tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post514212705683420969..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Postmodernism and epistemic nihilismLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-44423468154501381672007-07-30T04:06:00.000-06:002007-07-30T04:06:00.000-06:00Just to split hairs, smallpox is caused by a virus...<I>Just to split hairs, smallpox is caused by a virus, not by a bacillus (rod-shaped bacterium).</I><BR/><BR/>Doh! I was asleep that day in medical school.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-37920065911651162802007-07-30T01:51:00.000-06:002007-07-30T01:51:00.000-06:00Just to split hairs, smallpox is caused by a virus...Just to split hairs, smallpox is caused by a virus, not by a bacillus (rod-shaped bacterium). A bacterium is a cellular organism; a virus is not.<BR/><BR/>But aside from that, the principle is correct. And one can always believe that some deity sends smallpox viruses to punish people for their sins, even though such a deity seems limited to working with existing viruses and can be thwarted by their absence.<BR/><BR/>I'm a bit reminded of the objection to lightning rods that they thwart some of God's efforts to punish us for our sins.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-1482760386554498672007-07-25T04:17:00.000-06:002007-07-25T04:17:00.000-06:00BlackSun:If we can understand (eventually) exactly...<B>BlackSun</B>:<BR/><BR/><I>If we can understand (eventually) exactly how human minds work, then we can separate their workings (subjective perceptions) from the information content they are storing (objective facts).</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think such a task is possible. At best we can determine precisely on what physical features our internal subjective experience supervenes.<BR/><BR/><I>Then also, statements about human nature can be objectified.</I><BR/><BR/>In the sense that I'm using "objective", there would be some particular physical facts on which properties of minds supervene, and other physical facts on which properties of minds do not supervene—the distinction is still strict, just expressed in a different manner.<BR/><BR/>Rather than equivocating "objective" (and as has been pointed out earlier, my own language is sometimes unfortunately imprecise), I prefer to use words such as "physical" or "real" when I'm discussing propositions which span the minded/non-minded distinction.<BR/><BR/><I>[I]f we could establish a set of values we could *prove* produced the best outcomes, it would be hard to argue that was subjective either.</I><BR/><BR/>Even if we recast this statement without equivocating objective with provable, there are two important ambiguities in this assertion. First, values <I>are</I> what distinguish the "best" outcomes, i.e. the best outcome is the outcome that has the highest value. You are saying we might establish a set of values which we could prove produce the most value. Seems circular to me.<BR/><BR/>Given a set of values (which apply not only to outcomes (ends) but also to means) we might come up with the best <I>strategy</I> to maximally fulfill those values, but it's provable that given a nontrivial set of values, even a game-theoretic maximization is logically impossible. I'll look up the reference later.<BR/><BR/>It is logically possible that we might construct some normative propositions that depend entirely on universals about minds. I think this possibility is unlikely in practice, and those normative propositions would likely be—if not completely trivial—not sufficiently robust for a complete ethical system.<BR/><BR/>Because the actual mental states (and the physical facts on which those states supervene) instantiated in actual reality are only a minuscule subset of the total possible states (even of the total coherent evolve-able states), any those actual states will dominate the character of ethical system in actual practice.<BR/><BR/><I>My definition of "best" for the sake of the argument is maximizing human freedom, pleasure and prosperity, and minimizing human suffering.</I><BR/><BR/>Mine too. But these criteria represent not universals, but particular states of what you and I happen to subjectively value, most especially the value of empathy (valuing particular subjective states of other minds) and autonomy. It's arguable that these values are result not of universals about minds but of the accidentals of human evolution.<BR/><BR/>Until we get much more empirical data on how other intelligent species evolve (or at least empirical data showing that the existence of another intelligent species is impossible or highly improbable) it would seem <I>very</I> difficult (i.e. impossible) to distinguish between values that depend on universals, and values which are accidental.<BR/><BR/>But drawing this distinction is unnecessary: It's quite sufficient to construct our own ethical systems not on scientific universals, but simply on the actual prevalence of particular values, regardless of their provenance.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-57447238252030643622007-07-25T00:54:00.000-06:002007-07-25T00:54:00.000-06:00human nature and human values are intrinsically su...<I>human nature and human values are intrinsically subjective in the sense of being nothing but the properties of minds</I><BR/><BR/>If we can understand (eventually) exactly how human minds work, then we can separate their workings (subjective perceptions) from the information content they are storing (objective facts). Then also, statements about human nature can be objectified.<BR/><BR/>That's my hope, anyway. Values may end up being the only remaining area of dispute. But even then, if we could establish a set of values we could *prove* produced the best outcomes, it would be hard to argue that was subjective either.<BR/><BR/>Unless you are one of those people who would quibble over the definition of the word "best" (it's happened to me before). My definition of "best" for the sake of the argument is maximizing human freedom, pleasure and prosperity, and minimizing human suffering.BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-14033563332821314682007-07-24T12:27:00.000-06:002007-07-24T12:27:00.000-06:00I think "objective" here, when it comes to ethical...I think "objective" here, when it comes to ethical and meta-ethical statements, becomes a bit of a semantic plaything, complicating accurate communication.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-37301590126160868192007-07-24T12:19:00.000-06:002007-07-24T12:19:00.000-06:00"Objective" is equivocal in this context.I think e..."Objective" is equivocal in this context.<BR/><BR/>I think <I>everything</I> about human nature and values can be established <I>scientifically</I>, but human nature and human values are intrinsically subjective in the sense of being nothing but the properties of minds, instead of—as with our knowledge of physics—properties of minds supervening on properties of non-minded objects.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-34678412379291356022007-07-24T10:45:00.000-06:002007-07-24T10:45:00.000-06:00Great post. For me it's about establishing frames ...Great post. For me it's about establishing frames of reference. If I preface any epistemic statement with "from my point of view as a human being," then aside from that one qualifier, I can avoid relativism/postmodernism. From that standpoint, smallpox bacteria are objectively bad, as you said.<BR/><BR/>I propose that a great deal (if not everything) about human nature and human values can be established objectively. Which makes me (in theory at least) able to avoid labeling myself a post-modernist.BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.com