FORGIVENESS

[Angra Mainyu]

What you seem to be trying to say is that because of this, every claim about the world could be said to be based on what you are calling intuitions. Fair enough. But you can't necessarily put the existence of or facts about everything in the world trivially on a par like that merely because everything humans know about them comes through what you are calling intuitions. Well, you can, but only if you deny there are facts about the world which don't depend on intuitions. I'm sure you don't do this.

But the problem is that an argument that rejects intuitions as a general method is bound to fail, for the reasons I've been explaining.

Some things we have intuitions about are related to attitude-independent facts about humans. Eg Death.

And again, we assess intuitively that some facts are independent of the attitude of the person making them. Examples: facts about whether a condition a person has is an illness, or whether an object is red, or whether a person behaved immorally. The point is that in some of those cases, you reject the intuition that those are facts independent from the attitude of the person making the assessment, and in some other cases, you accept such intuition, but you do not explain why do you reject some of the intuitions.

Intuitions about human morality may or may not be like that. It hasn't been shown yet.

No, you miss the point. You reckon intuitively that the fact that cataracts is an illness is independent of the attitude of the person assessing whether cataracts is an illness. But when I reckon intuitively that the fact that some apples are red is independent of the attitude of the person assessing whether some apples are red, you tell me I am wrong in using intuition, and when I reckon intuitively that the fact that Ted Bundy was a bad person is independent of the attitude of the person assessing whether he was a bad person, you accuse me of being religious, mock me, etc.

For judgements about human bodily health, I would cite freshly severed limbs or heads, or a crushed skull, or massive haemorrhaging of blood for any reason, or ECGs which reliably detect the presence of a very severe type of (eg STEMI) heart attack, or a series of x-rays showing the rapid advance of a very aggressive and lethal cancer to the point that death is imminent.

Again, how do you reckon that the fact that those conditions are illnesses is independent of the person making the assessment?
Intuitively? If not, how? (of course, intuitively).

It's far from being just my idea. Many (in fact I read most) colour psychologists and some philosophers do not hold that colours really exist, of themselves, as properties of the world outside our heads, inside which they are colour experiences.

Sure, and there are people who reject the idea that facts about whether a condition is an illness is attitude-independent. In philosophy of health and illness, you have the 'naturalists' (they would be roughly the equivalent of moral realists), and the 'constructivists' of different sorts (roughly the anti-realists).

See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/health-disease/ for more information.

It's not an unusual idea at all.

It is indeed extremely unusual. The vast majority of the human population disagrees.

The issue is up for debate and is unresolved. The vast majority of lay people may simply rely on limited, potentially fallible, 'ordinary/everyday' human intuitions, colloquial understandings and folk-psychological beliefs about it and haven't thought about it deeply enough or read about it widely enough, as with many things.

And the vast majority of those people are correct, as the challenges clearly show confusion and provide no good reason to reject those intuitions. Regardless, if you are going with that, I will point out that the same the same can be said about whether a condition is an illness. The vast majority rely on human intuitions about whether something is an illness.

 

[fromderinside]

I am one retired sensory psychophysiologist who holds that evolution of color vision as well as the existence of spectra in light, reflection, and illumination demonstrates colors do exist as properties of photic energy in the natural world.

I'm sure we could discuss it.

For instance, we apparently don't need light input to experience colour. Coloured phosphenes can be experienced in the dark and can be induced by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, or by inserting electrodes into the brain. I read that in some such experiments, blind people have been astounded by the experience.

Nonstarter. Each is experienced by a being that already translates photic energy as color. Antecedent for experience of color is ability to process photic energy which is evolved using photosensitive chemical processes. Blindness does not exclude the ability to use those biochemical processes inherent in the being.

 

[ruby sparks]

But the problem is that an argument that rejects intuitions as a general method is bound to fail, for the reasons I've been explaining.

No. Human intuitions are often fallible and unreliable, especially when it comes to intuitions about mental phenomena. This is demonstrably the case and many categories and several examples have been given. It is not the case with diseases. Your analogy with bodily health, which is arguably a different kettle of fish, has been flawed from the moment you first tried to use it.

