Caro called out, Footy Classified

[Baloo]

Stop it. Both of you.

Or take it back to the Economics where it sort of belongs.

Called it ages ago. Another thread ruined

 

[IanG]

Absolutely. Belongs in the philosophy thread.

Belongs in the bin.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

You can’t make intelligent inferences about how “nothing” behaves, because “nothing” doesn’t behave at all. Now the empirical method isn’t “nothing”, because it has particular attributes and it produces knowledge with which to understand the world. It is definitely something. Concepts have mind dependent existence, physical matter has mind independent existence. Easier to think of it that way than to create a new word.

No, 'nothing' is virtually meaningless. You can't make any statements about it. Including 'something can't come from nothing'. We'd need to know what you mean by 'nothing'. And I don't think you have clearly defined how things that cannot be subject to empirical testing can exist in any way that I find meaningful. I don't think we are going to agree on this which I suspect you will put down to a failure in my reasoning. That's cool. I can live with that.

This is completely misguided, for some reason Harris thinks that values and facts are the same thing. Also he seem to gloss over the ought/is problem.

Hume's 'is/ought problem' is not a law. It may well be treated as such within philosophy but that doesn't make it so.

Our experience is almost certainly governed by brain activity. Does what we think of as consciousness reside somewhere else? Or is it an emergent quality of massive neural networks? Who knows? But it seems most likely that our experience of the world and hence our feelings and motivations are absolutely defined within the confines of electrical and chemical activity in the brain. These are definitely empirical and given time and technological/medical advancement will only become more accessible to empirical research.

Utility involves a subjective evaluation; it cannot be “measured” in the sense that you can measure the mass of an object or how long it takes for a ball to drop. It involves ordinal numbers, not cardinal numbers. People rank things in terms of preferences; they don’t measure things in terms of units of utility. Hence to claim that utility can be separated from the subjective evaluation of the practitioner is a major confusion of concepts.

I didnt say it was separate meerly that I dont find problem you identified interesting. I care only about its utility. I need not consider the nature of the existence of concepts/processes in order to use them effectively.

I am talking about a specific method of empirical evaluation of some phenomena. Surely the, I think achievable, goal is to find the best current method as agreed by the bulk of experts within a particular field. Independent of any other factors it should be possible to conduct the same experiment/research and to get the same result independent of the researcher/lab etc?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Called it ages ago. Another thread ruined

I think it improved the thread. Another snarky and pointless shot at Caro, who cares? Best hijacking of a thread in ages.

 

[1eyedtiger]

The philosophy discussion does raise a question though. 'If Caro writes an article but no one else ever reads it, did she really write it?'

;D

 

[Giardiasis]

No, 'nothing' is virtually meaningless. You can't make any statements about it. Including 'something can't come from nothing'. We'd need to know what you mean by 'nothing'. And I don't think you have clearly defined how things that cannot be subject to empirical testing can exist in any way that I find meaningful. I don't think we are going to agree on this which I suspect you will put down to a failure in my reasoning. That's cool. I can live with that.

Of course you can make statements about nothing or nothingness. Something that doesn’t exist is nothing. I am referencing existence and the law of identity when I talk about nothing. Existence exists, and something that doesn’t exist is nothing. Our disagreement is about what constitutes nothing because you claim that only things with an external referent exist. But what am I referencing when I say 2+2=4? By your understanding I am referencing a non-existent thing, yet you’d still claim that it is a valid form of knowledge. How can any knowledge be gained from something that doesn’t exist? You wouldn’t argue 2+2=5, but if 2+2=4 is nothing and mind dependent existence is meaningless then isn’t 2+2=4 meaningless?

If empirical testing is the key to determining what exists then prove it.

Hume's 'is/ought problem' is not a law. It may well be treated as such within philosophy but that doesn't make it so.

Our experience is almost certainly governed by brain activity. Does what we think of as consciousness reside somewhere else? Or is it an emergent quality of massive neural networks? Who knows? But it seems most likely that our experience of the world and hence our feelings and motivations are absolutely defined within the confines of electrical and chemical activity in the brain. These are definitely empirical and given time and technological/medical advancement will only become more accessible to empirical research.

