Just like how we can infer the general conception of a triangle from particular triangles, we can infer the general conception of the good from particular examples (e.g., helping the sick, being kind, respectful, truthful, etc.). This conception is objective just as much as the conception of a triangle. — Bob Ross

This isn’t very clear.

Is helping the sick good just because we use the word “good” to describe things like helping the sick? Or is helping the sick good because it satisfies the criteria of “being good”?

If the former then it doesn’t quite seem like realism. If the latter then you need to explain what that criteria is.

So, does ChatGPT know things? — RogueAI

That's an ambiguous question. As it says, it has access to "a vast amount of information". But it doesn't have conscious beliefs like we do, and our kind of knowledge is something akin to "justified true belief".

The concept of p-zombie researchers exploring the frontiers of science without having any knowledge is incoherent. — RogueAI

Are you being literal with your use of the term “incoherent”? Because prima facie it doesn’t appear to be a contradiction.

Something like a Boston Dynamics robot installed with ChatGPT is quite capable in principle of turning on the Large Hadron Collider, reading its data, and then writing out a natural language description of the result. A p-zombie scientist is exactly like this except that its body is made of skin and bones, not metal, and that its “software” is much more advanced than any current AI.

It has “knowledge” only in the sense that LLM’s have “knowledge”. It isn’t conscious. It is simply capable of processing input and reacting accordingly, whether that be with movement or speech.

@Lionino @Wayfarer

https://www.etymonline.com/word/substance

c. 1300, substaunce, "divine part or essence" common to the persons of the Trinity;" mid-14c. in philosophy and theology, "that which exists by itself; essential nature; type or kind of thing; real or essential part;" from Old French sustance, substance "goods, possessions; nature, composition" (12c.), from Latin substantia "being, essence, material." This is from substans, present participle of substare "stand firm, stand or be under, be present," from sub "up to, under" (see sub-) + stare "to stand" (from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm").

Latin substantia translates Greek ousia "that which is one's own, one's substance or property; the being, essence, or nature of anything."

The figurative and general meaning "any kind of corporeal matter, stuff," is attested from mid-14c. As "material wealth, property, goods," late 14c.

The sense of "the matter of a study, discourse, etc.; content of a speech or literary work" is recorded late 14c. That of "meaning expressed by a speech or writing," as distinguished from style, form, performance, is by 1780.

So Greek to Latin to French to English.

I don't get the relevance of this though.

An abstraction of similar acts. — Bob Ross

I don't know what this means. How is it mind-independent?

For example, there is no mind-independent state-of-affairs (or arrangement of entities) in reality that makes it true that “one ought not torture babies” but, rather, it is true because it corresponds appropriately to the mind-independent category (i.e., abstract form) of ‘the good’. — Bob Ross

As you don't appear to be arguing for Platonism, in what sense is this category mind-independent?

All those words are not synonymous.

We can all think of examples where something is harmful, disgusting, or despicable, but not immoral. — Hanover

Alright, because I know what "cruel", "harmful", "disgusting", and "despicable" mean. I don't know what "bad" means (if something else).

Is rape bad? — Hanover

Does the word "bad" mean something that isn't already covered by words like "cruel", "harmful", "disgusting", "despicable", etc.?

Hanover/Moore's position that morality has no essence and yet moral claims are nevertheless meaningful seems to make no sense. — Leontiskos

Moore doesn't say that morality "has no essence" (whatever that means). Moore says that moral terms like "good" are undefinable. This contrasts with naturalist theories that claim that moral terms like "good" can be defined in one or more other terms, such as "pleasurable" or "healthy".

What precludes it is the double jeopardy clause of the 5th. — NOS4A2

As per the Constitution, if convicted he "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” and so clearly double jeopardy doesn’t apply, precisely because impeachment and removal from office isn’t a criminal matter.

Your suggestion is that double jeopardy only applies if acquitted. As I’ve mentioned before, this is denying the antecedent. It’s a straightforward formal fallacy. That he can be prosecuted if convicted isn’t that he can’t be prosecuted if acquitted. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers” are only liable if convicted.

They have the power to try and convict of high crimes and misdemeanors. — NOS4A2

They have the power to fire a President if he commits a crime. They don't have the power to try and convict an actual criminal case which is why he wouldn't have been jailed if found guilty by the Senate.

