• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

HOW TO SHATTER HUME'S GUILLOTINE

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
I don't think that entitles you question my preference. This is about reaching ethics is it not? You can doubt my preferences, but you simply CANNOT tell me they are unfalsifiable.

Your preference is not empirically demonstrable or logically necessary (in this context).

Your preference is functionally indistinguishable from an OPINION.

Your preference is TECHNICALLY UNFALSIFIABLE.

UNFALSIFIABLE IS A TECHNICAL TERM.

THIS IS A FACT.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:32 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
ought we follow our preferences?
my preferences may be different from yours.
which ones ought to be enforced.
under what authority?
is any authority valid?
what if I do what I do by choice?
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
But public speakers are the main drivers of what people think and motive is the upmost importance.

Do you believe many of the people who become famous for controversial and incendiary statements might possibly be MOTIVATED simply by a desire to become MORE FAMOUS ?

How is this MOTIVE QUANTIFIABLE ?

Are the exact same words somehow MORE dangerous if they are SINCERE instead of just a skillful and cynical attempt to attract attention and generate clout and or influence and or book sales and or clicks and comments ?

It would seem that MOTIVE is irrelevant.

TOTAL DAMAGE INFLICTED is much more important than MOTIVE.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
549
-->
Location
Narnia
Am I to assume that you're saying you can seek fame at the expense of society? Is this a preference you have?

1631606802571.png

1631606984868.png


This objection goes on till the top of page 5
1631608205774.png


Money maker
1631607156908.png


If you doubt those observable metrics take it up with the bibliography. My preference is an opinion, that's a new one.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
My preference is an opinion, that's a new one.

Your preference is FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM an OPINION.

And while you claim your preference can be PROVEN beyond a 4 SIGMA confidence in a laboratory setting, in reality this is ridiculously impractical.

So, once again, this question of your preference, in reality, is FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM an UNFALSIFIABLE CLAIM.

Your claim is not QUANTIFIABLE (in this context).

Your preference is PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE (GNOSIS).

Now, it's important to note that this does NOT suggest that your claim is FALSE.

HOWEVER, it also does NOT suggest your claim is FACT.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
Am I to assume that you're saying you can seek fame at the expense of society? Is this a preference you have?

Many people have pursued fame with little regard for the damage it might cause society.

I personally consider fame an unmitigated disaster.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
549
-->
Location
Narnia
You're just reasserting your claim now without saying why. It's my opinion that that chocolate is better than vanilla. That is an opinion. I don't have to hold it at all and at a drop of a dime can say that vanilla is now better than chocolate. My preference is an intrinsic quality of my state that is observed by a question, behavior, if you want tests. I can lie about my preference, but that doesn't mean my preference changed as it is a stable construct.

You've also reached quantum superposition in your argument where you acknowledge we are limited by context and I'm impractical but also saying we have to reach almost 100% certainly.

This was nice
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
My preference is an intrinsic quality of my state that is observed by a question, behavior, if you want tests.

Sexual preference is NOT a static and intrinsic quality.

The Kinsey Reports are pretty clear evidence for this.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
in your argument where you acknowledge we are limited by context and I'm impractical but also saying we have to reach almost 100% certainly.

For a statement to qualify as FACT.

That's the specific claim.

In order for something to be considered FACT it must reach a baseline of 4 SIGMA.

If you disagree, please present your alternative definition of FACT.

That distinction is the bright line between FACT and OPINION.

yOUR personal preferences, i'm going to hazard a guess, have NOT been verified in laboratory conditions.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
549
-->
Location
Narnia
Kinsey scale is a scale of bisexuality between two genders. Nothing to say about fluidity. Eitherway the question is consistency of preferences in which case fluidity would be a consistent function.

But my preferences EXIST. That is a fact. My behaviors are a manifestation of that existing structure. SO

I prefer candy to vegetables
This is a IS statement.

Another is statement. Refined sugars deteriorate enamels

If then conditional statement. If I am adhering to a code that protects my humans interests and values, then I must do something about refined sugars deteriorating my enamel.

The paper I sent you was literally written by someone who helps with policy creation. I don't know why you don't want to accept it
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
But my preferences EXIST. That is a fact. My behaviors are a manifestation of that existing structure. SO

Your behavior does not always match your preference.

People often do things they do not prefer.

ALSO,

I believe our entire misunderstanding might be cleared up if you'd be so kind as to make your personally preferred definition of EXISTS explicit.

Because it sounds like you just tried to make an ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT for your immutable and specific sexual preference.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
The paper I sent you was literally written by someone who helps with policy creation. I don't know why you don't want to accept it

Please explain what specific logic it represents and how that logic specifically relates to this particular discussion.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
If I am adhering to a code that protects my humans interests and values, then I must do something about refined sugars deteriorating my enamel.

Your conclusion does not NECESSARILY follow from your stated premises.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
I prefer candy to vegetables
This is a IS statement.

Nope.

An (IS) statement must be statement of FACT.

Your declaration of personal preference is (functionally indistinguishable from) an OPINION.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
549
-->
Location
Narnia
So someone can't be gay because we can't know their sexual preference? Someone can't be Christian because we don't know their theocratic beliefs? Is it possible to run? Rest?

Your point about people acting against preferences is addressed in the image that contains it's conclusion. Its theory used in economics, integrates theory of mind. You literally are being intransigent.

