It makes people's interpretation of morality flawed, but it does not mean something can or cannot be inherently moral.
It makes their interpretation of things subjective, but still wrong.
Much like your interpretation of morality.
It still does not follow for me. Because an entity creates me, his opinion on morality becomes objective? That does not compute for me. Explain how that makes the creator's opinion objective.
Some people think the world is flat, does not make that subjective.
Huh? Are you really stating that the universe itself would not exist without a human to observe it? How did all those galaxies get out there before we built the first telescope, I wonder?No, I am saying our reality only comes from our perception. Reality outside of human perception is not possible currently. It grows as we create new things, but reality is limited by perception. Just as microwaves were hidden to us until we were able to develop a way to "see" them, they still existed.
Morality also does not need a god. Morality is only subjective to humans, but it applies to all humanity.
It makes people's interpretation of morality flawed, but it does not mean something can or cannot be inherently moral.
Huh? Are you really stating that the universe itself would not exist without a human to observe it? How did all those galaxies get out there before we built the first telescope, I wonder?
The original topic of this thread (long ago though it was) was the morality of an algorithm. Prove to me that an algorithm, computer or otherwise, can be inherently moral.It makes people's interpretation of morality flawed, but it does not mean something can or cannot be inherently moral.
Which is completely illogical. There's no such thing as 'our reality'. It's just 'reality' and 'what we can see/understand'. In that reference, his sentence still doesn't make sense, as 'what we see/understand' is still an interpretation, and thus if morality is part of that 'interpretation of reality', it's still subjective.I think he means "our understanding of our reality" rather than "our reality".
Which is completely illogical. There's no such thing as 'our reality'. It's just 'reality' and 'what we can see/understand'. In that reference, his sentence still doesn't make sense, as 'what we see/understand' is still an interpretation, and thus if morality is part of that 'interpretation of reality', it's still subjective.
Placing the entirety of reality as a purely human interpretation is beyond self-centered. Reality would exist whether we were here or not, to imagine anything else is to assume we all live inside a personalized 'Matrix' and everyone else is just a figment of our imagination.Well, no. We base our understanding on our perception of reality, whether right or wrong, out of sheer necessity.
When we are talking about reality we mainly mean "our perception of reality" or "reality as we understand it" because that is the only thing we actually know.
This knowledge expands with time (both individually and for humanity as a whole, inter generationally) and is worthwhile to hold as "reality" we can agree on.
I'd agree that while what is actually true is objectively true the ideas on perceived reality are per definition subjective.
Placing the entirety of reality as a purely human interpretation is beyond self-centered. Reality would exist whether we were here or not, to imagine anything else is to assume we all live inside a personalized 'Matrix' and everyone else is just a figment of our imagination.
If you state that the only thing we 'know' is our perception, then how could we agree on it, as everyone only 'knows' their own perception? No, we agree inherently that reality simply 'is' otherwise nothing useful could be accomplished as everything would be deemed subjective, and there'd be no objective points of reference to base thought on.
Perception of reality might be subjective, but we can prove things happen whether we observe them or not, and that's an objective point of reference.
It makes people's interpretation of morality flawed, but it does not mean something can or cannot be inherently moral.
No, the double slit experiment shows that quantum particles exist in superposition until observed, not observed by a human. The particles still exist, and they will continue to exist whether an observer is there or not.So what?
And actually, no, the double slit shows that reality itself bends to our observation of it.
No, the double slit experiment shows that quantum particles exist in superposition until observed, not observed by a human. The particles still exist, and they will continue to exist whether an observer is there or not.
What you're describing is Solipsism, essentially that only what exists in the mind is reality, and everything is an interpretation based on what the mind observes. I don't ascribe to that notion. I believe things exist whether we are looking at them or not, and while QM provides some fun quirks related to observation, that does not imply that the entire universe ceases to exist without a consciousness constructing a means to measure it. The name for this idea/philosophy is Naive Realism or Direct Realism.Really, how would you know that? Are you trying to tell me that isn't what has been observed but what is true? How would you know that without observation?
What you're describing is Solipsism, essentially that only what exists in the mind is reality, and everything is an interpretation based on what the mind observes. I don't ascribe to that notion. I believe things exist whether we are looking at them or not, and while QM provides some fun quirks related to observation, that does not imply that the entire universe ceases to exist without a consciousness constructing a means to measure it. The name for this idea/philosophy is Naive Realism or Direct Realism.
Fine, you're speaking of observed reality. Not sure how we got down this specific rabbit hole, but the original argument was the notion that an algorithm, something decidedly non-observational, could carry morality, something that's a human construct and entirely subjective. That lead to an argument about the subjectivity of morality, and whether it exists without humans around to construct it, and whether or not there is an 'innate morality' (there isn't). This continued to devolve like so much Inception into 'the subjectivity of reality', which led to my post describing Solipsism and Direct Realism. I wasn't intending to specifically call you out.No it isn't, not at all and not even close.
What I'm saying is that we define our own UNDERSTANDING OF reality through observation of it and while it is flawed it's what we are stuck with. By observation I mean observation in any form, through direct observation or through calculations that per observations must be true even if we cannot directly observe them.
You are now strawmanning wildly and deriving your own observations from ideas I have not even implied.
Please stop doing that, if you don't get what I'm saying ask questions and if you don't understand the concept of observed reality go read a book.
Fine, you're speaking of observed reality. Not sure how we got down this specific rabbit hole, but the original argument was the notion that an algorithm, something decidedly non-observational, could carry morality, something that's a human construct and entirely subjective. That lead to an argument about the subjectivity of morality, and whether it exists without humans around to construct it, and whether or not there is an 'innate morality' (there isn't). This continued to devolve like so much Inception into 'the subjectivity of reality', which led to my post describing Solipsism and Direct Realism. I wasn't intending to specifically call you out.
I was probably prickly from being called a few nasty things in this thread, which really gets my goat.I think you mixed me up with realibrad or thought that I was agreeing with him, which I wasn't.
Reality exists whether we are here or not, but OUR reality as WE know it is based on OUR observations and that is really all we have to go by. That is my only point.
Our original argument started with me explaining to you what I thought realibrad meant.
An algorithm cannot carry morality, all morality is subjective and moral values are based on upbringing.
That covers my stance on that.
I already did but since you don't get it let me do it again, this time read the words and think real hard, OK?
Your creator creates you with a purpose and dictates what yours and everyone elses morality is. This concept does not exist apart from this being since HE dictated it and HE decides what it is. Your opinion on it is irrelevant since YOUR purpose is to follow the commands and nothing else.
It's quite simple, you don't question the being that made you be, you don't question his dictation of right and wrong because he created right and wrong and your thoughts do not matter.
This isn't really my fight which is why I'm getting irritated about having do defend a position I don't hold and with this post I end our conversation on this subject.
I think you are confusing the ease to declare something immoral with objectivity/inherence. It is easy to find reasons to subjectively declare sex with a 5 year old as immoral. As the age increases there comes a point where still holding that sex with that person is immoral becomes much more difficult.
Where do you believe morality comes from?Correct. I never claimed everything is either or. I did say that not everything is subjective and some things are inherently immoral.
I think what is hard for people is that they mix morality with religion as if one has to come from the other.
Where do you believe morality comes from?
According to Shermer, the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:
attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group.[8]
I was probably prickly from being called a few nasty things in this thread, which really gets my goat.
*hugs it out*
It has been proven SCIENTIFICALLY that it is an evolved trait that can be observed in most if not all social animals. It is a mechanism for survival.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality