Are your reactions mental phenomena? — Terrapin Station

"Mental phenomena" are brain states. Brain states are objective aspects of our world. Claims about brain states are objective claims.

Did you understand the distinction I was making in my previous post? Claims about one's own brain states are objective claims.

No. Your personal tastes are dependent on your physical/emotional reaction to consuming anchovies — ChrisH
Which makes it subjective. — Terrapin Station

No. Your reactions are objective facts - they're not dependent on anyone's opinion.

If you've actually consumed anchovies, you don't have an opinion on whether or not you like them - you either do or you don't. — ChrisH
Liking or not liking something is your opinion — Terrapin Station

No. It's an objective fact.


You appear to be confusing two different claims:


1) "I like anchovies." (Objective factual claim)

2) "Anchovies are delicious." (Subjective opinion)

It's true that my personal tastes about anchovies is subjective — Sam26

No. Your personal tastes are dependent on your physical/emotional reaction to consuming anchovies. There's an objective fact of the matter regarding your gustatory tastes.

and it's [personal taste] based on a subjective opinion. — Sam26

No it's not. Your personal tastes are not dependent on anyone's opinion. If you've actually consumed anchovies, you don't have an opinion on whether or not you like them - you either do or you don't.

Seems to me that if you wanted to build an AI which was emotionally stable, morally consistent and receptive to external guidance then a precise simulation of a human brain probably wouldn't be the way to go.

I would have thought that the truth of 'X likes orange juice' was entirely dependent on X's preferences... — unenlightened

No, this doesn't make sense. It's not the case that whether or not X likes orange juice is dependent on whether or not X prefers to like orange juice.

but what does it mean to be 'objectively true or false'? — unenlightened

I've always assumed that 'objectively true' means true regardless of anyone's opinion/preferences.

That's why "X likes orange juice" is an objective claim.

On the other hand "Orange juice is delicious" is subjective - it's dependent on a particular viewpoint.

That''s how I've always understood the distinction.

Me liking orange juice is subjective. — Kamikaze Butter

I don't think so. Whether or not you like orange juice is objectively true or false.

I think you'll find tinman isn't using the term 'free will' in the same way you're using it.

Secondly, is the real reasons that people take on these unnatural practices. These fall into two categories, both emotional and not logical or moral, being basic squeamishness about blood and death, and the other being the anthropomorphisation of animals, particularly that concurrent with the rise of vegetarianism in the 20thC which I have called the Disney Effect.

Moral justifications follow these emotional responses they do not preceded them. — charleton

In the universe I observe, all moral justifications follow emotional responses.

I loathe Trump and his whole class, but really, let's stop being shocked, SHOCKED!!! when he behaves the way everybody who didn't vote for him predicted he would behave. — Bitter Crank

When we stop being shocked, Trump and his followers will have won.

I want to know what's going to happen next.

That's so insincere. — Banno

It reeks of disdain. Chris does not have to hear the words of disabled women. — Banno

You're just reacting to disagreement with personal insults.

I don't know if you missed it but in a response to andrewk I said:

Her voice should be heard.... — ChrisH

Which is clearly at odds with your last comment.

She is an excellent position to speak for the disabled... — andrewk

I think you'll find many disabled people who don't agree with her.

Her voice should be heard but it should not be taken as the voice of all disabled people.

Was it I who was uncharitable? — Banno

All I've done is say that I found the Stella Young article totally unpersuasive.

LikeTiff you seem to take the position that any disagreement with Stella Young is uncharitable.

To which I ask: How you could leap to such an uncharitable interpretation of Stella's writing? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I haven't made any interpretation. I've simply said that I find her arguments unpersuasive (not compelling).

You suggested that no one can speak for another on this issue and I ask you, if not Stella than who? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Your question makes no sense.

You gave that impression (that anyone should not be listened to) — Banno

I've reread everything I posted in this thread and am at a complete loss as to how you could leap to such an uncharitable interpretation.

It isn't about being listened to or not... — ArguingWAristotleTiff

In other words, let us listen to the perspective of someone in Stella's position.... — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'm finding your arguments confusing.

I say again, who has suggested that Stella Young should not be listened to?

Maybe it's not just about not ignoring folk, but actually listening and thinking about what they have to say. — Banno

Who is making the argument that anyone (or any group of people) should not be listened to?

I simply asked you to provide me with one name, of someone more qualified to speak about the perspective of the importance of living life with dignity than Stella and you failed to provide one. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

In my view no one is qualified to speak on behalf of anyone else on this particular subject.

Yes but some people believe that theirlives, regardless of your sense of dignity, are worth living regardless of your standards that you defined. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Who here has argued that those people's beliefs/wishes should ever be ignored?

So, what do you mean by "non sequitur"? — Banno

I mean

Before we can talk about death with dignity

Does not follow from

we need to ensure that all people, regardless of age or disability, can live with dignity.

.

The greatest indignity most of us will ever encounter in our lives is found in those days/months/years approaching our death.

What was your "opposite reaction" to my being compelled by reading the article? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I assume by "compelled" you meant that you found the arguments presented persuasive. I didn't.

Who would know better about living with a disability, what the mind and body go through when someone like you, says something like that, than Stella? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

She is undoubtedly the foremost expert on what it means to live with adversity for Stella Young. This gives her absolutely no authority to speak for others.

I did give consideration to the opinions presented in the article, I just found those opinions utterly unpersuasive.

Stella Young summed up with:

Before we can talk about death with dignity, we need to ensure that all people, regardless of age or disability, can live with dignity.

This is a complete non sequitur.

Compelling article Banno. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Strange. I had completely the opposite reaction to the Stella Young article.

That may be true, but how does this alter morality's truth value? — darthbarracuda

You asked how the two propositions were different and I suggested one possibility.

If what I said were true, then it would seem that moral propositions have a necessarily emotive component not shared by some non-moral propositions. This could be construed as evidence that moral claims have a necessarily subjective component.

How is 5+5=10 different from saying murder is wrong? — darthbarracuda

Emotional commitment?

It seems to me that sincere mathematical propositions have no emotional component whereas moral propositions , if they're sincere, clearly demonstrate an emotional commitment (would you accept as sincere a claim that child torture was wrong made by someone who failed to to show any personal repugnance to child torture?).

I wouldn't say that someone is a compatibilist unless they actually assert that both determinism and free will are the case. — Terrapin Station

Then I'm afraid you've misunderstood compatibilism.

The claim that X is compatible with Y does not entail that Y must be true.

Indeed, I am rejecting determinism.
— Pierre-Normand

Which means that you're not a compatibilist. — Terrapin Station

Pierre-Normand may not be a compatibilist, but this doesn't necessarily follow from the fact that he's not a determinist.

Compatibilism is simply the view that free will is compatible with determinism. It does not entail the view that determinism is true (although some compatibilists may take the position that determinism is necessary for free will).

Strange. The link worked when I made the post but it now appears to be unavailable. ETA: It seems to work now.

Here's an alternative paper which makes a similar argument - DOES DETERMINISM IMPLY ABSOLUTE PREDICTABILITY?

Apparently, prediction from within our universe is not possible. This paper explains why - Determinism and the Paradox of Predictability.

from the paper:

determinism implies external predictability, that is, the possibility for an external observer, not part of the universe, to predict, in principle, all future states of the universe. Yet, on the other hand, embedded predictability as the possibility for an embedded subsystem in the universe to make such predictions, does not obtain in a deterministic universe.