Thus, my metaethics is Ethical Naturalism (i.e. "good" is agency (i.e. capabilities – virtues, habits – for nonzero sum caring for the functional defects of self, others & commons) optimized by praxes of preventing and reducing harms & injustices, respectively); my normative ethics is Negative Hedonic Utilitarianism (i.e. "right" judgments and conduct which prevent or reduce harm); and my applied ethics is Negative Preference Consequentialism (i.e. "right" policies-practices which prevent or reduce injustice). — 180 Proof
:up: I agree.It seems a bit like projecting one's own tastes as matter of fact masked in the form of an intuition. Likewise, if there really are non-natural moral facts (that are something akin to platonic forms), then what faculty do we have to intuiting them? It seems, to me, like we don't. — Bob Ross
:ok:... re-situate the basis of objectivity within intersubjectivity. Not just human intersubjectivity but the intra-agential relations within non-human nature. — Joshs
A philosophical 'doctrine' coopted by early Church theologians but "Neoplatonism" was not itself ever a creedal or congregational religion, or religious practice. Doesn't meet my stated criteria (re: Pascal's distinction of the religious 'God of Abraham', not a conceptual 'god of philosophy').Neoplatonism? — Count Timothy von Icarus
:smirk:Stupidity: n, thinking philosophy can be found in a dictionary. :wink: — unenlightened
And how does it "appear to undermine" "objectivity"? With objective findings. Your argument(?), sir, is as self-refuting as a 'positivist' argument. :lol:The fact that quantum physics appears to undemine the concept of objectivity — Wayfarer
This brain rot is virulent in Britain, Germany, Hungary, Turkey & Poland too. :eyes:Is this because they are dumb, or has the American system (education / media / corporate influence) failed people, making them rubes and willing victims of a demagogue? — Tom Storm
No, we can't. We have to out-vote them (and continue to out-breed them). :mask:We can't use CBT for political stupidity can we?
Not at all, sir: what is simulated – the natural world, 'subject-invariant' reality – is approximately known with respect to the scope precision and fidelity of the simulation (à la mapping territory which necessarily exceeds mapping). Dispense with the outdated Kantianism, sir, epistemology as well as science has developed two and have centuries past his (anti-Copernican) transcendental anthropocentricity and occult ding-an-sich.The whole point is that'what it simulates' is an unknown. — Wayfarer
Those "implications" are nothing more than second-order interpretations of first-order models. You're merely referring to "the nature" of the simulation, Wayfarer, and not what it simulates.The implications of the nature of the wavefunction are significant. — Wayfarer
That's like saying an asexual person is simply someone denies the existence of sex. :roll:I would think an atheist is simply anyone who denies the existence of God ... — Count Timothy von Icarus
I.e. lucidly thinking for oneself ...So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. — Betrand Russell
Do you think this "incapacity" is (1) either... an incapacity for sound judgment. — Tom Storm
Really? FWIW, my understanding is that "the nature of the wavefunction" is a mathematical artifact of the set ups of QM experiments. Philosophers of physics, in contrast to philosophically sophisticated physicists, wantonly and unparsimoniously (mis/over)interpret this mathematical artifact which is, as is often pointed out, of little to no significance to theoretical physicists. Like every other theory in science, QFT is only a simulation of the world and not 'the world itself'; thus, "the nature of the wavefunction" is nothing more than an extension of "the nature" of QFT (i.e. simulation). Re: model-dependent realism.Nevertheless it is indisputable that 'the nature of the wave function' is among the great unresolved issues in philosophy of physics. — Wayfarer
So stupidity would be not desiring to correct one's own deficits. — Pantagruel
Stupidity is extreme bias — Christoffer
That looks like stupidity to me. A pervasive refusal to try to learn. — fdrake
And at long last I've finally realized that it's stupid to tell stupid people that they are stupid. — 180 Proof
What? :chin:It is here that the nature of propositions themselves may be flimsy because they are based on interpretative understandings and hermeneutic assumptions. — Jack Cummins
