If there were objective morality - how would you tell?

[!Kaggen]

Nope having read your whole post, you don’t.

You are the man with the hammer, wham , wham, wham.

There is more than verbal cognition !Kaggen. My thoughts often involve emotions, memories, pictures, sounds and other constructs.

Wrong the words I convey in these written messages are conveyed through an idiomatic self referent language based upon mutual perceptual experiences and social conditioning.

You again have made a grave error, verbal cognition is not the only form of thought.

Nope, it is because the 'dog' as such has appendages that we label as 'legs', we can relabel the sensory experience that leads to the perception of a 'tail' as 'leg' is we wish.

This however requires redefining the mutual perception that is the common referent in the idiomatic and self referent language.

The 'mass' of an 'electron' does not change because we call it a 'photon'. The labels and constructs change but the referent in mutual perception does not. (In the case of physical object.)

Wish what away, you should not be so vague. I said exactly what I meant, you have resorted to idiomatic usage without explaining it.

There is more to the human experience than verbal cognition.

I already have, you won't like it because I am a behaviorist and I loathe and detest high level abstracted theories of psychodynamics.
I already have studied sensation and perception, they are not effected by verbal cognition.

Pretending that everything is a nail is not helpful either.

How does your retina work to produce and preprocess sensations?
What is associative learning?

Broad claim what data do you have the substantiates that the level of depression has not been constant? What data do you have the shows the levels of depression one hundred years ago?

Sorry, I know of an effective strategy that works for most people. It is called cognitive behavioral therapy.
What have you got, some pretend theory with no research basis?

Nope we can modify our response to pain through a variety of means.


The first step for you is to get away from philosophy and study some psychology that has a research basis.

There is more to 'knowledge' than language.

No, knowledge is a word with a meaning and that has everything to do with language.

No language, no knowledge.

The evidence is down at your university's library.

 

[PAC]

Biology suggests that morality is about as subjective as language. It's a biological imperative, and is universal in its underlying rules and how it's processed in the brain, but its specific form depends on the history of the culture.

Contract theory as you describe it (morality as a social invention) does not appear to be true, because we can see our morality's roots in other species who do not appear to be capable of conceiving of anything as abstract as a social contract or the market values of rights.

As you say "it's specific form depends on the history of the culture". Morality changes, it is different for different cultures. Is that not subjective?

Help me understand the "morality" of other species?

 

[Brainache]

No, knowledge is a word with a meaning and that has everything to do with language.

No language, no knowledge.

The evidence is down at your university's library.

How did Helen Keller learn to read?

 

[bencg]

You know, this actually reminds me of a translation I checked yesterday which mentioned an ancient Japanese method of determining who was telling the truth in a he-said-she-said situation.

The method was called 'yugisho' (湯起請).

First the parties would swear an oath to the gods. Then the parties would both simultaneously put their hands in boiling water, take out a stone, and then place it on a Shinto altar in order to ask the gods for consideration. If one party suffered less severe scalding than the other, he was considered to be the winner.

The legal system was somewhat less than ideal in those days.

Sounds remarkably similar to trial by ordeal of hot water in Saxon law, except only the accused participated;

Ordeal of hot water

First mentioned in the 6th century Lex Salica, the ordeal of hot water requires the accused to dip his hand in a kettle of boiling water and retrieve a stone.

King Athelstan made a law concerning the ordeal. The water had to be about boiling, and the depth from which the stone had to be retrieved was up to the wrist for one accusation, and up to the elbow for three. The ordeal would take place in the church, with several in attendance, purified and praying God to reveal the truth. Afterwards, the hand was bound and examined after three days to see whether it was healing or festering.[5]

This was still a practice of 12th century Catholic churches: the priest would demand a suspect to place his hand in the boiling water. If, after three days, God had not healed his wounds, the suspect was guilty of the crime.[6]

 

[!Kaggen]

How did Helen Keller learn to read?

Sign language alphabet signed into her palm.

 

[bencg]

Biology suggests that morality is about as subjective as language. It's a biological imperative, and is universal in its underlying rules and how it's processed in the brain, but its specific form depends on the history of the culture.

Contract theory as you describe it (morality as a social invention) does not appear to be true, because we can see our morality's roots in other species who do not appear to be capable of conceiving of anything as abstract as a social contract or the market values of rights.

This seems likely correct to me (I cannot prove it though) and maybe it really does mean there is an objective foundation to human morality in biology, but it must be very malleable I think.

To play devils advocate why should we trust our innate sense of morality? I mean I'd hope my 'natural morality' is in line with my 'intellectual morality', but what if I discover that deep down pillage and rape seems just fine?? I mean it seems incredible that those extreme things would ever be acceptable and yet I'm pretty sure the mongol Khans didn't think it immoral.

 

[Brainache]

Sign language alphabet signed into her palm.

Yes, but before she learned the sign language she must have been forming some kind of mental picture of the world without language, or else how could she respond to instruction?

 

[Robin]

No, knowledge is a word with a meaning and that has everything to do with language.

No language, no knowledge.

The evidence is down at your university's library.

Suppose someone shows me how to bake a cherry pie, but I don't know the words for cherry, flour, sugar etc.

They could show me how to do this without saying a word.

Then I would have the knowledge of how to bake a cherry pie, but with none of the words.

Moreover a good cook's knowledge of tastes and aromas is something that could not be transmitted in language.

 

[Robin]

And my language delayed three year old son has very few words, but plenty of knowledge.

 

[!Kaggen]

Suppose someone shows me how to bake a cherry pie, but I don't know the words for cherry, flour, sugar etc.

They could show me how to do this without saying a word.

Then I would have the knowledge of how to bake a cherry pie, but with none of the words.

