Are you a secularist

[annnnoid]

There always is.

You seem confused. Did you have an actual question you wanted to ask?

…dog runs off with tail between legs.

Science can’t do it.

Pixy can’t do it.

…just…more…excuses!

Ask the actual scientists who did the observations concerning, which categories moral and ethical claims consists of?

But here is the fun part; it is called reductio ad absurdum and here is how it works - You can only know what you observe if you have defined beforehand what you observe. That is absurd, because it means that your definition determines what you observe.

PixyMisa, you are so easy! If what you say was true for any life form, then it could only observe and see if it had a prior definition for which it could use to categorize its observations. I would like evidence for that.

Now please try to understand the difference between observation(empiricism), explanation and definition. You only use a definition as an explanation for a given word. You don't define the meaning of all words, that would be absurd universal social constructivism and mean that you define the meaning of the world in all aspects.

You don't define the meaning of a word without having a prior observation(empiricism). If you think you can define that meaning of anything without observation(empiricism), then you are an epistemological rationalist. Are you that, PixyMisa? Do you think you can define and think truth into being or do you accept that there is no knowledge without a prior experience/observation(empiricism)?

…this…quite explicitly…is where Pixy’s (and thus…science’) argument falls completely flat.

…and all Pixy can do is make feeble excuses, complain, and run away.

We’re not going to do it for you Pixy. Use your omniscient science that you never stop claiming is the only valid epistemology and has the power to do everything.

…so…do it!

 

[PixyMisa]

Ask the actual scientists who did the observations concerning, which categories moral and ethical claims consists of?

But they are not the problem. They are not the ones asking meaningless questions.

But here is the fun part; it is called reductio ad absurdum and here is how it works - You can only know what you observe if you have defined beforehand what you observe.

Wrong again. You can only know if you have observed some thing if you have defined what that thing is.

Is there a garablattox in your garden? If you don't know whether a garablattox is a rhododendron or an elk, you can't answer the question. This is always true, in everything; if you don't define your terms, you automatically fail.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

But they are not the problem. They are not the ones asking meaningless questions.


Wrong again. You can only know if you have observed some thing if you have defined what that thing is.

Is there a garablattox in your garden? If you don't know whether a garablattox is a rhododendron or an elk, you can't answer the question. This is always true, in everything; if you don't define your terms, you automatically fail.

What is a definition? An input, output or computation? Can a definition actually be an input or it is always a case of being an output? Answer that, PixyMisa What is a definition is the terms of input->computation->output?

Here is what is at play You are nothing but your brain/body. You don't define words as you, the computation in your brain does that. Now again, are definitions input, computation, output or what?

 

[PixyMisa]

What is a definition?

A symbolic reference.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

A symbolic reference.

What is a symbolic reference as input->computation->output?

What kind of input, computation and output are going on in a definition?

 

[PixyMisa]

What is a symbolic reference as input->computation->output?

No. It's a symbolic reference.

What kind of input, computation and output are going on in a definition?

No.

 

[tsig]

Ask the actual scientists who did the observations concerning, which categories moral and ethical claims consists of?

But here is the fun part; it is called reductio ad absurdum and here is how it works - You can only know what you observe if you have defined beforehand what you observe. That is absurd, because it means that your definition determines what you observe.

PixyMisa, you are so easy! If what you say was true for any life form, then it could only observe and see if it had a prior definition for which it could use to categorize its observations. I would like evidence for that.

Now please try to understand the difference between observation(empiricism), explanation and definition. You only use a definition as an explanation for a given word. You don't define the meaning of all words, that would be absurd universal social constructivism and mean that you define the meaning of the world in all aspects.

You don't define the meaning of a word without having a prior observation(empiricism). If you think you can define that meaning of anything without observation(empiricism), then you are an epistemological rationalist. Are you that, PixyMisa? Do you think you can define and think truth into being or do you accept that there is no knowledge without a prior experience/observation(empiricism)?

If the hilited were true then no discovery is possible and we would still be sitting in cold caves, since are not sitting in cold caves your position is disproved.

 

[tsig]

…well then…do like a scientist.

Don’t just stand there and endlessly complain that it’s someone else’s fault.

…do your job!

Establish if there is something to be investigated.
Establish the parameters of investigation if necessary.
Establish the parameters of definition if necessary.
IOW…do what a scientist supposedly does.

…and stop endlessly complaining that someone else isn’t doing it for you.

Eventually you’ll arrive at an exclusively scientific meaning for the word ‘meaning’ and an exclusively scientific meaning for each and every one of those words, including morality and murder…at which point you, and science, can explicitly establish a scientific dialectic for murder.

What’s stopping you? If you can’t do it…then identify, precisely, in that chain of events, where science fails!

If science does not fail…then do it!

You are surrounded by products of science while railing on about how science fails.