And again, we assess intuitively that some facts are independent of the attitude of the person making them. Examples: facts about whether a condition a person has is an illness, or whether an object is red, or whether a person behaved immorally. The point is that in some of those cases, you reject the intuition that those are facts independent from the attitude of the person making the assessment, and in some other cases, you accept such intuition, but you do not explain why do you reject some of the intuitions.

On the contrary I have explained many times. You are merely an evidence-denier, although to be fair I knew that already, from when you hand-waved away the body of scientific evidence that at least somewhat undermines folk-psychological beliefs about free will, and you have done it repeatedly. Sidestepping evidence is, coincidentally, something religious people also often do.

I think you are also also slightly deluded, because basically, you kid yourself you have resolved issues that are plainly and obviously unresolved. The stuff about no one understanding you and your hope that others will come after who will is imo possibly a borderline delusion of grandeur specifically. I won't even get into your claiming to have won arguments that have not been decided yet.

No, you miss the point. You reckon intuitively that the fact that cataracts is an illness is independent of the attitude of the person assessing whether cataracts is an illness. But when I reckon intuitively that the fact that some apples are red is independent of the attitude of the person assessing whether some apples are red, you tell me I am wrong in using intuition, and when I reckon intuitively that the fact that Ted Bundy was a bad person is independent of the attitude of the person assessing whether he was a bad person, you accuse me of being religious, mock me, etc.

Your dogmatically-held personal convictions and your mode of discussion, including the sophistry, evidence-denial, and the being blinkered to alternatives, are like religion, that's all. Although that's arguably being a bit harsh on religion, since many religious people exhibit more flexible thinking than you do.

Again, how do you reckon that the fact that those conditions are illnesses is independent of the person making the assessment?
Intuitively? If not, how? (of course, intuitively).

I have already provided reasonable reasons for making the relevant epistemic distinction, most recently one based on standards of evidence. I did not actually expect you would account of it. That's par for the course for you when it comes to evidence. It's often inconvenient for you, I guess.

It is indeed extremely unusual.

Not among experts it isn't.

The vast majority of the human population disagrees.

Most ordinary people believe in god and free will and that there is a self between their ears, just behind their eyes. Do you actually have a point?

And the vast majority of those people are correct.....

According to the Word Of Angra.

.....as the challenges clearly show confusion...

So you claim. The alternative, of course, is that there is no attitude-independent fact of the matter. You haven't shown that there is yet. All you have done is to state that you intuitively believe there is, and that moral properties exist of themselves, and attempt to present these things as undeniably the case and that those who disagree are merely, unlike you, succumbing to confusion. Surely by now you can see why I'm saying you seem to be behaving at least a bit like a religious person.

..... and provide no good reason to reject those intuitions.

They do. You should read up on the alternatives. It is de facto not a decided issue and you being convinced about the real existence of attitude-independent moral facts and properties (which none of your convoluted scenarios demonstrated) is why I say you are being a bit like a religious person about it. One doesn't have to believe in god to be religious. People can be religious about almost anything.

Regardless, if you are going with that, I will point out that the same the same can be said about whether a condition is an illness.

No, it can't. I showed this by extending your analogy to fatal illnesses. That fatal illnesses actually, really do result in actual, real death is not an unresolved issue. Moral realism on the other hand is. In that way it's really quite simple. This matter is undecided. Stop fooling yourself into believing you've decided it in one direction.





Do you have anything more to add that isn't merely a regurgitation of your strongly-held personal beliefs and articles of faith?

If you want to stop now I'll happily agree that your claims are undefeated. I sometimes do that with theists too.

 

[ruby sparks]

I am one retired sensory psychophysiologist who holds that evolution of color vision as well as the existence of spectra in light, reflection, and illumination demonstrates colors do exist as properties of photic energy in the natural world.

I'm sure we could discuss it.

For instance, we apparently don't need light input to experience colour. Coloured phosphenes can be experienced in the dark and can be induced by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, or by inserting electrodes into the brain. I read that in some such experiments, blind people have been astounded by the experience.

Nonstarter. Each is experienced by a being that already translates photic energy as color. Antecedent for experience of color is ability to process photic energy which is evolved using photosensitive chemical processes. Blindness does not exclude the ability to use those biochemical processes inherent in the being.

