Getting from “Is” to “Ought” 1/ Let’s assume that there are no ought’s or should’s in this universe. There is only what *is*—the totality of actual (and possible) facts.
-
-
3/ Unfortunately, many experiences suck. And they don’t just suck as a matter of cultural convention or personal bias—they really and truly suck. (If you doubt this, place your hand on a hot stove and report back.)
Show this thread -
4/ Conscious minds are natural phenomena. Consequently, if we were to learn everything there is to know about physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, economics, etc., we would know everything there is to know about making our corner of the universe suck less.
Show this thread -
5/ If we *should* to do anything in this life, we should avoid what really and truly sucks. (If you consider this question-begging, consult your stove, as above.)
Show this thread -
6/ Of course, we can be confused or mistaken about experience. Something can suck for a while, only to reveal new experiences which don’t suck at all. On these occasions we say, “At first that sucked, but it was worth it!”
Show this thread -
7/ We can also be selfish and shortsighted. Many solutions to our problems are zero-sum (my gain will be your loss). But *better* solutions aren’t. (By what measure of “better”? Fewer things suck.)
Show this thread -
8/ So what is morality? What *ought* sentient beings like ourselves do? Understand how the world works (facts), so that we can avoid what sucks (values).
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
how do you suppose a bag of naked facts begets experience? this is really the crux, and as far as I can tell you are taking a magical leap. it is not enough to say experience IS a fact, you must explain how 'facts' (which are non-experiential) *lead* to experience
-
from consciousness to 'ought' is not so difficult. from 'facts' to consciousness is.
-
moreover, if we are to consider 'ought' in the sense of the morality of action, it must be actions in relation to the experience of others, and it is unclear from your formulation why an experiential-node should have concern for experientially independent nodes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The problem in this 2nd premise, is it assumes the existence of minds, which are more than mere brains, right? So it takes for granted a kind of being (Dasein) that transcends the naturalistic, materialist worldview you are trying to defend
-
No, no transcendence. Magic, maybe, if you like, but independent existence, no. More transcendence in the hive mind , and our common bond. That has an independent existence.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why do we focus on conscious minds? That is a bias. I favor that bias, but we should recognize it.
-
this is ridiculous. Only conscious minds experience suffering, as the feeling of pain exists only in the minds of those who are suffering. The bio-chemical reactions themselves aren’t problematic if there’s no conscious mind to experience the resulting experience.
-
I'm not saying we shouldn't favor this bias, just that it should be aknowledged.
-
That 'bias' in favor of empathizing with the experience of suffering is Sam's whole point on morality. Morality only exists in the context of minds.
-
Fair enough.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You can't be susceptible to a possible experience. But it is possible to be susceptible to possible experiences.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sam. Try heroin. I feel bad that you might miss out on it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.