Nope, you were able to copy someone's movements, but you would have no "knowledge" of "baking a cherry pie". The test of knowledge would come when you had to repeat the exercise without help and no words for the ingredients which you had to find in a shop.

Moreover a good cook's knowledge of tastes and aromas is something that could not be transmitted in language.

Of course it can otherwise it would not be based on physics.

 

[Robin]

Nope, you were able to copy someone's movements, but you would have no "knowledge" of "baking a cherry pie". The test of knowledge would come when you had to repeat the exercise without help and no words for the ingredients which you had to find in a shop.

What would stop me?

Why do you think I couldn't repeat the exercise without help, having seen it?

I couldn't recognise the ingredents by sight? I often shop by sight. I often cook with ingredents for which I cannot remember the name. My mother in law, who has almost no English has taught me many recipes and demonstrates techniques just by showing me. I have no idea of the words for some of those techniques and no need for any.

I can teach my son how to throw and catch a ball without using any words.

You are just using the true scostman fallacy.

Of course it can otherwise it would not be based on physics.

Right. If I had never smelled basil then I would know exactly what it smelled like by looking at the chemical description of the odour.

 

[!Kaggen]

And my language delayed three year old son has very few words, but plenty of knowledge.

I think you are confusing a child's abilities (of which they have no knowledge) with our knowledge of these abilities.
If a baby is able to predict above chance how her mother will respond under a repeated circumstance we know this by giving meaning to a child's action, an hypothesis, and doing experiments to test/analyze this meaning.

http://www.alisongopnik.com/Papers_Alison/gopnik & seiver 2009.pdf

Alison Gopnik's mistake like most scientists and yours is to now ignore the semantics/meaning she invented to do the test and claim the syntax/rules she discovered is primary and proves the semantics/meaning always had to be there.

Once again the test of knowledge is whether small children are able to communicate the meaning of this ability to us.

 

[!Kaggen]

What would stop me?

Why do you think I couldn't repeat the exercise without help, having seen it?

I couldn't recognise the ingredents by sight? I often shop by sight. I often cook with ingredents for which I cannot remember the name. My mother in law, who has almost no English has taught me many recipes and demonstrates techniques just by showing me. I have no idea of the words for some of those techniques and no need for any.

I can teach my son how to throw and catch a ball without using any words.

Copying actions of others is a human skill which does not require any knowledge correct. Communicating these actions as objective conditions, i.e. knowledge, requires language.

Right. If I had never smelled basil then I would know exactly what it smelled like by looking at the chemical description of the odour.

What was that about a Scotsman fallacy?

 

[Robin]

Copying actions of others is a human skill which does not require any knowledge correct.

Why is my knowledge of cooking techniques, learned non-lingually, not knowledge?

Communicating these actions as objective conditions, i.e. knowledge, requires language.

What on earth does "objective conditions" mean?

Tell me precisely why this is not knowledge.

What was that about a Scotsman fallacy?

You say "knowledge requires language"

I give an example of knowledge that does not require language.

You say "that is not really knowledge" but give me no reason why.

 

[!Kaggen]

Why is my knowledge of cooking techniques, learned non-lingually, not knowledge?

It only becomes knowledge when it is given meaning using language and is then universally objectively recognized as having this meaning. Until then it is you doing something nobody has knowledge of and even this I admit is not true as we have a meaning for "something". Perhaps I should say until then what your doing is meaningless.

What on earth does "objective conditions" mean?

Empirically verified using an objective method such as the scientific method.

Tell me precisely why this is not knowledge.

Knowledge is a word with a meaning and therefore needs to be objectively recognized as such. It therefore needs to have meaning in a recognized language and needs to be verified empirically. That which is claimed to be contained within the concept "knowledge" fits within this criteria.

You say "knowledge requires language"

I give an example of knowledge that does not require language.

You say "that is not really knowledge" but give me no reason why.

And the only way you have to claim this is knowledge is using language, how interesting.

 

[Brainache]

And the only way you have to claim this is knowledge is using language, how interesting.

Or by making a pie...

 

[Darat]

As you say "it's specific form depends on the history of the culture". Morality changes, it is different for different cultures. Is that not subjective?

Help me understand the "morality" of other species?

If Pinker's idea is correct then what we would expect to find is a "core" of behaviour that deals with interaction with other humans (morals) that appears across all different human cultures, both in the present and in the past. How these "core morals" are expressed and added to would be the cultural difference.

 

[!Kaggen]

Or by making a pie...

This only demonstrates the ability to do something, not knowledge of what you are doing. You might not have any idea of what it is you did. The only way we will know is by you communicating what it is you are doing or just did.

 

[Brainache]

This only demonstrates the ability to do something, not knowledge of what you are doing. You might not have any idea of what it is you did. The only way we will know is by you communicating what it is you are doing or just did.

Are you serious? Someone bakes a pie and they don't know what they are doing? Then how do you know, if he describes it in words, that he knows what the words mean? He could just be grunting random syllables which you decide describe a pie recipe...

 

[Dancing David]

A preverbal toddler does not claim to have knowledge, that is what you have projected onto them.

Or can we not label a perceived behavior in ourselves and others without a declaration that it is knowledge?

Why does a toddler have to say "I have knowledge" to have the quality labeled as knowledge?

Again language is idiomatic and self-referential but ultimately it depends upon the reference to external referents.

That fact that we have to agree to call something a 'tree' or 'arbol', means that it is idiomatic. So you have defined knowledge as only that which can be expressed verbally. So why don't aphasic people walk into things, how come they can use a knife and fork and cook dinner?

They have the ‘knowledge’ to ‘prepare a meal’. Regardless of what we call it. Or are you saying they didn’t cook the meal because they can declare “I cooked a meal.”


And just so you know I held veiw point similar to yours for a very long time.