Exist, means relevant to Hume's guillotine a preference IS something. You're right, it doesn't necessarily follow from my conclusion. It's entirely determinate on conditionals. Tell me why with FACTS why we shouldn't do that.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
So someone can't be gay because we can't know their sexual preference? Someone can't be Christian because we don't know their theocratic beliefs?

A person can have preferences and or self-identify as anything they decide to call themselves.

HOWEVER, these preferences and or self-identifiers are QUALITATIVE and UNFALSIFIABLE (functionally indistinguishable from OPINION).

We are forced to take each individual AT THEIR OWN WORD (or drag them into a laboratory and attempt to QUANTIFIABLY exceed 4 SIGMA confidence).
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
549
-->
Location
Narnia
I disagree entirely. I fail to see how language settles the falsifiability of a proposition. Concrete nouns being only limited to human senses, would mean that only what IS is what can be seen with human senses. Is that not what you are basically proposing with that last reply?
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:32 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
positivism is wholly based on what is unfalsifiable because it defines itself by what is falsifiable mentally. So if we can never truly know what is a preference is it does not exists is way out there. I know I have preferences and I know others have preferences. It is mental. Positivism and behaviorism deny the mind exists. I don't see how we get around this if that is what the discussion becomes.
 

washti

yo vengo para lo mío
Local time
Today 1:32 PM
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
788
-->
establishing scientific facts isn't free from value and preference.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 10:02 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,812
-->
1631841929108.png



Did the four sigma rule get substantiated to the fourth sigma in a lab? Is this framework not just your baseline, your preference, your opinion?

Physicists use five sigma, some want six. Psychologists use two (much to my dismay). Personally if I get three I'm really happy (but p=<.01 is what I tend to accept as something I feel comfortable with). Most people don't use them at all.

There is no universal rule as the requirements for certainty vary based on the claims you want to make, the availability of information, and the consequences of being correct or incorrect.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:32 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
more like what philosophic concepts exist rather than the degree to which something is proven.

do minds exist? is not math based
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
Concrete nouns being only limited to human senses, would mean that only what IS is what can be seen with human senses.

This is the realm of SCIENCE.

This is the realm of (IS).

(IFF) your preference can be an (IS) (THEN) there can be no meaningful distinction between (IS) and (OUGHT)
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
Did the four sigma rule get substantiated to the fourth sigma in a lab? Is this framework not just your baseline, your preference, your opinion?

DO YOU AGREE THAT HIGHER SIGMA IS MORE RELIABLE ?
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
more like what philosophic concepts exist rather than the degree to which something is proven.

do minds exist? is not math based

How do you distinguish CONCRETE NOUNS from ABSTRACT NOUNS ?
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:32 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
do I have preferences?
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:32 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
are preferences physical?
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:32 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
if thoughts are not physical they can happen without a brain.

are preferences physical?
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
if thoughts are not physical they can happen without a brain.

are preferences physical?

Thoughts are ephemeral electrical patterns that are detectable with specialized equipment.

However, they are not static and or immutable and are not detectable when you are not thinking them.

Thoughts are fundamentally distinct from OBJECTS.

Your personal preferences are plastic and constantly changing is subtle ways.

Only you are properly qualified to make any statements about your own preferences.

This makes them PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE.

This makes them GNOSIS.

Generally people don't walk around with EEG or fMRI or MEG equipment at the ready.

This makes your internal brainstate (moment by moment) FUNCTIONALLY beyond the realm of empirical science.

This makes your internal brainstate strictly outside the realm of the (IS).
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 10:02 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,812
-->
Did the four sigma rule get substantiated to the fourth sigma in a lab? Is this framework not just your baseline, your preference, your opinion?

DO YOU AGREE THAT HIGHER SIGMA IS MORE RELIABLE ?

Reliable in the scientific sense? No? But a more reliable measure will reduce variance resulting in greater confidence.

In the lay sense? Yes but that's a very specific framing. Of course reliable information is better. Nobody disputes that. But by that reasoning two sigma is fine because it's higher sigma than one.

Why is exactly four sigma meaningful? I just want to know why you think this is an important line in the sand.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:32 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
oughts are internal

behaviorism posits this internalism is non-existent. unfalsifiable. and by positivism is not real. since oughts are internal they can only be identified by first-person perspective. a mind to itself identifies mind. intersubjectivity. But without identification mind is non-mind and a person becomes an object with no way to have a theory of mind. That one has motive and intentions and that one can predict actions through these.

The world is of only objects, not minds.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:32 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
oughts are internal

behaviorism posits this internalism is non-existent [NOT AN OBJECT]. unfalsifiable. and by positivism is not real [NOT AN OBJECT]. since oughts are internal they can only be identified by first-person perspective. a mind to itself identifies mind. intersubjectivity [INTERSUBJECTIVITY REQUIRES AT LEAST TWO OBSERVERS]. But without identification mind is non-mind [NOT A NON-MIND] and a person becomes an object with no way to have a theory of mind [THIS IS AN OVERSTATEMENT]. That one has motive and intentions and that one can predict actions through these [IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL].

The world [OF EMPIRICAL SCIENCE "THE (IS)"] is of only objects, not minds.

Mostly correct.

Any personal preference is either an implicit or explicit (OUGHT).

There is a very bright line between the realm of the (OUGHT) and the realm of the (IS).
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:32 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
Any personal preference is either an implicit or explicit (OUGHT).

All behavior is objective except ones subjectivity. That is why the hard problem of consciousness exist. You cannot have a conscio-meter.

Looking in is not the same as looking out.
 
Top Bottom