Ok thanks. But of course that does not seem to resolve the issue. Any mental experience can have correlates. The experience of pain can have correlates that do not necessarily themselves have pain in them for example. Ditto many other experiences.

My main point in this thread on morality is not to argue strongly for or against colour realism (although I do myself lean towards colour non-realism) but to make the point that despite Angra's convictions, moral and colour realism issues are both unresolved. The bodily health realism issue isn't, by any reasonable standards.

 

[ruby sparks]

Continuing on the theme of comparing various issues, here are some interesting reads:

COLOUR FICTIONALISM

MORAL FICTIONALISM

Both seem to make the case that when whether something actually exists or is the case is not clear, what arguably matters most for practical purposes is the nature of the particular beliefs about them. This could be extended to other issues, such as free will, self, and obviously, god.

There is also this:

CANCER FICTIONALISM

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No. Human intuitions are often fallible and unreliable, especially when it comes to intuitions about mental phenomena.

First, no, not "often", but a minuscule proportion of the times. Yes, you can point to many studies. But note that in order to even do those studies, or even to figure that some intuitions are unreliable, scientists (and everyone else) have to rely on stronger intuitions about mental phenomena as well. In particular, they need to trust their memories in nearly all cases (even when that is to challenge some specific memories).

Second, the category 'mental phenomena' is picked arbitrarily, it seems. That some intuitions about some mental phenomena are sometimes unreliable does not warrant a general skepticism about human intuitions about mental phenomena...which, of course, neither you nor anyone else could actually practice, as they intuitively trust their intuitions about many of those phenomena all the time. Not that it would be rational to even attempt to have that general skepticism. In fact, even assessments of rationality require trusting some of such intuitions.

It is not the case with diseases.

It is not the case with morality, either. and the category of 'mental phenomena' is just arbitrary.

Still, even this would not help your position, as illnesses include mental illnesses, so there you have mental phenomena.

Your analogy with bodily health, which is arguably a different kettle of fish, has been flawed from the moment you first tried to use it.

No, you are changing the subject. You attacked human intuitions in general. I showed that your own argument would turn against your own position - I showed this many times already, in different posts and contexts.

On the contrary I have explained many times. You are merely an evidence-denier, although to be fair I knew that already, from when you hand-waved away the body of scientific evidence that at least somewhat undermines folk-psychological beliefs about free will, and you have done it repeatedly. Sidestepping evidence is, coincidentally, something religious people also often do.

I think you are also also slightly deluded, because basically, you kid yourself you have resolved issues that are plainly and obviously unresolved. The stuff about no one understanding you and your hope that others will come after who will is imo possibly a borderline delusion of grandeur specifically. I won't even get into your claiming to have won arguments that have not been decided yet.

Your accusations are false an unwarranted.

1. First, I do not deny evidence. You attribute to me arguments I do not make, you ignore and deny the arguments you lost already, etc.

2. I do not claim that no one understands my points. I'm pretty sure there is someone who does understand the points I am making, if he is still reading. You understand some but clearly many you do not, because otherwise your misconstruction of what happened would be dishonest.

2. I do not claim that I have resolved those issues. It's not my doing. But they are not "unresolved" other than in the sense philosophers still debate them. Big deal, philosophers debate a number of things. Many argue that the Biblical creator exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, the same entity (or substance, or whatever depending on the philosopher) as Jesus, who walked on water, etc. Moreover, of course some philosophers also deny illness realism. So, if by 'unresolved' you mean some philosophers debate it, deny the facts, etc., that is pretty much everywhere. Else, you are making a mistaken assessment, and then making disparaging accusations against me.

Your dogmatically-held personal convictions and your mode of discussion, including the sophistry, evidence-denial, and the being blinkered to alternatives, are like religion, that's all. Although that's arguably being a bit harsh on religion, since many religious people exhibit more flexible thinking than you do.

No, you just make disparaging, unwarranted and false accusations.

Do you have anything more to add that isn't merely a regurgitation of your strongly-held personal beliefs and articles of faith?

I do not regurgitate articles of faith or anything. I showed you that you are mistaken. I tried my best to explain the matter to you. I was very careful, and spent a lot of time trying to get you to understand. But you are not in a mood for understanding. You just attack me. I hope one day you realize that you were wrong. But I do not count on it.

