Comments by "Deus Ex Homeboy" (@DeusExHomeboy) on "Big Think"
channel.
-
@JamesJoyce12 That's exactly what he said, in simpler terms. He's using word trickery to minimize and personalize phenomenological facts regarding matter that composes minds and their respective states, which all operate under the EXACT SAME universal principles as ALL OTHER, NON-EXPERIENCING matter in existence.
The questions of "whether one state of actions is superior morally, than another state of actions" has nothing to do with sentiment. Sure, humans may by default rely on imperfect, subjective internal frameworks for judgement making (which include sentiments), but that doesn't conveniently get stretched into claiming that there is no one answer to "whether an action is moral or not".
I can use sentiments to derive whether one hydro dam produces more electricity than another hydro dam, but that doesn't end up meaning that the output of either dam can be higher depending on my feelings, as if there is no hydro dam in existence and it's just all a fiction of my mind. And it also doesn't imply that beyond my feelings, there is no actual "knowable state of electricity generation".
Moral claims ARE NOT claims relating to IMAGINARY topics and concepts, it's a claim about a PHENOMENOLOGICAL FACT of interactions between minds and their actions, and how they impact each other. SURE, there is a subjective interpretation of those things, but that DOES NOT mean it isn't happening in objective reality.
"more suffering" and "less suffering" are not imaginary occurrences m8, no matter how much a fat rich racist "philosopher" wants you to believe lol. Whether slavery causes more suffering and existential degenerations of minds involved, than less, is not a fucking "oh we can't conclude it factually so we just have to depend on arbitrary line-drawing".
To keep it simple if you can't bear to read the full response - "human experiences happen in human brains, human brains are matter, humans didn't make humans - the universal principles did - just like with ALL OF EXISTENCE. Morality pertains to experiences of minds, since EVERYTHING IN THE EQUATION is an objectively real thing, and follows the same pervading laws, morality itself is a calculable fact, since nothing arbitrary falls into the equation (though imperfect brained humans will often engage in make believe bullshitery, out of no choice of their own, like in anything else).
1
-
@JamesJoyce12 Your apparently limited interpretation of what I said is hurting your own clarity on what I stated. I even wrote it in condensed, reductive form at the end to help understand.
On a universal scale you're asking me a dumb question, as dumb as asking "Where in the universe is planet Earth?" The question itself ignores relativity and expects a coherent response to an incoherent question.
Also, when it comes to moral equations, it requires at least TWO minds in the RELATIVE space within which one acts upon the other. Moral equations are regarding mindstate changes within each mind,
if and when Perfect beings come into existence, who are 1:1 with objective reality, and much beyond our, limited, Earthly survival oriented minds, THEY will have a perfect answer to your and Hume's language games about morality lmao. Since the ENTIRE UNIVERSE is "one thing", as in the entire universe (AND the minds within it, since no exceptions in universal laws) has various possible configurations - and among those configurations, will be a configurations that will objectively be the perfect "universal state" of arranging matter for the least morally negative experiences.
Meanwhie, us imperfect, mentally fucked animals will just have to make to with "better moral claims" over "worse moral claims", it's already happening, too bad an 18th century Scott richboy couldn't know what we do today, yet you fell for his wordmancy.
1
-
@JamesJoyce12 Damn James, so hungry for a W that you'll self delude for "victory". You're *again*, restructuring what I said, then saying I said your warped version of the thing.
"MORAL SENTIMENTS" are Irrelevant in determining moral positives or negatives, even a MINDLESS (Fyi, that would mean also 'sentimentlessness') machine which is capable of computing all matter in existence (or a lot less even) can conclude what higher and lower moral systems (IE - ways of arranging mind-mind interactions) are. How much suffering a certain set of applications causes is not "up to animals' feelings", every brain in existence is
..
.. wait for it..
..
A PHYSICAL OBJECT, AND NEGATIVE STATES, SUFFERING, PLEASURE etc, are ALSO PHYSICAL PROCESSES. Subjective feelings don't come out of some magical ether.
Moral outcomes are not unclaimable lmao. Just because you can't comprehend that even SUBJECTIVE states have OBJECTIVE dependencies, all of which are calclable (just not by US, for now).
18th century fat racist richboy convinced a bunch of word-magic-vulnerable fools like it's some masterstroke haha, maybe these internalised, handy delusions of yours are also just subjective, they exist and don't, just depends on what you believe.
1
-
Solaveritas2, Yes, take life guidance from the man who thinks he has a spirit, and was made by god, who thinks nothing could be good without religion. While I'll die having understood where Life emerged from, and how we came to be, how our minds came to exist, the true suffering of humans and other lifeforms, and how chemical reactions created the foundation for what we see as "good and evil" today. Yes, please, go ahead, you'd just be another drop in the BILLIONS of people who will die surrounded in the delusion of religion, your whole lives will have rotted away, and every relation you had with another person, is stained by your self-serving delusions, that you'd latch on to yo dearly.
1
-
MATTHER VUJOVIC, His WHOLE VIEW is a DOWNGRADE from reality. IF YOU THINK USING MY CAPS AS AN EXCUSE TO REFUTE MY STATEMENT, THEN YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN.
"YOU IDOLIZE YOUR RATIONALITY AND IT ACTUALLY MAKES YOU COMPARATIVELY LESS RATIONAL." WHAT THE FUCK BRO LOL? DID you think that sounded smart when you wrote it down, or you didn't even second guess it?*
The way you're blindly jumping to his defense, SEEMS TO SHOW YOUR OWN EXCESSIVE IDOLIZATION OF JORDAN PETERSON AND HIS BASELESS RAMBLINGS. *I'VE ACTUALLY SPENT 15 years thinking about this shit, and I figured it out already, while this old fool is ZIPPING PAST HIS 50's and will ALMOST CERTAINLY DIE WHILE STILL DELUDED BY HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, and BELIEFS ABOUT MANHOOD. He is a SKINNY WEAK OLD MAN, AND Most Weak humans RELATE TO HIM, in order to avoid acknowledging THEIR OWN DELUSIONS, WEAKNESS, AND FAILURES.
The more people talk about my caps, the more caps-power I attain. I am almost a caps god. GIVE ME MORE POWER!!!!!!!!!!
1
-
eggo ... the very problem with Peterson, is that he uses "RELIGIOUS" to explain things that have NOTHING to do with religion. Anything called RELIGIOUS, even if not OVERTLY, it still hints towards a GOD-driven origin, and a herd mentality, because it is driven by BELIEF, not OBJECTIVE REALITY. Therefore there is NO WAY for individuals to come to their own conclusions, and must believe in his rhetoric, if they choose to follow him, because deviating outside what he says, invalidates his whole statement.
And another problem is the fact that JUST BECAUSE someone can derive/makeup Positive values from FICTION and Fairy Tales, does not Mean the origin of those stories is ALSO true. THis is the place that Jordan peterson is delusional about, He thinks 'Just because some good moral values can be learned from the Bible, there has to be a religious basis for that and god must be true.
And if you listen to his podcast with Sam Harris, you'll realize that this dude hasn't even figured out what is REAL yet, he keeps trying to dodge having to explain what he thinks of truth, he basically says 'what's useful is true', something along those lines. It becomes difficult to make sense of his drivel at times.
1
-
1
-
1
-
ExtantFrodo2, I don't think you got my angle; I am stating that you can not be a rapist who's also decent because he walks for women's rights marches lol. I simply gave two iterations, showing how two MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE moral states (moral and immoral) cannot exist within a single individual. Mental disorders are surely an exception, but that doesn't detract from the main point.
Also, Hitler's price was forfeiting his 1 chance at existing, at ever existing, by being a fucking self important nazi and living a childish, unrealistic fantasy, only to lose it all and be turned into a joke for the remainder of time lolo.
There is no hell, worse than existing in hell, is to not exist at all. Mmm tasty.
Also, Gandhi wasn't good because he did good things, he was immoral simply because he did certain critically immoral things, like play a role in separating India into 2 parts. Despite all the good he did.
Again, it's like how one might be a women's rights activist and pro life and all that, but also happens to be a rapist, it doesn't matter how much activism or any other moral thing that person does, they're still a fucking rapist if they don't stop that shit ayyyyy.
1
-
1
-
DarxPhil, I just have to tell you that you are mixing "subjective interpretations of morality" with "morality". The reason why nobody can say "Morals are individualistic" is because ANYTHING arising from this universe, like animals and their capacity to suffer, will all follow the universe's laws. And because they all follow the same rules, they all have an objective state, which can be interpreted Subjectively, but that doesn't change the objective truth of it. In a theoretical sense, there is ONE certain state of arranging every sentient organism's lives as to remove all suffering and maximize pleasure. And ONE certain state of arranging everything to cause the greatest amount of misery. These both potentials fall on the opposite ends of The "MORAL SPECTRUM". Every act done by sentient organisms toward other sentient organisms is a part of this spectrum, and either leans towards moral, or immoral behavior. You might, or your whole society, or even specie might subjectively create their own standards based on what suits them, but that does not change the REALITY of suffering and the existential states and potentials of other sentient organisms.
Everything that can suffer falls within the sphere of moral good or bad. Inanimate objects do not, unless they can indirectly be used to cause suffering to a sentient organism.
Basically morality applies to everything that can suffer, and you can look at it in any way you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Just how a rapist is always a rapist no matter how many people say otherwise, even if the whole human population says otherwise, the facts do not change. In the same way, the murder of another sentient organism is still murder, no matter how many societies enjoy committing it on a daily basis and pat each other on the back for it.
1
-
1