Hume’s is/ought problem is the key to determining an objective basis for ethics. Any empirical knowledge of brain activity does not provide this.

I am talking about a specific method of empirical evaluation of some phenomena. Surely the, I think achievable, goal is to find the best current method as agreed by the bulk of experts within a particular field.

Why though? You think empiricism is valid, then please justify why you think that.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Of course you can make statements about nothing or nothingness. Something that doesn’t exist is nothing. I am referencing existence and the law of identity when I talk about nothing. Existence exists, and something that doesn’t exist is nothing.

No you really can't. You can assert these things but you cannot evaluate them. To do that you would need an example of nothing. It is a pointless concept. We have only examples of something. Maybe even infinitesimally small something or zero point vacuum energy something. But not nothing.

Our disagreement is about what constitutes nothing because you claim that only things with an external referent exist. But what am I referencing when I say 2+2=4? By your understanding I am referencing a non-existent thing, yet you’d still claim that it is a valid form of knowledge. How can any knowledge be gained from something that doesn’t exist? You wouldn’t argue 2+2=5, but if 2+2=4 is nothing and mind dependent existence is meaningless then isn’t 2+2=4 meaningless?

This is faulty reasoning. If I said 'horseshoes aren't really shoes' am I questioning the utility of horseshoes? No. So why should it be that my questioning of use of 'existence' to describe concepts/processes in any way invalidates those concepts/processes? I simply don't find the need to express concepts/processes as having 'existence' in the ways material things have existence. That's it. I can't see how it matters. I am sure it is an interesting philosophical cul de sac but that is where it ends for me.

If empirical testing is the key to determining what exists then prove it.

You think there is mind dependant existence, so minds must exist. Prove it. I simply question the idea that 'existence' applies to ideas/concepts/processes. I am only interested in material existence.

Hume’s is/ought problem is the key to determining an objective basis for ethics. Any empirical knowledge of brain activity does not provide this.

Yes I accept that is an assertion that most philosophers are tied to, I don't agree though. Harris's 'moral landscape' uses the concept for of "well being" for instance.

Why though? You think empiricism is valid, then please justify why you think that.

Because it works. I am sitting here because it works. If it didn't I likely wouldn't be sitting here. To function effectively my internal model of reality should map onto the real world. When it doesn't I will find it hard to function, when I does I will find it easier. The way my model was constructed was through my empirical testing of the world from birth (with some probably 'pre-programmed' routines I suspect). Bang my head off 'hard' things it hurts. Shout at strangers on a bus and I will probably have to walk home. Try to eat things that aren't food and I will be sick. Empiricism in action.

 

[tigersnake]

I think it improved the thread. Another snarky and pointless shot at Caro, who cares? Best hijacking of a thread in ages.

agree. The original thread was a crappy cheap shot that was demolished within a couple of posts, so no need for any mourning there. But as IanG said, a lot of the flawed logic of the so called philosophical discussion belongs in the bin.

 

[AngryAnt]

agree. The original thread was a crappy cheap shot that was demolished within a couple of posts, so no need for any mourning there. But as IanG said, a lot of the flawed logic of the so called philosophical discussion belongs in the bin.

Unfair.

We all pretend to know about football so too harsh to bin discussions from those pretending to know about philosophy

 

[AngryAnt]

..

 

[tigersnake]

Unfair.

We all pretend to know about football so too harsh to bin discussions from those pretending to know about philosophy

Fair enough. More specifically, G-man's dogma, IMO, belongs in the bin. And he also thinks my views belong in the the bin and has regularly said words to that effect, no biggie.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

agree. The original thread was a crappy cheap shot that was demolished within a couple of posts, so no need for any mourning there. But as IanG said, a lot of the flawed logic of the so called philosophical discussion belongs in the bin.

Fair enough. Descartes I ain't.

 

[AngryAnt]

Fair enough. Descartes I ain't.

Now you are putting Descartes before de horse.

 

[Giardiasis]

No you really can't. You can assert these things but you cannot evaluate them. To do that you would need an example of nothing. It is a pointless concept. We have only examples of something. Maybe even infinitesimally small something or zero point vacuum energy something. But not nothing.

The law of identity: A is A. Therefore A is not, not A. I'm saying is that nothing is not existence. There's no evaluation, it is the absence of existence. Logically deduced.

This is faulty reasoning. If I said 'horseshoes aren't really shoes' am I questioning the utility of horseshoes? No. So why should it be that my questioning of use of 'existence' to describe concepts/processes in any way invalidates those concepts/processes? I simply don't find the need to express concepts/processes as having 'existence' in the ways material things have existence. That's it. I can't see how it matters. I am sure it is an interesting philosophical cul de sac but that is where it ends for me.

That's a problem with the precision of language, your example is a false equivalence. An equivalent statement would be horseshoes are not not horseshoes. It invalidates it because you can't justify your belief besides falling into dogma.

You think there is mind dependant existence, so minds must exist. Prove it. I simply question the idea that 'existence' applies to ideas/concepts/processes. I am only interested in material existence.

Minds exist because they have identity. Saying you are only interested in material existence doesn't prove anything. The fact is you can't prove your assertion.

Yes I accept that is an assertion that most philosophers are tied to, I don't agree though. Harris's 'moral landscape' uses the concept for of "well being" for instance.

It is not an assertion, and saying you don't agree with it does not invalidate it. "Well being" is a subjective evaluation, it is not objective.

Because it works. I am sitting here because it works. If it didn't I likely wouldn't be sitting here. To function effectively my internal model of reality should map onto the real world. When it doesn't I will find it hard to function, when I does I will find it easier. The way my model was constructed was through my empirical testing of the world from birth (with some probably 'pre-programmed' routines I suspect). Bang my head off 'hard' things it hurts. Shout at strangers on a bus and I will probably have to walk home. Try to eat things that aren't food and I will be sick. Empiricism in action.

Because it works doesn't cut it. You assume it works, but how can you be sure that it works. The proposition that all events are only hypothetically related is contradicted by the message of this basic empiricist position itself. For if this proposition is itself merely hypothetically true, then how can you claim that it qualifies as an epistemological pronouncement?

Those preprogrammed routines are not empirically derived, they form your intuition. An example would be the concept of observation (which you must employ in claiming what it does), which is not derived from observational experience. One must understand what it means to observe first in order to be able to interpret certain observable phenomena as the making of an observation. So you are forced to admit that there is knowledge that is derived a priori.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The law of identity: A is A. Therefore A is not, not A. I'm saying is that nothing is not existence. There's no evaluation, it is the absence of existence. Logically deduced.

Nope. You are trying to ascribe values to nothing. You are trying to say nothing has a property of some kind, specifically the property of not being able to spawn other states or matter. 'Something cannot come from nothing' is a claim about nothing. Logical identity does not imply material existence. Identity simply states that if we both agree that 'A' is 'A' then neither of us can claim that it is simultaneously 'Not A'. 'Not A' is not 'nothing'. The problem with claims of 'nothing' is that all other cases of identity involve perfect opposites which are both states/matter in them selves. You can't make that claim about 'nothing'. You can't say anything meaningful about 'nothing'.

That's a problem with the precision of language, your example is a false equivalence. An equivalent statement would be horseshoes are not not horseshoes. It invalidates it because you can't justify your belief besides falling into dogma.

I sometimes use bad analogies. It is difficult here for the reasons outlined above in relation to making knowledge statements about 'nothing'.

Minds exist because they have identity.

That is a claim you cannot justify. No one can. If you can substantiate that claim, pack your bags and toddle off and claim your Nobel.

Saying you are only interested in material existence doesn't prove anything. The fact is you can't prove your assertion.

I know. You want me to justify a claim that doesn't interest me. As I said I believe it leads down a philosophical cul de sac.

It is not an assertion, and saying you don't agree with it does not invalidate it. "Well being" is a subjective evaluation, it is not objective.

The point is that it could be. The foundations could be built. And yes it is an assertion. It is perfectly reasonable to reject Hume's is/ought problem.

