On 20 Aug 2012, at 15:01, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

In evolutionary terms, is and ougth reflect the double nature of a social being which has not lost is individuality, as individual and as a member of a bigger whole. Both are in tension. The social whole is also in our instinctive individual nature,and appear to the conscious trough intuitions and feelings of duty. The "Ought" are our long term rules for survival as individuals as member of a society trough generations, which is accesibe trough intuition. The IS is more inmediate to our intuition (when social things are ok). But both are given, but are adapted to the social circunstances : We would not be here if our ancestors would not have been egoistic. Neither we would be here too if they would not attend their social duties and repress the deleterious part of their selfish behaviours.

For this reason,John Maynard Smith, an evolutionist http://meaningoflife.tv/ said that the naturalistic fallacy is itself a fallacy, because the Ough is in an IS no less IS than the IS of our ordinary selfish behaviour, with some matizations. is in concordance with the Christian notion of the human nature of a man in permanent tension between the god (which he have knowledge thanks to his Soul or his Nous) and the evil of his socially and individually deleterous selfish impulses.

This tension between deletereous individuality that endangers the common good appears in all the scales of evolution. there are parasite molecules, parasite genes, parasite intracellular organules, parasite tissues and parasite individuals against which the whole has a set of countermeasures. The transitions from a level to the next never is complete. The tension between individuality and sociality is ethernal, but in the human being this conflict is not only is carried out externally, but in its own conscience.

Well said.
Mathematical modal logic, like model theory and mathematical semantics, illustrates also that the ought can be made as an is by a change of level in the theories, as adding dimensions can sometimes do that in mathematical physics. The tension between the higher self and the "little selfish ego" exists right at the start in all universal machine, even if this is not palpable when the machine is isolated from other machine. I mean that we can already justify a sort of "ought" by the logic of self- reference, (notably the one give by [[]p & <>p)), and this might corroborate some of Leibniz insight.



2012/8/20 Roger <rclo...@verizon.net>
Hi meekerdb

All's well in Heaven, but down here on earth things are a little messier.
Heaven is what should be, down here is what is.
This conflict earns preachers a nice life.

The Christian solution to this dilemma is that God solved it a long
time ago by allowing his son to be crucified and proved it by
resurrecting Him.  IMHO.

Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-18, 15:04:00
Subject: Re: On comp and the is-ought problem of Hume

Who’s Afraid of the Naturalistic Fallacy?
Oliver Curry, Centre Research Associate, Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, London School of
Economics, UK WC2A 2AE, UK; Email: o.s.cu...@lse.ac.uk.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to