If someone wins the Nobel prize you heard it here first.
The is-ought problem implies that the universe is deterministic, which is incorrect, it’s an infinite range of possibilities or probabilities which are consistent but can never be certain. Humes beliefs about is-ought came from his own understanding of his emotions and those around him’s emotions. He correctly presumed that it is what drives us and that logic and rationality could not (thus not ought to be in any way because things are) and thought the universe is deterministic (without the knowledge of the brain and QM). The insight he’s not aware of that even though his emotions are the driving factor, he misses out that he can emotionally be with rationality and logic, facts, so there is no ought to be from what is. ‘What is’ implies facts, rationality, and logic and so on, EA/Utilitarian ideas. The question about free will is an emotional one if you are aware your subjective reference frame, awareness, was a part of it then you can let go of that.
You seem to be misunderstanding is-ought. The point is that you cannot conclude what ought to be, or what you ought to do, from what is. You can conclude what you ought to do in order to achieve some specific goal, but you cannot infer “evolutionary biology, therefor effective altruism”. You are inserting your own predisposition into that chain and pretending it is a logical consequence.
With that interpretation, not Copenhagen.
I’m unsure, because inherently, can we really be certain of absolutes because of our lack of understanding of the human brain? I think that how memory storage and how the brain works shows us that we can’t be certain of our own knowledge.
If you are right with that the universe is deterministic then what ought to be is what is. But if you ought to do the opposite from what ‘is’ tell us, what are you doing then? You are not allowed to have a goal which is not aligned with what is because that goes against what you are. I do agree with you now however, I think that this is semantics. I think it was a heuristic. But then I’ll say “What is, is what you ought to be”.
If reasonable people can disagree regarding Copenhagen vs. Many Worlds, then reasonable people can disagree on whether the universe is deterministic. In which case, since your whole philosophy seems to depend on the universe not being deterministic, you should scream “oops!” and look for where you went wrong, not try to come up with some way to quickly patch over the problem without thinking about it too hard.
Also: How could ‘is’ ever tell you what to do?
An innocent is murdered. That ‘is’. So it’s okay?
You learn that an innocent is going to be murdered. That ‘is’, so what force compels you to intervene?
The universe is full of suffering. That ‘is’. So you ought to spread and cause suffering? If not, what is your basis for saying so?
In which case, since your whole philosophy seems to depend on the universe not being deterministic, you should scream “oops!” and look for where you went wrong, not try to come up with some way to quickly patch over the problem without thinking about it too hard.
I’m glad that it’s clarified, indeed it relies on the universe not being deterministic. However, I do think that a belief in a deterministic universe has an easier time for its agents to go against their utility so my philosophy might boil down more to one’s emotions, probably what even put Humes to philosophize about this in the first place. He has apparently talked a lot about emotions/rationality duality and probably contradicted himself on ‘is-ought’ in his own statements.
You learn that an innocent is going to be murdered. That ‘is’, so what force compels you to intervene?
Is tells me what I should write to your hypothetical scenario to align you more with reality, rather than continuing the intellectual masturbation. Which philosophers are notorious for, all talk, no action.
The universe is full of suffering. That ‘is’. So you ought to spread and cause suffering? If not, what is your basis for saying so?
We are naturally aligned into the decrease of suffering, I don’t know exactly, so what is is in every moment whereas the low hanging fruit has to be picked up in for example poverty reduction. Long-term probably awareness of humans like you and I, the next on the list might be an existential risk reduction, seems to be high expected value.
Is tells me what I should write to your hypothetical scenario to align you more with reality, rather than continuing the intellectual masturbation. Which philosophers are notorious for, all talk, no action.
Not sure what this means. If “Just align with reality!” is your guiding ethical principle, and it doesn’t return answers to ethical questions, it is useless.
We are naturally aligned into the decrease of suffering,
Naw, we’re naturally aligned to decrease our own suffering. Our natural impulses and ethical intuitions are frequently mutually contradictory and a philosophy of just going with whatever feels right in the moment is (a) not going to be self-consistent and (b) pretty much what people already do, and definitely doesn’t require “clicking”.
Sufficiently wealthy and secure 21st century Westerners sometimes conclude that they should try to alleviate the suffering of others, for a complex variety of reasons. This also doesn’t require or “clicking”.
By the way, you seem to have surrendered on several key points along the way without acknowledging or perhaps realizing it. I think it might be time for you to consider whether your position is worth arguing for at all.
Not sure what this means. If “Just align with reality!” is your guiding ethical principle, and it doesn’t return answers to ethical questions, it is useless.
It does return answers for ethical questions. In fact I think it will for all.
