disparagement to that as others might - I just think its patently obvious men and women differ on average, and that capability has little to do with it, but interest does and there's no harm or foul there.

Same difference, I would say.
Source: I'm a philosopher, Trust Me Bro. — Arcane Sandwich

LMAO - fair enough.

no Mr. Bungle? What would Mike Patton say? : D — Arcane Sandwich

I guess I don't really see Bungle as metal beyond the Easter Bunny EP(both versions). Try not to shoot me :P

Ironically, my current favourite project of his is French pop music (though, his vocals and lyrics are on-brand lol).

The Tool fandom is toxic, and the mentality of the Tool fandom is a virgin mentality. — Arcane Sandwich

Eh. I disagree. There's a coterie of mentally ill people in most fandoms. I think it's insular, and that gives an air of superiority but most Tool fans i've encountered aren't exemplary of these stereotypes... Then again, Maynard hates his fans so maybe you're right lol.

Shad K - Brother


Lyrics:
I try to hold some hope in my heart
For these African youths
Coming up where I'm from
Many traps to elude
Surrounded by
Mostly white and affluent dudes
And somehow, you expected to have
Mastered this smooth
Swagger and move
With the right walk, the right talk
Fashion and crews
Souls subtly attacked and abused
And what's funny's being black wasn't cool
Where I'm from til suddenly
You started hearing rap in the school
Hallways
Admist this madness I grew
With knack for amusing through this little skill
For rappin at dudes
An' we all like to laugh at the truth
But when you young and same facts
Pertain to who you rappin em to
Well, I opted not to bring
That to the booth
But after a while, it sort of starts naggin at you
The crazed infatuation with blackness
That trash that gets viewed
And the fact that the tube only showed blacks
Actin the fool and I was watching...
(saturated with negative images and a limited range of
Possibilities is strange...)
And it's sad cause that naturally do
Sort of condition your mind and over time
That's what's attractive to you
So young blacks don't see themselves in
Scholastic pursuits
Or the more practical routes
It's makin tracks or it's hoops
Or God-forbid movin packs for the loot
Even with this music we so limited - it's rap or produce
And that narrow conception of what's black isn't true
Of course, still we feel forced to adapt to this view
Like there's something that you're havin to prove
Now add that to the slew
Of justification the capitalists use
For the new blaxploitation
Many actions excused
In the name of getting cash
That's adversely impactin our youth
With mental slavery, the shackles is loose
And it's hard to cut chains when they attached at the roots
So what the new black activists do
For our freedom is just being them
Do what you're passionate to
Not confined by a sense that you have to disprove
Any stereotypes, so-called facts to refute
Or match any image of blackness
They've established as true
Perhaps we'll break thru the glass ceilings
Shatter the roof and emerge
From these boxes that they have us in cooped
And grow to smash the mold that they casted of you
I'll keep watching...

No, AI is not sentient.
To me, this comes down to a similar point Banno made in teh abortion thread a couple months back.

If you cannot recognize the difference between what a human mind, and an AI model is doing - I'm not sure this convo is the right place to start. AI is an S&R model taken to it's extreme. That's all it could be, from what I understand. Even it's internal 'learning' is not creative, but S&R. There are no inherent impulses for an AI.

If two people had differing subjective experiences of red, whether they liked it, whether they didn't, we wouldn't say that means that red itself has no objective basis. The confusion MoK has is he thinks that a debate over liking or not liking things means there's no underlying objective notion of morality that transcends simply like and dislike. — Philosophim

Perhaps i'm not hte best one to take this up, given my anti-realist stance to color, but I don't think this is really doing a lot.
If two people experience the wavelength you're talking about as different things, then the 'object' is not redness, but a wavelength of light. It is wholly subjective, between those two, what 'redness' is (under some constraints, for sure). Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying here..

"In my experience," — Philosophim

That's always fair.

Interestingly, I've never seen anyone seriously put forward either argument you make. The main motivator for the claim seems to be more an atheistic type of thinking. A thought akin to 'No one has ever provided a reasonable account of an objective morality which isn't imposed from without, and so we are free to reject the claim that there is one'. Is that a bit better for you? I mean, doesn't align with your experience, but just as a response to the egoic type of charge..

I truly have not found a good and unbiased rational argument which leads to morality only being a subjective outcome. — Philosophim

I think you are reversing the onus, then. The claim to objective morality must be proved. Not the rejection of the claim, surely? Proving a negative (which this amounts to) can obviously be done, but in this case it would require exhausting all possibility within our Universe before making a conclusion... surely, that's a less rational requirement. I think your position is fine, no issue, but impugning others on the basis that you require proof of a negative doesn't seem all that ...good?

reason to pursue objective morality — Philosophim

This, I can accept. There is always good reason to 'align' or 'unify'.

I have to say, your reasons don't appear to be reasons, but interpretations that would support an emotional attachment to objective morality ;) ;)

First, as I mentioned earlier ignorance is not bliss. It is powerlessness. The handling of ignorance results in superstitions and emotional decisions. Anytime we can replace this with rational thought, we as a species gain power to understand ourselves, the world, and make smart decisions that help us navigate through it better. — Philosophim

What is the reason here? You'd have to already accept ab objective morality for 'ignorance' to even come up here, right? So, I can't see how this supports the point - just the activity of 'sussing out' morality generally. Which I agree with, fully.

