Comments by "Deus Ex Homeboy" (@DeusExHomeboy) on "Think more rationally with Bayes’ rule | Steven Pinker" video.
-
1
-
@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