|
AARO posted:The hotel argument points out the absurdity of infinite material things. If the hotel has infinite rooms and they are all occupied and then a new customer comes the manger can still except new guests. He has infinite rooms. Everytime a new customer comes and can give them a room and move tenet in room 1 to room 2 an room 2 to room 3 etc. Even though every room is occupied he can always except new customers. And even though new customers are checking in he always has the same number of customers. Infinite. 1000 more check in, still the same number of customers. Even if an infinite amount of new customers can he could still accommodate all of them. and he would still have the same number of customers. Why can't the universe be weird? There's nothing inconsistent here. Looking things up, I found that Craig also uses the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as an argument for the finiteness of the universe. Which shows he doesn't understand the theorem as it implies no such thing and makes me worry about his understanding of such arguments in general.
|
#
¿
May 21, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
AARO posted:The theorem shows it's most likely that the universe is finite doesn't it? It doesn't state that is definitely finite. Perhaps Craig hasn't pointed out that distinction. No, it shows that it's likely that a description based on our current models breaks down very badly at some point. Bit there are also examples of models where the theorem does not apply (including something I came up with).
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
AARO posted:The Hilbert Hotel argument is used to demonstrate the absurdity of an actual infinite. As I said before, that doesn't show anything contradictory. It shows infinity is weird. But hey, the world is weird and what's wrong with that. What Gauss has to say here isn't terribly relevant. Today we are much more comfortable describing things as infinite. Your argument is also irrelevant to the post you're responding to, which didn't object to beginning but objected to beginning impying a cause.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
AARO posted:It does seem to be self evident that all things which begin have a cause. Can you name one thing that began that did not have a cause? The natural numbers begin with 0, but there is no cause there. By the way, I do not believe the universe has a beginning, but I'm willing to investigate the concept. The Belgian fucked around with this message at 10:38 on May 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:you're not engaging in objective observation of events in the world. Rather, you're making subjective judgement. Why / where is the difference? I experience things as being a certain colour and I also experience things as being right or wrong. Where is the difference?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Show me a token value fact that exists without a subjective opinion. You can't it's a impossibility. Show me an image of Beethoven's ninth symphony. If you can't, does that mean it does not exist?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:Why does God have to be eternal? Sounds like schitzophrenic on drugs. A+, would read again.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Insert image off sheet music, video of performance, sound of performance, etc..
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:The point is that all of those things are empirically experienced. To claim that morality is only another sort of empirical experience requires a lot more and, if this thread is any indication, cannot actually be done, no matter how much some want to claim that it can. What more is required? I experience morality. Do you not? Blind people don't experience sight, but that has no impact on my ability to experience sight.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:To hold the belief that murder is wrong is not an empirically discovered or verifiable belief. To believe that murder happens or murder is an empirical action is different that believing in a moral judgment about that empirical action. That this continues to not be understood is beyond me and it is a waste of time to continue to state the obvious in different ways in the hopes that those who have faith it isn't true will recognize its truth. You keep stating this without any proof. I experience murder as wrong, and everyone I know does so too. Where is the difference with other kinds of experience?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:You're ignoring the empirical adjective, which is the key to my point. Are you seriously claiming that all experience is somehow empirical? Or that all experienced belief is equally justified? This is just getting worse and worse. What I'm asking is, what makes some kinds of experience empirical, but not moral experience?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Experience via sensory stimulation. If you believe all experience is empirical then you have no grounds for morality whatsoever, as has already been stated and explained multiple times by multiple posters. If all experience is empirical then the "love" that someone claims to "feel" for their child is an illusion. That you "believe" that one empirical experience is more morally valuable than another is an illusion. This is our entire point. What you want to claim as moral realism is more rightly moral delusion. To differentiate some experience as via one way and other as via another way is tho already implicitly accept a whole lot of stuff about the world. At first there is only experience. Could you maybe go through an example or something to show what you mean by empirical experience? Ratoslov posted:Great. So when you meet someone who says murder is not wrong, or who has a different definiton of 'murder' than you, who's right, you or them? If these 'moral experiences' are really representative of something in the world and not just something you believe to be true, then everyone's moral intuitions should be identical across all cultures and all of history. Can you demonstrate that to be true? Are you equally bothered by the colourblind?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Okay. So your answer to people having differing moral intuitions is that everyone who disagrees with the true morality is disabled in some sense. Great. So to repeat my question: Well of course I'd be inclined to assume it's me, but I won't exculde the possibility that I'm wrong, in the same way that I can admit I(m sometimes mistaken about visual experience. But I'd rather not say that murder in the abstract is wrong, instead preferring to look at a specific instance and the experience of it.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:This is like the sovereign citizen thread of ethics, no combination of magical words are going to prove moral truth. Where has someone affirmed the consequent? Maybe I missed it but I don't recall that.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:My opinion is that as a pragmatist without evidence, consequences, or any observable phenomena that morality is not otherwise subjective then morality is subjective. But you experience some moral sense as a phenomena (which may be subjective or obejective), yes? What distinguishes it from other phenomena that you might classify as objective? (Or is your intention to go maximum solipsism?)
