On 30 January 2004 Eric Hawthorne wrote:
QUOTE
I really think that to get a good grasp on this kind of issue, one has to
get over ones-self. Step outside for a moment and
consider whether you feeling conscious is as amazing or inexplicable as
you think. Consciousness may very well just be
an
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
fact vs. value;
formal vs. informal;
precise vs. vague;
objective vs. subjective;
third person vs. first person;
computation vs. thought;
brain vs. mind;
David Chalmer's easy problem vs. hard problem of consciousness:
To me, this dichotomy remains the biggest mystery
At 13:53 30/01/04 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
fact vs. value;
formal vs. informal;
precise vs. vague;
objective vs. subjective;
third person vs. first person;
computation vs. thought;
brain vs. mind;
David Chalmer's easy problem vs. hard problem of consciousness:
To me, this dichotomy
Greetings,
Some previous posts in the current thread have attacked this idea by,
for example, explaining ethics in terms of evolutionary theory or game
theory, but this is like explaining a statement about the properties
of sodium chloride in terms of the evolutionary or game theoretic
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Take these two statements:
(a) Dulce et decorum est/ Pro patria mori (Wilfred Owen)
(b) He died in the trenches during WW I from chlorine gas poisoning
The former conveys feelings, values, wishes, while the latter conveys
facts. The former is not true or false in the
At 14:54 29/01/04 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
(a) Dulce et decorum est/ Pro patria mori (Wilfred Owen)
(b) He died in the trenches during WW I from chlorine gas poisoning
The former conveys feelings, values, wishes, while the latter conveys
facts. The former is not true or false in the same
fact vs. value;
formal vs. informal;
precise vs. vague;
objective vs. subjective;
third person vs. first person;
computation vs. thought;
brain vs. mind;
David Chalmer's easy problem vs. hard problem of consciousness:
To me, this dichotomy remains the biggest mystery in science and philosophy.
I
At 11:58 28/01/04 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The big difference between ethical and aesthetic axioms and the axioms of
empirical science is that the latter are so widely accepted that they are
not even recognised as axioms, for the most part. If I say water boils at
100 degrees celcius,
On 28 Jan 2004 Bruno Marchal wrote:
QUOTE-
It is perhaps not as easy to get the H2O boiling point right, but you did
not convince me of any fundamental impossibility of scientific ethic. Now,
I believe that if there is any scientific ethic
then it cannot be normative and cannot give moral
At 22:17 26/01/04 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. I could be the most rational of people
and still consistently hold the evil views I have described (for the sake
of argument, of course!), because good and evil. You cannot prove that a
moral axiom is correct
The big difference between ethical and aesthetic axioms and the axioms of
empirical science is that the latter are so widely accepted that they are
not even recognised as axioms, for the most part. If I say water boils at
100 degrees celcius, this can be proved or disproved to the satisfaction
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. I could be the most rational of people and
still consistently hold the evil views I have described (for the sake of
argument, of course!), because good and evil. You cannot prove that a
moral axiom is correct or incorrect, nor can you assume that it will be
Let me give a clearer example. Suppose I say that I believe it is a good and
noble thing for the strong to oppress the weak, even to the point of killing
them; and that if I were in charge I would promote this moral position in
schools, through the media, and with changes to the criminal law,
Stathis is right. The moral axiomatic system will have to show that in moral/ethical
issues we must allow ourselves to be guided by facts logic. **But even if it
succeeds in showing that, one already has to have agreed to be guided by facts logic
in order to be guided by the moral axiomatic
On 25-Jan-04, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Let me give a clearer example. Suppose I say that I believe it is a
good and noble thing for the strong to oppress the weak, even to the
point of killing them; and that if I were in charge I would promote
this moral position in schools, through the
I have to say that I sympathize with Caesar, but my position is slightly
different. I think there is a possibility that that objective morality
does exist, but we're simply too stupid to realize what it is. Therefore
we should try to improve our intelligence, through intelligence
amplication, or
There are statements of fact, statements of logic (also called analytic or a
priori), and statements of value. Statements of fact are verified or
falsified empirically. Statements of logic include mathematical theorems and
are verified or falsified by following the rules of logic or
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:01:42AM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
If I stop with (a) above, I am simply
saying that this is how I feel about suffering, and this feeling is not
contingent on the state of affairs in any actual or possible world [there, I
got it in!].
(a) as stated is ill
Morality, ethics, virtue, etc. imply a struggle for control -- at least within
oneself, but often more widely. If morality had a set of obvious axioms, such as to
lead to firm reliable answers to all moral questions in practice, it would be
know-how, not morality. For everything there is a
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
This sort of argument has been raised many times over the centuries,
both by rationalists and by their opponents, but it is based the
fundamental error of conflating science with ethics. Science deals
with matters of fact; it does not comment on whether these facts
The previous message was actually off-list, but since you replied to the list as well:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 05:07:29PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The study of why societies have certain ethical beliefs is a subject for
evolutionary psychology, or anthropology/sociology (moving down
Eric Hawthorne wrote:
QUOTE-
It may not be an error to equate science and ethics. Science continually
moves into new domains.
I'm of the opinion that there is a valid utilitarian theory of co-operating
intelligent agent ethics.
Utilitarian because the purpose of the ethical principles can be
Sorry. Can't help myself : Is there any point in completing that term paper really?
Actually, between the above remark made in fun, the subsequent discussion, there are
things in common. Above, the joke is that, if one adopts nihilism the view that
nothing is worth caring about, then what
The last world is right.
I think that if there were infinites universes like our own and if all
possible thinks that could append realy append, talking about existential
and ethical nihilism or moralism make no sense. Certainly there will be
infinites observers who believe in existential and
This sort of argument has been raised many times over the centuries, both by
rationalists and by their opponents, but it is based the fundamental error
of conflating science with ethics. Science deals with matters of fact; it
does not comment on whether these facts are good or bad, beautiful or
The study of why societies have certain ethical beliefs is a subject for
evolutionary psychology, or anthropology/sociology (moving down the
reductionist hierarchy), and the study of what brain processes underlie
ethical beliefs and behaviour is a subject for
Sorry. Can't help myself : Is there any point in completing that term
paper really?
On a few points.
I don't believe in the point of view of nihilism because everything
will happen in the multiverse, anyway, regardless of what I do..
My reasons are a little vague, but here's a stab at it:
1.
Your conclusion that there is no scientific justification for morals of any
sort, only that in the Darwinistic sense depends on the definition of
scientific. Without morals an argument could be made that mankind would
not exist - it would have self-destructed. Perhaps that is scientific
28 matches
Mail list logo