Naw, we’re naturally aligned to decrease our own suffering. Our natural impulses and ethical intuitions are frequently mutually contradictory and a philosophy of just going with whatever feels right in the moment is (a) not going to be self-consistent and (b) pretty much what people already do, and definitely doesn’t require “clicking”.
What if your suffering is gone and there are only others suffering based on intellectual assumptions?
Sufficiently wealthy and secure 21st century Westerners sometimes conclude that they should try to alleviate the suffering of others, for a complex variety of reasons. This also doesn’t require or “clicking”.
What if that was the goal and being wealthy and secure 21st century Westerner was the means as with all?
By the way, you seem to have surrendered on several key points along the way without acknowledging or perhaps realizing it. I think it might be time for you to consider whether your position is worth arguing for at all.
I didn’t surrender, I tried to wake you up. I can easily refute all of your arguments by advising you to gain knowledge of certain things and accepting it fully.
ingive, I made it an experiment this last few days to interact with you much more than I would normally be inclined to. I had previously noticed my own tendency to disengage with people online when I suspected that my interactions with them would not lead anywhere useful. I thought there was a possibility that my default tendency was to disengage prematurely, and that I might be missing out on opportunities to learn, or test myself in various other ways.
What I have learned is that my initial instinct to not engage with you was correct, and that my initial impression of you as essentially a member of a cult was accurate. I had thought there was a chance that I was missing something, or failing that, there was a chance that I could actually break through to you by simply pointing out the errors in your thought processes. I thought maybe I could spare you some confusion and pain in your life. I think that neither of those outcomes have come to pass. All I’ve learned is that I should trust my instincts and remain reserved and cautious in my online persona.
That’s interesting. You haven’t simply pointed out my errors in my thought processes. I have yet to see you simply point them out, rather than arguing with assumptions that I can refute with basic reasoning. It’s cute that you, for example, assume I don’t have an answer to your hypothetical scenarios because I simply point out that it’s a waste of time. Hypotheticals are intellectual entertainment. But it might’ve been a better choice to answer your questions from the mindset I was speculating of.
I just watched The Master which was an aesthetically pleasing movie. It does give some taste of cults/new-age thinking, and I can see myself doing the same type of thinking for other things. I’ve discussed with people with different perspectives and watched such content as well. I’ve come to the conclusion that this is human nature. Thinking back long ago in my life and now, unfortunately, if you think you’re incapable of such thinking or not actually a part of such a thing right now, you probably are. But that is very confrontational and I wouldn’t be surprised that you, or someone else, would without hesitation deny that fact. I can only tell you that in some hope that you don’t reinforce the belief that you probably are not.
I’m going to open my mind now, you’re free to reprogram my brain, tell me, Master and break through to me. Seriously, I am open minded.
Because Hume thought the universe is without taking in consideration that it ought to be different because of probabilistic nature (one interpretation) of it all.
No. Accepting facts fully does not lead to utilitarian ideas. This has been a solved problem since Hume, FFS.
You’re welcome to explain why this isn’t the case. I’m thinking mostly about neuroscience and evolutionary biology. It tells us everything.
Is-ought divide. If you have solved this problem, mainstream philosophy wants to know.
If someone wins the Nobel prize you heard it here first.
The is-ought problem implies that the universe is deterministic, which is incorrect, it’s an infinite range of possibilities or probabilities which are consistent but can never be certain. Humes beliefs about is-ought came from his own understanding of his emotions and those around him’s emotions. He correctly presumed that it is what drives us and that logic and rationality could not (thus not ought to be in any way because things are) and thought the universe is deterministic (without the knowledge of the brain and QM). The insight he’s not aware of that even though his emotions are the driving factor, he misses out that he can emotionally be with rationality and logic, facts, so there is no ought to be from what is. ‘What is’ implies facts, rationality, and logic and so on, EA/Utilitarian ideas. The question about free will is an emotional one if you are aware your subjective reference frame, awareness, was a part of it then you can let go of that.
The universe is deterministic.
You seem to be misunderstanding is-ought. The point is that you cannot conclude what ought to be, or what you ought to do, from what is. You can conclude what you ought to do in order to achieve some specific goal, but you cannot infer “evolutionary biology, therefor effective altruism”. You are inserting your own predisposition into that chain and pretending it is a logical consequence.
With that interpretation, not Copenhagen. I’m unsure, because inherently, can we really be certain of absolutes because of our lack of understanding of the human brain? I think that how memory storage and how the brain works shows us that we can’t be certain of our own knowledge.
If you are right with that the universe is deterministic then what ought to be is what is. But if you ought to do the opposite from what ‘is’ tell us, what are you doing then? You are not allowed to have a goal which is not aligned with what is because that goes against what you are. I do agree with you now however, I think that this is semantics. I think it was a heuristic. But then I’ll say “What is, is what you ought to be”.