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I don't experience morals as a spiritual experience or phenomena I don't know where you got that. I can observe actions and then make a subjective opinion on whether they are good or bad , but I don't and no one does "feel" murder other than the physical actions associated with the act itself. You're the one bringing the term 'spiritual' in here. Do you really experience something like 'knife here', 'blood here', 'body parts here',... ; are completely neutral about this, calmly analyze and then after a few minutes go 'yep this is murder', then analyze a few more minutes and go 'this is probably bad'; or what are you picturing here? EDIT: Feel free to go for a less extreme example / something you actually experienced if you didn't experience this if you prefer.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:No, I believe murder is wrong just that you don't have to experience murder to know it is wrong. Just because the action is observable doesn't mean that it has to be broken down like a analytical computer. As a pragmatist though I believe that my morals are based on subjective lessons I've learned from my enviroment and my families upbringing. Thank you for your response. I was about to edit my post as I was worried I wasn't being clear (and I wasn't). I'm not asking you to outline some framework or to analyze the ethics of some hypothetical situation. I'm asking for an account of a situation you were in that involved ethics and how you experienced that situation. [Especially how ethical experience gets separated from the other sorts of experience. After you have the experience, sure, you can maybe start building some theory or framework in the same way you build theories from any other kind of experience.] EDIT: By ethical experience I don't (necessarily) mean anything spiritual. Looking at the experiences involved in quote:lessons I've learned from my enviroment and my families upbringing. As far as I know it isn't correct that most people are utilitarian. According to this poll: http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl , only 23% responded as being consequentialists. (I think utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism?) Of course polling the general population would be harder, especially as the terminology would be unfamiliar to some. The Belgian fucked around with this message at 00:58 on May 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Oh dear clone posted:OK, my jaw is on the floor. I make conscious decisions over ethical dilemmas all the time. Should I really take time to answer these posts, or would it be better and kinder to do the washing up, or would it be better to insist my niece does it instead of shirking again? for example. To me these seem like great examples of everyday ethical experience. How does this kind of experience get differentiated from other kinds?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Yeah, I would have thought moral decisions are a normal part of everyday life for almost everyone. Do... do you not consider whether your actions are right or wrong that often? Referring to Hollismason and Rudatron here. To add to this, I wonder how much stupid hypotheticals, like the trolley problem, corrupt ethics. Certainly I worry that they have an averse influence on thinking about more mundane ethics, the good life. Anybody else have an opinion about this?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't find hypothetical exercises to be incompatible with everyday ethics? You use the same reasoning for both? I'm not sure that you do? Or you might hope and think that you do, but do you really experience everyday ethical situations in the same way as you do sitting in your chair thinking about some weird hypothetical? I'm also not saying that such hypotheticals are totally useless, just wondering how careful we should be.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, yes kinda. I derive my ethical instincts from my general ethical understanding. This seems sort of backwards to me? Maybe it's what you do, but when you're in a concrete situation where you 'do' ethics, do you really sit down, go 'hmm, yes, this is my general ethical framework', then take that framework and derive what you should do in that situation from it and then do it?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Certainly nowadays it's derived from the cumulative results of my ethical experience. Great, this seems sensible. What I'm wondering (and what I've ask other people before without response) is: Is there is a difference between how we build ethical theory from cummulative ethical experience and how we build theories about other things from cummulative experience about those things? EDIT: With the thing that I'm going towards being: Shouldn't whatever makes you convinced their are chairs and rocks and things 'out there' from your experience of those things make you convinced there are ethics 'out there'. Or do you not believe there are chairs and rocks 'out there'? The Belgian fucked around with this message at 22:52 on May 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
rudatron posted:I find it almost impossible to believe that this is a majority philosophical position, because it's totally ignoring post modernism. I'm not a post-modernist, but you have to be able to give an effective reply to that kind of attack, and it simply cannot. What do you mean by postmodernism in this context?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 21:43
|
|