Because it works doesn't cut it. You assume it works, no I don't, it clearly works but how can you be sure that it works. As I said,
if it didn't my internal model of reality would be flawed. I couldn't function in a world in which my empirical experience did not match with the actual world as I experience it. The proposition that all events are only hypothetically related is contradicted by the message of this basic empiricist position itself. For if this proposition is itself merely hypothetically true, then how can you claim that it qualifies as an epistemological pronouncement?

Huh? When did I make that claim? Who said anything about this hypothetical?

Those preprogrammed routines are not empirically derived, they form your intuition. That's a claim, justify it An example would be the concept of observation (which you must employ in claiming what it does), which is not derived from observational experience. One must understand what it means to observe first in order to be able to interpret certain observable phenomena as the making of an observation. So you are forced to admit that there is knowledge that is derived a priori.

I am not even sure some of those constitute sentences? In general this is more 'everything is philosophy'. You sound like a pre-suppositionalist saying 'You have to borrow from my world view'.

 

[Giardiasis]

Nope. You are trying to ascribe values to nothing. You are trying to say nothing has a property of some kind, specifically the property of not being able to spawn other states or matter. 'Something cannot come from nothing' is a claim about nothing. Logical identity does not imply material existence. Identity simply states that if we both agree that 'A' is 'A' then neither of us can claim that it is simultaneously 'Not A'. 'Not A' is not 'nothing'. The problem with claims of 'nothing' is that all other cases of identity involve perfect opposites which are both states/matter in them selves. You can't make that claim about 'nothing'. You can't say anything meaningful about 'nothing'.

"You can't make a claim about nothing". Do you see the contradiction?

That is a claim you cannot justify. No one can. If you can substantiate that claim, pack your bags and toddle off and claim your Nobel.

Sure I can, just try and disprove it without falling into a performative contradiction.

I know. You want me to justify a claim that doesn't interest me. As I said I believe it leads down a philosophical cul de sac.

So because you can't explain it, you then fall to dogma. A Religious person would make the same argument that you do when asked to prove God exists. "Oh well I find it useful to follow the teachings of Christ as it allows me to live an ethical life. My faith in God is sufficient."

The point is that it could be. The foundations could be built. And yes it is an assertion. It is perfectly reasonable to reject Hume's is/ought problem.

The point is it can never be, because you can't escape the subjective nature of people's minds. To reject the is/ought problem is to reject an objective basis for ethics.

Huh? When did I make that claim? Who said anything about this hypothetical?

You claim that only empirical knowledge has meaning, yet if that were true, then that assertion would itself have to be empirically true. Hence it fails to provide a universal rule.

I am not even sure some of those constitute sentences? In general this is more 'everything is philosophy'. You sound like a pre-suppositionalist saying 'You have to borrow from my world view'.

It's not that hard, but if you don't understand it then that surprises me.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

"You can't make a claim about nothing". Do you see the contradiction?

Yup, so I suggest you stop trying to square this circle. Talk of nothing is pointless.

Sure I can, just try and disprove it without falling into a performative contradiction.

Your Nobel awaits.

So because you can't explain it, you then fall to dogma. A Religious person would make the same argument that you do when asked to prove God exists. "Oh well I find it useful to follow the teachings of Christ as it allows me to live an ethical life. My faith in God is sufficient."

What dogma? I simply refuse to follow you down a philosophical rabbit hole.

The point is it can never be, because you can't escape the subjective nature of people's minds. To reject the is/ought problem is to reject an objective basis for ethics.

I think you are skating very close to solopsism here. I can often empirically assess whether my actions do more harm than good. In the future we may even be able to 'see' thoughts forming in peoples minds, using science, using empirical data. We may be able to make ethical decisions based on that data. No need for the abstract notions of Scottish philosophers.

You want to avoid having to justify claims empirically so you tear down empiricism. No dice. You make claims that states of the brain are not empirical. On what basis?

You claim that only empirical knowledge has meaning, yet if that were true, then that assertion would itself have to be empirically true. Hence it fails to provide a universal rule.

No. That is not the case. I simply feel.that it is mostly pointless to get bogged down in the minutiea of philosophical underpinnings of knowledge when what matters is utility. *smile* either works or it doesn't. If I can't test empirically whether my *smile* works then I can't 'know' that it works.

