Do experiments not bring about truth values?
i expect what they claim their morality to be to be related to but not exactly what their morality is. since the answers are different, they have different moralities with high certainty.
Neither do we have the same definition of your cognitive capabilities apparently
So, theoretical science is philosophy that just examines the creation of novel concepts under certain epistemic constraints. I'd have to take the opposite nihilist stance on empirical things: there are no empirical truths, but you can have empirical facts.
how do you know they are different? how do you measure the differences?
keep going guys, he'll crack eventually
1 Like
Replace ewiz with lbj
the words that they say are different. my brain processes the words and associates into an abstraction of their brain state- my conception of their morality. my conception of their morality is related to but not exactly their morality. since my conceptions are different, their moralities are different with high probability.
This actually answers your question @LuckyArtist, though I hadn't seen it. I don't believe most things have truth values and in general they aren't interesting. But epistemic nihilism is like moral nihilism: you can deny that knowledge has truth values at all or that there is no knowledge that is true. For empiricism, I go to the latter rather than the former
it's amazing the lengths someone will go to in order to be right rather than to pursue depth of knowledge and understanding
if you can hit me up with an insight would you mind just writing it out directly?
Epistemically nihilism is even less interesting cmonnnn ewiz
so your framework of evaluating morality is based purely on language and the processing of langauge?
dude philosophy threads are so word salady lmfao
2 Likes
Hbotz doesn’t know a thing about linguistics right? Correct me if I’m wrong
@LuckyArtist although, to be more clear on the philosophy/math subset thing I actually don't think science is a part of philosophy. I gave a simple view that suffices to make a weak version of a distinction because I don't feel like typing up a real explanation right now. The outline is that philosophy and pure math create virtual concepts on a plane of immanence, while science creates the operators/functions that actualize the concepts in a frame of reference. An example is the creation of an abstract mathematical structure on the plane of immanence and then scientists creating a theory of a physical phenomena using that mathematical structure.
well, to turn the language into an abstraction of the other person’s morality you need to recognize them as another mind. the brain has a mechanism for that. it is complicated and interesting and deserves study, when someone describes their morality i can boil it down to a concept. that is a nontrivial process.
Nah, it's far more interesting. It becomes the invention of knowledge structures and potential ways to create knowledge, rather than just assessing the truth of knowledge or the validity of knowledge systems
so morals are just transfers of concepts between people?
well, maybe i cant boil it down to a concept. moralities are hard to communicate and when you press people they might start giving contradictory answers and such. a lot of the time its about abstracting their sentiments rather than their assertions.