 

[Nonpareil]

It truly is staggering how people can demand that science answer questions like "is murder wrong?" and then, without even blinking, demand that science also provide the definition of wrong for them.

Wrong using which definition? Utilitarianism? Prioritarianism? Who's dying, what's the method of execution, what is accomplished by the act? Are we talking about giving Hitler the lethal injection or feeding Mother Theresa into a wood chipper?

Ask a meaningless question and you get turned away. If you want an answer, define your terms.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Define "wrong".

What I don't like

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen
What is a symbolic reference as input->computation->output?
PixyMisa: No. It's a symbolic reference.

Quote:
What kind of input, computation and output are going on in a definition?
PixyMisa: No.

So a definition can't be explained using input->computation->output? Then what is a definition in physical terms if not a physical process in a brain subject to input->computation->output?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It truly is staggering how people can demand that science answer questions like "is murder wrong?" and then, without even blinking, demand that science also provide the definition of wrong for them.

Wrong using which definition? Utilitarianism? Prioritarianism? Who's dying, what's the method of execution, what is accomplished by the act? Are we talking about giving Hitler the lethal injection or feeding Mother Theresa into a wood chipper?

Ask a meaningless question and you get turned away. If you want an answer, define your terms.

You are the commander of a life boat. In the water some distance away is a large number of people, maybe larger than what the life boat can carry and/or you can control. What should you do? How do you know what to do?
If you know what to do, how you know it as per science? What has science to do with this situation?

The idea that "morality" can't operate under a scientific, rational and/or logical mindset is one of Woo's most cherished falsehoods.

I am an atheist.

Morals/ethics come from humans.

Since most humans would rather not be murdered, raped or robbed whenever they gather in groups they make rules about those things within the group.


ETA: If you need an external force to tell you that being murdered, raped or robbed is bad then you need to stop by your nearest Reality Check station and have your Reality Sensor recalibrated.

Give me an objective definition of "wrong" and I'll give you objective reasons why murdering, raping, and stealing are wrong. Or, depending on your definition, not.

I'm not tsig (thank FSM) but I'll add my two cents.


I can see no objective evidence that it is wrong to believe in a god. That said, I can see objective evidence that some who believe in a god do wrong things because of that belief.

What does that make me?

The problem is that this is complete garbage. Valid questions of meaning and moral value are scientifically answerable. The reason most questions of meaning and moral value aren't scientifically answerable is that they're not valid - they are not answerable by any means.

Just for the fun of it

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

PixyMisa, how do you know valid? What is valid? How do you explain valid? Is valid a thing? Is valid objectively measurable? Are there different versions of valid?
Do the same with purely objective
Do the same with proper

Do you really think that you can decide purely objectively matters of morality and ethics? Or are you subjectively defining your own definitions and that claiming that it is objective? Is that it?

PS: You are using valid both for science and math?!! Is it the same valid?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

“There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.”

Is that choice subjective or objective? Is it answerable by science? If so, how? Who wrote it BTW?

 

[tsig]

You are the commander of a life boat. In the water some distance away is a large number of people, maybe larger than what the life boat can carry and/or you can control. What should you do? How do you know what to do?
If you know what to do, how you know it as per science? What has science to do with this situation?












Just for the fun of it

I take all the debris floating in the area and using the science of boat building to build a boat big enough for everyone.

 

[Nonpareil]

You are the commander of a life boat. In the water some distance away is a large number of people, maybe larger than what the life boat can carry and/or you can control. What should you do? How do you know what to do?
If you know what to do, how you know it as per science? What has science to do with this situation?

Not enough information given.

Define your terms. "What should you do?" is a pointless question unless you define the value system you are using to determine what course of action is "best". Once you have that value system defined, answering your question is trivial. Plug in the possibilities and see which works.

And if you can't see how that's science - albeit science applied to a completely arbitrary system - then there is no help for you.

 

[Nonpareil]

What I don't like

Then answering your question is trivially easy. Do you like murder?

 

[PixyMisa]

So a definition can't be explained using input->computation->output? Then what is a definition in physical terms if not a physical process in a brain subject to input->computation->output?

A definition is an abstraction, not a concrete object or process. An instantiation of a definition is a computational process.

 

[PixyMisa]

You are the commander of a life boat. In the water some distance away is a large number of people, maybe larger than what the life boat can carry and/or you can control. What should you do?

Define "should".

 

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa, how do you know valid? What is valid? How do you explain valid? Is valid a thing? Is valid objectively measurable? Are there different versions of valid?
Do the same with purely objective
Do the same with proper

Already answered.

Do you really think that you can decide purely objectively matters of morality and ethics?

It's not a question of me being able to do anything. If you can properly define your terms, science can answer your questions.

PS: You are using valid both for science and math?!! Is it the same valid?

No. But they're related. A mathematically invalid term, for example, is necessarily also scientifically invalid.