For the rest of the earth’s organisms, existence is relatively uncomplicated. Their lives are about three things: survival, reproduction, death—and nothing else. But we know too much to content ourselves with surviving, reproducing, dying—and nothing else. We know we are alive and know we will die. We also know we will suffer during our lives before suffering—slowly or quickly—as we draw near to death. This is the knowledge we “enjoy” as the most intelligent organisms to gush from the womb of nature. And being so, we feel shortchanged if there is nothing else for us than to survive, reproduce, and die. We want there to be more to it than that, or to think there is. This is the tragedy: Consciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of striving to be unself-conscious of what we are—hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones. — Thomas Ligotti
Okay, this is where we differ: I think meta-statements are either interpretative or suppositional and only object-statements are propositional. To my mind, "theories" may be epistemic objects.Metaphysical "propositions" are indeed propositions - but they are higher order propositions about theories, as opposed to being first-order propositions that are expressed by those theories. — sime
Of course. "Mind-dependent reality" doesn't make sense except to idealists / antirealists (who tend to obey poison warning labels, not carry lightning rods in thunderstorms, purchase auto insurance and eat enough in order not to starve).So did Hawking believe in mind-independent reality or not? — sime
AFAIK, metaphysical statements are not propositions. Also, MDR (which I raised in contrast to @Wayfarer's sketch of "constructive empiricism") is an epistemological criterion. The rest of your post seems besides the point.Model Dependent Realism is a dubious metaphysical proposition in itself.
Only three what-ifs are "too much" for you? :sweat:That was too much 'supposition' for my tastes. — universeness
Why? You have a 'theory of mind' that you apply to every human being you encounter, that none of them are "zombies" – is that theory merely "a faith statement"? :roll: Also, I don't see why you've characterized a (supposed) "proof"Do you think an advanced AI would make a faith statement? If it does then it is not an advanced AI, imo.
as "a faith statement" which, as you know, denotes an unwarranted (unproven) assertion or assent – not a proof.... that every electron is the same electron (J. Wheeler) and therefore that, fundamentally, every (physically instantiated) mind is the same mind (E. Schrödinger) — 180 Proof
I guess you didn't bother to read – or you selectively forget – this post (and an older post linked therein) in reply to you, Athena, sketching out my conception of "democracy" compared to and contrasted with the American political status quo ...Do you really expect me to reply to you when you have not explained what democracy is? — Athena
because I "really do expect" you "to reply" to this request for clarification of what you mean by "democracy", Athena, in the factual context of American history. :chin:The USA defended its democracy ...
—Athena
When since 1789 has the USA been a "democracy" and not an oft-illiberal (minoritarian electoral college-rigged,
gerrymandered-vote suppressed, nativist, imperialist) constitutional republic? — 180 Proof
:sweat: A "PhD in computer engineering" does not make one remotely as "conversant with physics" as a world-class, theoretical physicist like Carlo Rovelli. The article you provided, Wayf, illustrates Kastrup's deficit.Non-physicist Kastrup’s first job was at CERN. He’s quite conversant with physics. — Wayfarer
Okay, so non-physicist Kastrup disagrees with physicist Rovelli's theoretical prediction from RQG. Big whup. In the article I see that Kastrup cannot refute Rovelli without the crutch of a fallacious appeal to incredulity that amounts to nothing more than an ad hoc "non-physical" stuff-of-the-gaps fiat. :roll:Kastrup on Rovelli — Wayfarer
:up:I am totally ignorant of Wittgenstein's linguistic philosophy. — Gnomon
@Jack CumminsIt is with sadness that every so often I spend a few hours on the internet, reading or listening to the mountain of stupidities dressed up with the word 'quantum'. Quantum medicine; holistic quantum theories of every kind, mental quantum spiritualism – and so on, and on, in an almost unbelievable parade of quantum nonsense. — Carlo Rovelli, Hegoland, pp. 159-60
When since 1789 has the USA been a "democracy" and not an oft-illiberal (minoritarian electoral college-rigged, gerrymandered-vote suppressed, nativist, imperialist) constitutional republic? :chin:The USA defended its democracy ... — Athena
Believing "we are a democracy" has never made it so, ma'am.I hate the argument over if the US is a democracy or not but we have fought every war for nothing if we do not believe we are a democracy. — Athena