The firing is just the punishment for that process. — NOS4A2

Yes, and the only punishment. But someone who does things like kill or steal military secrets should be punished by more than just being fired. They ought be criminally prosecuted and jailed if found guilty.

He was acquitted. — NOS4A2

From being fired, yes. That doesn't preclude subsequent criminal prosecution.

At least their wild thought experiment runs parallel to a more realistic scenario. What if the president sent the DOJ or some AG to prosecute his political opponents in the lead up to an election? — NOS4A2

Or a real scenario: what if the President tried to prevent the legitimate certification of a Presidential election that he lost?

The constitution provides a mechanism to sort it out, and he was acquitted through this mechanism. — NOS4A2

The Constitution provides a mechanism to fire a President. He wasn't fired. It doesn't then follow that he can't later be criminally prosecuted.

US president could have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted, Trump’s lawyer argues

Former president Donald Trump’s lawyer argued that presidential immunity would cover the U.S. president ordering political rivals to be assassinated by SEAL Team Six.

During a hearing at a federal appeals court on Tuesday, Trump’s lead lawyer John Sauer made a sweeping argument for executive immunity, essentially saying that only a president who has been impeached and removed from office by Congress could be criminally prosecuted. Therefore, Sauer argued, the former president should be shielded from criminal prosecution.

One of the judges asked Sauer: “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

Sauer responded: “If he were impeached and convicted first... there is a political process that would have to occur.”

So if he were to resign before being impeached? He'd get away with it? Because, at least according to Mitch, former Presidents can't be impeached.

Or, hell, what if he has Seal Team Six kill off Congress? Then he can't be impeached even as President.

Ex Trump Press Secretary Says His Base Would Rather Believe ANY Conspiracy Than Realize He’s a ‘Fraud’ Who Doesn’t Care About America

GRISHAM: I think that when you believe in somebody so much, when you believe in somebody like Donald Trump. And I can speak to this because I actually did believe in him for a very long time. I think that when you put it all on the line and believe in somebody, I think it’s easier then to just want to believe that the FBI, that law enforcement, that the people who go to help us when we’re in trouble would be behind something, rather than admitting that the person you’ve been backing for years and years is a fraud and actually doesn’t care about the American people or our country.

I say that just from personal experience. It was really hard for me to come to terms with who he was because I really believed in him, his policies and the person I thought he was. So that’s what I think. I think that people just would rather believe these conspiracy theories rather than admit that they were wrong about this person.

ACOSTA: Yeah. And, Stephanie, I mean, you were around him so much. I mean, based on your experience when he peddles this stuff, does he know he’s lying? Does he convince himself that the lie is true? Is he just a kind of a crackpot who believes in conspiracy theories? And so he thinks what he’s saying is true. Which is it? Do we know what it is?

GRISHAM: Well, he’s not a crackpot. He’s actually a very smart man. I mean, he was president of the United States, so we have to give him a modicum of credit for that. But no, he knows he’s lying. He used to tell me when I was press secretary, go out there and say this, and if it was false, he would say, ‘it doesn’t matter, Stephanie. Just say it over and over and over again. People will believe it.’

He knows his base, believes in him. He knows he can basically say anything and his base will believe what he’s saying now. I think this will help propel him into the general. But I think that independents and, you know, center-leaning Republicans are not going to be buying this. They’re much, much smarter than that. And so I think that he’s going to get in trouble in the general with this kind of, uh, these kind of lies.

ACOSTA: So when he says that, oh, the FBI, Antifa, that kind of stuff, you think he he knows he’s lying.

GRISHAM: I know he knows he’s lying. I mean, I, you know, was with him nonstop for six years. He knows all he has to do is continue to say thing, and people — say these things and people will believe him.

I don't know if the "He’s actually a very smart man" is a reason I shouldn't believe the rest of it. :lol:

We can’t certify a fraudulent election. Do you think this is the advocacy of a crime? — NOS4A2

He wasn’t asking his supporters to prevent some hypothetical fraudulent election. He was asking them to prevent the actual election, which wasn’t fraudulent. You don’t get to get away with a crime by falsely claiming that what you’re doing isn’t a crime.

No, given the proof the presumption of guilt is warranted. — NOS4A2

Proof without an indictment and conviction? Glad you finally recognise that it's possible.