Only an objective morality can ensure that AI develops rightly and co-exists peacefully with the rest of life on Earth. — Philosophim

This paragraph sounds like pure fear to me, and not a rational argument in any sense of the word. Its practical argument to avoid what you foresee as a negative consequence of a technology. ANd sure, for programming, ab objective morality is best. This, however, smacks of exactly my issue: There is no rational basis for the claim from within. Here, we, the people, are imposing "a morality" on the AI which we want to constraint. We're playing God. We, the people, don't have this constraint... Unless that's what you want to posit? Not wild - just one i reject on lack of evidence grounds. I understand the concerns around AI - I grew up with T2 lol - but, I don't think fearing a possible outcome of a technology has to do with the metaethics of our universe.

Are you able to outline a positive argument which would evidence an objective morality? I don't think you've done so. The three things I can see you've used to support here are are:

- Patterns of behaviour (this is one is unclear as your first para doesn't so what it says it will, so
I refrain from commenting further);
- An assumption that objective morality exists and gives rise to ignorance (which you reject - fairly, on it's face); and
- A fear of an unconstrained AI.

I can't see an answer to why you think there is an objective morality - but rather why you think it would be good to have one.

Big calls. Best rather than greatest?

1. Tool - Lateralus;
2. Pain of Salvation - Remedy Lane;
3. Faith No More - Angel Dust (if it counts, if not, shift everything up one)
4. Soundgarden - Badmotorfinger (or Louder Than Love if BMF isn't 'metal' enough);
5. Fantomas - The Director's Cut
5b. any of: Master of Puppets, Sad Wings.., Paranoid,

Tool fans are toxic virgins. — Arcane Sandwich

You really wanna go down this type of road on a philosophy forum? Hehehe.

Generally the base definition of good is, "What should be". There is of course a subjective view of what should be, but an objective view is what should be despite our personal biases and desires. The main reason people want to remove objectivity is because they think it gets in the way of what they want. This is just as short sighted as saying that any wavelength of light can be red because we want to. Objectivity is a reasoned ground to find a central understanding that hold between different subjective viewpoints. — Philosophim

Can you explain (and I think what I'm wanting here is a relatively content-less explanation that focusses on justification in reasoning, rather than "because of.." type reasons) why it is you're sure that objectivity is baked-in (or vice verse) to morality and that objections to this must necessarily be predicated on biases or rejections (as opposed to objection, that is)??

For context as to why: I feel the opposite. I feel that the cry for objectivity in morality is an indicator the person crying(not pejorative!) is at a loss as to how to function upon their own concepts of right and wrong. Many possible reasons.. which is invoked wouldn't change my position there. I cannot conceive an objective morality which isn't imposed from without (i.e divine, the simulation Lords etc...)

Nichomachean Ethics.

Anyone got pointers or a particularly interesting reader?

Islamaphobia is obviously made up. Scruton has obviously done nothing wrong here. It's a social media symptom. That's all. Outrage, outrage, outrage.

And Owen Jones is perhaps the second-worst commenter in recent memory, when it comes to British Media (there's another fellow who is worse - can't recall the name right now though). I can't see i've seen a single reasonable comment in this thread that lands on the side of Scruton having said anything wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent) and is wrong.

Nevertheless, yes, time to move on.

I support the social media ban in the sense that I think kids shouldn't be privvy to that horseshit, but think it's an utterly ridiculous thing to try to do

Appreciate it - But i'm a white belt :P I've just gotten lucky (and unlucky - my inability to get graded is a timing issue).

Yeah, i'm not very good hahahaa. That said, I held me own against Kendall Reusing, which is, while a total cheat, a decent feeling against a multiple-world champion.

Alas - he already has. LOL

The best joke about Australia that I heard is that Australia is just British Texas. — Arcane Sandwich

The problem is people tend to think it's not a joke, and that somehow they have a clear, complete view of an entire continent. Australia is nothing like Texas other than the wide open spaces. It's nothing like most places except NZ. Also, Texas is fantastic. LOL.

of being true (or false). — Michael

Would you delineate between this and "existing"? The phrase "there is gold in them hills" might not be open to the truth/false issue but if there are gold deposits in those hills, then those gold deposits exist, as does the state of affairs in the statement.

Let me know what i'm getting wrong here, as I assume I am.

Ethics requires intent. Evolution has intent the way ethics requires. I can't see my way to thinking this could be even a reasonable starting point.

Any cliff notes that can set me right? The thread is muddled and unhelpful in that regard overall.

The differences across cultures and times make it quite obvious that 'the Good' in the terms you're using is just a group agreement to some moral boundaries. This is not particularly predictable as between groups, or across time. Your syllogism (as such) simply isn't giving what you want it to. — AmadeusD

I am unsure what wasn't 'precise' in this? You can statistically predict anything, even if it's arbitrary. I think what you're trying to get into the discussion is that, given certain aims we can predict what people will say is good. For Muslims, there's predictive power, for Christians there's predictive power - but overall its extremely hard to predict what people will think is 'good', partiicularly if you're going to be anymore fine-grained than calling it 'relative'. Which, i'll say, is totally acceptable, but stepping back from any particularly group which has (from any third party's perspective) arbitrary moral rules based on arbitrarily up-held traditions (arguable, just clarifying my point) it is not possible to predict with any accuracy. Groups agreement to moral boundaries aren't ipso facto reasonable. They can be arbitrary.

So, I don't grant hte premise. If it were true, I still reject the conclusion. That was my point with the first reply. My assent to P1 is irrelevant to the failure of the point, imo.

Too bad, that's the definition of good. — Philosophim

Nah my guy. The definitions of good vary between 'that which is desired', 'that which is required' and ; 'that which is morally right'. Circular, unless restrictive. Which is why it's such a problem, and why threads like this exist. Addressed briefly above, this is the exact cause of the vagueness of 'Good'. It is entirely relative.