 

[fromderinside]

Nonstarter. Each is experienced by a being that already translates photic energy as color. Antecedent for experience of color is ability to process photic energy which is evolved using photosensitive chemical processes. Blindness does not exclude the ability to use those biochemical processes inherent in the being.

Any mental experience can have correlates.

I didn't advocated correlates. I pointed out that experiences are dependent on material realities.

My main point in this thread on morality is not to argue strongly for or against colour realism (although I do myself lean towards colour non-realism) but to make the point that despite Angra's convictions, moral and colour realism issues are both unresolved. The bodily health realism issue isn't, by any reasonable standards.

I don't agree with either you ruby sparks or with Angra Mainyu that philosophy can stand independently. Any philosophy must recognize constraints of extant knowledge. It is howling at the moon to suggest experience, intuition, insight is free from physical dependency. You just can't dream up a mind - more or less because you are not cognizant of physical system parameters - that operates outside behaving physical system definitions.

You must know that color vision arose from materials capable of transducing light into electrochemical information which over time evolved into a system capable of finely distinguishing differences in that photic energy relevant to the continued existence of the the beings evolving. The very fact that those differences are distinguishable is strong evidence what is distinguished is material. Otherwise there would be no means for inferring Higgs Boson.


...and what is morality if not a system for treating social behavior within some schema.

 

[ruby sparks]

I do not claim that I have resolved those issues. It's not my doing. But they are not "unresolved" other than in the sense philosophers still debate them......... So, if by 'unresolved' you mean some philosophers debate it, deny the facts, etc., that is pretty much everywhere.

Thanks for the discussion. During the course of it I added to my previous knowledge about the many different and competing theses about morality, mostly by reading outside the thread while it was going on. Inside the thread, I met an individual who seems very personally convinced indeed that the particular thesis about morality which they endorse is the correct one, and who insists that this is true.

 

[ruby sparks]

I pointed out that experiences are dependent on material realities.

I'd agree.

I don't agree with either you ruby sparks or with Angra Mainyu that philosophy can stand independently. Any philosophy must recognize constraints of extant knowledge. It is howling at the moon to suggest experience, intuition, insight is free from physical dependency. You just can't dream up a mind - more or less because you are not cognizant of physical system parameters - that operates outside behaving physical system definitions.

I'm not saying that anything is free from physical dependency.

You must know that color vision arose from materials capable of transducing light into electrochemical information which over time evolved into a system capable of finely distinguishing differences in that photic energy relevant to the continued existence of the the beings evolving. The very fact that those differences are distinguishable is strong evidence what is distinguished is material. Otherwise there would be no means for inferring Higgs Boson.

I'm not saying light isn't material.

...and what is morality if not a system for treating social behavior within some schema.

What is morality indeed. Very good question.

 

[fromderinside]

I'd agree.




I'm not saying that anything is free from physical dependency.

So you're upgrading from correlated then?

You must know that color vision arose from materials capable of transducing light into electrochemical information which over time evolved into a system capable of finely distinguishing differences in that photic energy relevant to the continued existence of the the beings evolving. The very fact that those differences are distinguishable is strong evidence what is distinguished is material. Otherwise there would be no means for inferring Higgs Boson.

I'm not saying light isn't material.

I didn't say you were. I argued color is material as a distinguishable aspect of light.

...and what is morality if not a system for treating social behavior within some schema.

What is morality indeed. Very good question.

Of course it is. Yet you are attempting rational argument about something that you don't think is material as an consequence of being from mind something invented to be inserted for what the nervous and neurochemical systems do.

 

[ruby sparks]

So you're upgrading from correlated then?

Yeah, I think so. I'm still good with merely correlates as well. I think one has to be, just in case.

I argued color is material as a distinguishable aspect of light.

Someone not convinced of colour realism (such as me) would not say that.

... you are attempting rational argument about something that you don't think is material as an consequence of being from mind something invented to be inserted for what the nervous and neurochemical systems do.

I would be undecided as to whether what I would call mental phenomena are material or not. I'm not sure it matters here. I would say that they manifest, in that they occur, as phenomena. Eg pain, or thoughts.

If forced to guess I'd say thoughts were material.

 

[ruby sparks]

New thread on colour started:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?20904-Colour

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.




- Emo Phillips