Universal rule? Why should that be necessary. Then you reach for 'you can't use logic to prove logic' or 'you can't use empiricism to prove empiricism'. For that last time, I don't care about philosophical word games. Utility is what I care about. The map is not the territory.

It's not that hard, but if you don't understand it then that surprises me.

Cool.

 

[Giardiasis]

Yup, so I suggest you stop trying to square this circle. Talk of nothing is pointless.

If you see the contradiction, then you see that it is not true that you can't make a claim about nothing, and your whole argument falls apart.

Your Nobel awaits.

If you can't do it then you should concede the point.

What dogma? I simply refuse to follow you down a philosophical rabbit hole.

You can't justify the empirical method so you just shrug your shoulders and effectively say, "because I have faith". We are all just expected to accept your argument that only empirical knowledge has meaning as true because you say it is. Dogma.

I think you are skating very close to solopsism here. I can often empirically assess whether my actions do more harm than good. In the future we may even be able to 'see' thoughts forming in peoples minds, using science, using empirical data. We may be able to make ethical decisions based on that data. No need for the abstract notions of Scottish philosophers.

You want to avoid having to justify claims empirically so you tear down empiricism. No dice. You make claims that states of the brain are not empirical. On what basis?

And how do you determine what is good? Would not good for one person be different than the next? How is that in any way objective? You might be able to observe some form of brain activity and associate that with certain thoughts, but what has that got to do with ethics? A murderer will think killing people is good, what will your data make of that?

INo. That is not the case. I simply feel.that it is mostly pointless to get bogged down in the minutiea of philosophical underpinnings of knowledge when what matters is utility. sh!t either works or it doesn't. If I can't test empirically whether my sh!t works then I can't 'know' that it works.

Universal rule? Why should that be necessary. Then you reach for 'you can't use logic to prove logic' or 'you can't use empiricism to prove empiricism'. For that last time, I don't care about philosophical word games. Utility is what I care about. The map is not the territory.

You aren't even arguing anymore, I have pointed out contradictions to your logic, and you just brush them off without addressing them. Show me why I am wrong, don't just go off on a tangent about feelings trumping philosophy.

You have made an epistemological claim (only empirical knowledge has meaning), for this claim to be valid it must be so universally. If it is not universal, then you must concede that other forms of knowledge have meaning.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Your made an epistemological claim (only empirical knowledge has meaning), for this claim to be valid it must be so universally. If it is not universal, then you must concede that other forms of knowledge have meaning.

Actually, no I didn't. You made it for me in order to drag me into a discussion about it. I just took the bait. Check the thread title. Then look for your non sequitur about this topic.

I simply hold that view that that which cannot be empirically verified is of little use in the real world and so I give it little credence. If philosophers want to spend their lives talking to other philosophers about the nature of epistemology off they go. Meanwhile science will go on producing outcomes using empirical methods and launching actual rockets, and reading the spectrums of actual stars, and colliding actual photons to discover the actual nature of actual matter. In the process improving actual lives with engineering/biological/chemical etc advancements based on their empirical study.

 

[Giardiasis]

Actually, no I didn't. You made it for me in order to drag me into a discussion about it. I just took the bait. Check the thread title. Then look for your non sequitur about this topic.

I simply hold that view that that which cannot be empirically verified is of little use in the real world and so I give it little credence. If philosophers want to spend their lives talking to other philosophers about the nature of epistemology off they go. Meanwhile science will go on producing outcomes using empirical methods and launching actual rockets, and reading the spectrums of actual stars, and colliding actual photons to discover the actual nature of actual matter. In the process improving actual lives with engineering/biological/chemical etc advancements based on their empirical study.

I inferred your argument and you validated it. Own it.

You hold a view that you can't justify, so you revert to dogma. Meanwhile launching rockets, reading the spectrum of stars and colliding actual photons to discover the actual nature of actual matter will still require the use of a priori knowledge (mathematics and logic), and people's well-being will continue to fall as long as they ignore the a priori knowledge gained from economics.