It is not only a human right, it is stupid to do otherwise. — NOS4A2

So I see a man with a knife standing over a dead and bloody body. It would be stupid of me and an abuse of his human rights to presume him guilty and so run away; instead I ought presume him innocent, approach him, and ask him if he'd like a lift home so that he can shower and change his clothes.

Thank God I don't think like you.

Did you see him do it? — NOS4A2

I did actually, it was on TV. I also heard him do it on various phone calls.

One of the human rights I was speaking about is the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t seem to ring any bells around here. — NOS4A2

Presumption of innocence isn't a human right. Not being jailed without guilt being proven is probably a human right. But nobody here is suggesting that we simply kidnap Trump and throw him in a pit.

I'll tell you a secret. I wrote this over two years with an intended purpose: to get the atheists and theists in here to think. — Philosophim

I had assumed that this was what it was. Of course, it's a non sequitur to go from "there is a first cause" to "this first cause is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, intelligent designer who gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life". But as you didn't make the claim I didn't bring it up. If you want to make this claim now then, well, it's a non sequitur.

Any supposed "first cause" might simply be an initial singularity of infinite temperature and density that then expanded.

Yes I read that, and it is why I accused you of being ambiguous with "distance". In the first sentence you said there is a distance "even if we never measure it". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, which is to say that the base and the peak do not occupy the same position in space. The space between them is called distance.

That there is distance between the base and the peak is measurement-independent. It's certainly not the case that the base and the peak are touching until we look at the mountain.

That this distance is described as being "8,000m" or as being "26,246.72 feet" is measurement- and language-dependent.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain the latter fact. I'm not sure how it's exactly relevant.

But he hasn’t even been charged for insurrection, let alone convicted. You’re saying he’s guilty of a crime he hasn’t been charged with or proven guilty of. That’s a problem you have. — NOS4A2

People tend to commit crimes before being charged and convicted, not after. That's how time works.

And some people commit crimes without being charged and convicted. See, for example, every unsolved murder in history.

The notion that Trump hasn't committed a crime because he hasn't been charged and convicted is fundamentally mistaken.

As a counterexample see my mathematical example. — jgill

Where?

But note that I specifically said that "an infinite sequence of events has no end". I didn't say that "an infinite series has no end".

And as I also mentioned in that previous comment, there's a difference between saying that there is no first number and saying that there is no first counted number.

The actual act of counting the integers has to start somewhere, and each second of passed time (at least assuming an A series concept of time) is an act of counting.

No. But maybe I'm wrong. Can you answer this question: "What caused there to be infinite regressive causality?" Remember the answer that I gave to finite causality. "It just is, there is no prior explanation for its being." Is your answer different? — Philosophim

The answer is the same: "it just is; there is no prior explanation for why causation is an infinite regress".

What I take issue with is your claim that this then entails that there is a first cause. That is clearly a contradiction, as it cannot be both that causation is an infinite regress and that there is a first cause.

You appear to conflate "brute fact" and "first cause". As I mentioned in my first comment, that explanations end isn't that causation starts.

This "brute" existence of an infinite regress isn't itself a cause, let alone a first cause. Again, it's like saying that the set of all integers is itself an integer.

It is you who is being ambiguous, with your use of "distance". If the word is meant to signify that there is a separation between the base of the mountain and the peak, that is self-evident. But if the word is meant to signify that this separation has a specific value, number of feet, meters, or whatever, without being measured, then this cannot be true. How do you think it is possible that there is a specific value attached to this separation if no one has actually done the work of assigning that value? — Metaphysician Undercover

Did you read the next part of my comment where I said "that the distance of one mountain is given the label '8,849 m' is a consequence of our measurement"?

Obviously, "space" is a "mental fabrication". — Metaphysician Undercover

It's certainly not "obvious". Space is often thought of as being mind-independent, notably by scientific realists, and I suspect also most laymen. Idealists, scientific instrumentalists, and Kantians may think differently, but such positions are not self-evident.

Also, a materialist would have to say the same, because "space" could not refer to any type of material. — Metaphysician Undercover

I should note that I use "materialism" and "physicalism" interchangeably, and that physicalism "encompasses matter, but also energy, physical laws, space, time, structure, physical processes, information, state, and forces, among other things."

