PSA: the is-ought problem only holds if you are a dualist, otherwise ought is determined as a function of physical systems and therefore IS.
-
-
Replying to @Laserpig_Utopia
@CorrectionOfSic actually it holds insofar as you have an algorithm that outputs actions by reasoning about counterfactual worlds
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_Lagrangian
@CorrectionOfSic which is the new space between physicalism and dualism where all the cool kids hang out
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @The_Lagrangian
@The_Lagrangian that reasoning too falls into the physical realm, any brain state is computable, even ones about not-realities.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Laserpig_Utopia
@CorrectionOfSic
@The_Lagrangian lack of logical omniscience; lack of proof system converges even given sufficient computation1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MoralOfStory
@MoralOfStory@The_Lagrangian arguing that something is impossible in practice is far different from saying it is impossible period1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Laserpig_Utopia
@CorrectionOfSic
@The_Lagrangian You're arguing that the oughts live in human minds. I happen to agree, but I think philosophers may not.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MoralOfStory
@MoralOfStory fair enough. I think that putting it outside humans is silly. Moral facts only apply to things that exist, no humans no morals1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@CorrectionOfSic I would expand that to social agents w/ some individudal goals, some shared goals -> morals, because game theory
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.