If reasonable people can disagree regarding Copenhagen vs. Many Worlds, then reasonable people can disagree on whether the universe is deterministic. In which case, since your whole philosophy seems to depend on the universe not being deterministic, you should scream “oops!” and look for where you went wrong, not try to come up with some way to quickly patch over the problem without thinking about it too hard.
Also: How could ‘is’ ever tell you what to do?
An innocent is murdered. That ‘is’. So it’s okay?
You learn that an innocent is going to be murdered. That ‘is’, so what force compels you to intervene?
The universe is full of suffering. That ‘is’. So you ought to spread and cause suffering? If not, what is your basis for saying so?
I’m glad that it’s clarified, indeed it relies on the universe not being deterministic. However, I do think that a belief in a deterministic universe has an easier time for its agents to go against their utility so my philosophy might boil down more to one’s emotions, probably what even put Humes to philosophize about this in the first place. He has apparently talked a lot about emotions/rationality duality and probably contradicted himself on ‘is-ought’ in his own statements.
Is tells me what I should write to your hypothetical scenario to align you more with reality, rather than continuing the intellectual masturbation. Which philosophers are notorious for, all talk, no action.
We are naturally aligned into the decrease of suffering, I don’t know exactly, so what is is in every moment whereas the low hanging fruit has to be picked up in for example poverty reduction. Long-term probably awareness of humans like you and I, the next on the list might be an existential risk reduction, seems to be high expected value.
Not sure what this means. If “Just align with reality!” is your guiding ethical principle, and it doesn’t return answers to ethical questions, it is useless.
Naw, we’re naturally aligned to decrease our own suffering. Our natural impulses and ethical intuitions are frequently mutually contradictory and a philosophy of just going with whatever feels right in the moment is (a) not going to be self-consistent and (b) pretty much what people already do, and definitely doesn’t require “clicking”.
Sufficiently wealthy and secure 21st century Westerners sometimes conclude that they should try to alleviate the suffering of others, for a complex variety of reasons. This also doesn’t require or “clicking”.
By the way, you seem to have surrendered on several key points along the way without acknowledging or perhaps realizing it. I think it might be time for you to consider whether your position is worth arguing for at all.
It does return answers for ethical questions. In fact I think it will for all.
What if your suffering is gone and there are only others suffering based on intellectual assumptions?
What if that was the goal and being wealthy and secure 21st century Westerner was the means as with all?
I didn’t surrender, I tried to wake you up. I can easily refute all of your arguments by advising you to gain knowledge of certain things and accepting it fully.
ingive, I made it an experiment this last few days to interact with you much more than I would normally be inclined to. I had previously noticed my own tendency to disengage with people online when I suspected that my interactions with them would not lead anywhere useful. I thought there was a possibility that my default tendency was to disengage prematurely, and that I might be missing out on opportunities to learn, or test myself in various other ways.
What I have learned is that my initial instinct to not engage with you was correct, and that my initial impression of you as essentially a member of a cult was accurate. I had thought there was a chance that I was missing something, or failing that, there was a chance that I could actually break through to you by simply pointing out the errors in your thought processes. I thought maybe I could spare you some confusion and pain in your life. I think that neither of those outcomes have come to pass. All I’ve learned is that I should trust my instincts and remain reserved and cautious in my online persona.
That’s interesting. You haven’t simply pointed out my errors in my thought processes. I have yet to see you simply point them out, rather than arguing with assumptions that I can refute with basic reasoning. It’s cute that you, for example, assume I don’t have an answer to your hypothetical scenarios because I simply point out that it’s a waste of time. Hypotheticals are intellectual entertainment. But it might’ve been a better choice to answer your questions from the mindset I was speculating of.
I just watched The Master which was an aesthetically pleasing movie. It does give some taste of cults/new-age thinking, and I can see myself doing the same type of thinking for other things. I’ve discussed with people with different perspectives and watched such content as well. I’ve come to the conclusion that this is human nature. Thinking back long ago in my life and now, unfortunately, if you think you’re incapable of such thinking or not actually a part of such a thing right now, you probably are. But that is very confrontational and I wouldn’t be surprised that you, or someone else, would without hesitation deny that fact. I can only tell you that in some hope that you don’t reinforce the belief that you probably are not.
I’m going to open my mind now, you’re free to reprogram my brain, tell me, Master and break through to me. Seriously, I am open minded.
What?
Because Hume thought the universe is without taking in consideration that it ought to be different because of probabilistic nature (one interpretation) of it all.