No, I'm saying when you examine the entire set of regressive causality and ask, "What caused everything to be infinitely regressive?" there is no prior cause. It exactly the same as taking a set of finite regressive causality and asking, "What caused everything to be finitely regressive?"

The answer is the same. There is no prior reason for its being, therefore, it just is. This is the first cause for all chains of causality. — Philosophim

So you're saying that there is both an infinite regress of causes and that there is a first cause. Do you not see the contradiction?

Take the set of all regressive causality, A.
What prior existence caused A to be?
There is nothing, A is A because it exists. Thus it exists without a prior explanation for its being, and is thus a first cause. — Philosophim

You're saying that the set of all causes is itself a cause. This is a category error. The set itself doesn't cause anything and so isn't a cause. The term "cause" refers to the members of the set, not the set itself.

Your argument is akin to saying that the set of all integers is the first number. It makes no sense.

It is not a basic human right to be on the ballot for POTUS. There are criteria spelled out in the constitution. — wonderer1

So you're saying I can't run for President? Damn that Constitution, how dare it tell me what I can and can't do!

That is exactly what I'm agreeing with. And if there is no prior cause for its existence, point c notes that this is the first cause. It exists without prior explanation for its being. — Philosophim

You're saying that if either a) or b) is true then c) is true. This makes no sense. If either a) or b) is true then c) is false.

My apologies if I'm not understanding your point. What did I miss? — Philosophim

These are the options you gave:

a. There is always a X for every Y. (infinite prior causality).
b. The X/Y causal chain eventually wraps back to Y/X (infinitely looped causality)
c. There comes a time within a causal chain when there is only Y, and nothing prior to Y. This Y is Alpha. (first cause)

You then ask:

"Why would it be that there exists an infinite prior or infinitely looped causality in existence?"

I am suggesting that perhaps there is no answer. Perhaps it is simply a brute fact that there is always a X for every Y, or simply a brute fact that the X/Y causal chain eventually wraps back to Y/X. This is simply where the explanation ends.

So it is simply a brute fact that there is no first cause.

FYI, NOS and I went over this starting here.

Just to save you time.

So you think that both that both the party convicted and the party acquitted are liable? — NOS4A2

I think that impeachment and removal from office has nothing to do with a criminal prosecution. The outcome of one has no bearing on the outcome of the other.

Exactly as the DOJ determined in 2000.

And as per the paper that both Relativist and I have referenced:

The Constitution permits a former President to be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate

As I mentioned before, your reading denies the antecedent. That he can be held criminally liable if removed from office isn’t that he can’t be held criminally liable if not removed from office.

No one said he cannot be criminally prosecuted. — NOS4A2

You did.

He was acquitted. So he is not liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law. — NOS4A2

The Constitution permits a former President to be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate while in office. — Relativist

Well, Trump was impeached and acquitted while not office so clearly this doesn’t apply.

:wink:

Interesting quote from Mitch. He votes to acquit on the supposed technicality that the Senate has no jurisdiction given that Trump was no longer President and that it should be a matter for the DOJ. But then @NOS4A2 suggests that because the Senate acquitted then the DOJ no longer has jurisdiction.

It’s a cheat code to get away with any crime. :roll:

I’ll be clearer then.

To stand where I am now I don’t have to have stood in every adjacent space behind me first. I am simply born at a particular place (the start) and travel from there.

This is very unlike having counted every negative integer in order, which strikes me as being nonsensical.

It is "logically necessary" to "begin counting" somewhere in a beginning-less sequence just as it is to be standing somewhere on the Earth's surface — 180 Proof

I don’t think this is an apt analogy. Counting is a process, standing isn’t.

Obviously someone can simply speak a single number without having spoken any smaller number first.

I’m specifically addressing the case of saying that, as of right now, I have already counted all the negative integers in order.

If (post-Newtonian) spacetime describes an unbounded, finite magnitude like the surface of the Earth (or torus, Klein bottle, Möbius loop, etc) – does not have edges or end-points – then the tenses of events (i.e. inertial reference-frames) are relative and not absolute (e.g. "the past" "the present"). — 180 Proof

This would be the B series concept of time that I mentioned in my comment?

Correct. Which is why when we reach a point in any chain of causality where there is no prior causality for its existence, 'it simply is', that we've reached the first cause from which the rest of the chain or set follows — Philosophim

I'm not sure you're even reading what I'm writing.