Hi Bruno Marchal 

"Is" is what we privately think, "ought" is what we think when another guy's 

Roger Clough, 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: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-21, 14:31:50
Subject: Re: On comp and the is-ought problem of Hume

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 
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? 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