Non-arbitrariness of human moral reasoning

10:22:18 AM+CloverwindQuickdance When you kill a chicken, today, you are responsible for murder.
10:22:34 AM+schizoaffectivewho cares
10:22:47 AM+CloverwindQuickdance A string argumentative thread you've constructed.
10:22:49 AM+schizoaffectivearguing that eating chicken is akin to murdering a nother human being is nonsense
10:23:06 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Because your society taught you it is normal.
10:23:14 AM+schizoaffectivewild dogs achieve speciation
10:23:18 AM+schizoaffectiveso do chickesn which become feral
10:23:22 AM+schizoaffectivethey are no longer chickens
10:23:41 AM+CloverwindQuickdance I am not responsible for all actions in the biosphere of Earth, schizoaffective.
10:23:47 AM+CloverwindQuickdance I am responsible if I kill a chicken, though.
10:23:52 AM+CloverwindQuickdance That's what it means to have agency.
10:24:05 AM+schizoaffectiveidk why you are tagging me
10:24:17 AM+schizoaffectivenothing you could possibly say will ever equate killing chickens for food with murder
10:24:18 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You mentioned we do not discuss science, mostly politics.
10:24:20 AM+CloverwindQuickdance This is a scientific topic.
10:24:26 AM+schizoaffectiveno it isnt
10:24:34 AM+schizoaffectivemorality isnt a science
10:24:38 AM+schizoaffectiveNaughtyCanid i dont think so
10:24:48 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: You're claim is that science doesn't study morality?
10:24:51 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Your
10:25:02 AM+schizoaffectiveCloverwindQuickdance  :|
10:25:16 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You can see how that's obviously wrong, right.
10:25:20 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Science studies everything.
10:25:20 AM+schizoaffectiveim not on a proxy or anything
10:26:02 AM+schizoaffectivethe closest thing to science morality touches on is maybe sociology
10:26:04 AM+schizoaffectivewhich is .....
10:26:08 AM+schizoaffectivepseudo-science :D
10:26:14 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Have you ever heard of this thing called cognitive science?
10:26:30 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Cognitive scientists study intelligence and behavior, with a focus on how nervous systems represent, process, and transform information. Mental faculties of concern to cognitive scientists include language, perception, memory, attention, reasoning, and emotion; to understand these faculties, cognitive scientists borrow from fields such as linguistics, psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, and anthropology.[3]
10:26:51 AM+schizoaffectivestudying the existence of morality is not the same as attributing moral values to different things
10:27:00 AM+schizoaffectivei dont want to even begin to have this conversation
10:27:04 AM+CloverwindQuickdance I agree it is not the same.
10:27:05 AM+schizoaffectivewhat is your field of study?
10:27:11 AM+CloverwindQuickdance They are related, though.
10:27:26 AM+schizoaffectivephilosophy is related to every higher form of education
10:27:37 AM+CloverwindQuickdance If you don't think they're related, then you don't believe in science.
10:27:54 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Imagine if I said, Look, the study of the chemistry of different properties isn't a space shuttle.
10:28:14 AM+schizoaffectivestudying the existance of morality is not the same as trying to atribute moral value to things
10:28:15 AM+CloverwindQuickdance I'd say, Agreed, but you ain't gonna get a space shuttle without a study of the chemistry of different substances.
10:28:21 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Agreed.
10:28:31 AM+schizoaffectivemorality isnt science
10:28:37 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Materials science is not a space shuttle.
10:28:46 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You won't have any space shuttles without materials science, though.
10:28:59 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: You value science, yes?
10:29:13 AM+schizoaffectiveyou're walking a tightrope of cognitive dissonance...
10:29:40 AM+schizoaffectivethere is no science of “what is right”
10:29:43 AM+CloverwindQuickdance What are the limits of science, in your worldview?
10:29:55 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: There is.
10:30:04 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Also, that post, at the time, was a straw man.
10:30:09 AM+schizoaffectivescience has no limits because science is the pursuit of understanding through empiracle evidence and mathematical proofs
10:30:12 AM+CloverwindQuickdance As I hadn't yet made that thesis.
10:30:22 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Okay, science has no limits.
10:30:38 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Why isn't all of morality understandable by science, then?
10:30:50 AM+schizoaffectivebecause it is arbitrarily subjective
10:30:57 AM+CloverwindQuickdance So science has limits, then.
10:30:58 AM+schizoaffectivecan’t be tested with empiracle evidence
10:31:18 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: You think all of morality is subjective?
10:31:21 AM+schizoaffectivesomeone can disagree with you and not be wrong
10:31:32 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Do you think all of morality is arbitrary?
10:31:42 AM+schizoaffectiveno one in the history of human kind has managed to scientifically prove (or come close) universal ethics
10:31:45 AM+CloverwindQuickdance That is, is subjective equivalent to arbitrary in your worldview.
10:31:51 AM+schizoaffectivelet alone standardize moral values
10:31:51 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Agreed.
10:32:02 AM+CloverwindQuickdance @ scientifically prove universal ethics
10:32:11 AM→ Hedrin has joined
10:32:15 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: No on in history has managed to generated a GUT.
10:32:21 AMⓘ Mabus set mode +v Hedrin
10:32:22 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Yet, we build rocket ships when we previously didn't.
10:32:26 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Because we figured some stuff out.
10:32:32 AM+CloverwindQuickdance The same is true for ethics/morality.
10:32:41 AM+schizoaffectivenot really
10:32:48 AM+schizoaffectivebecause morality is a social construct
10:32:59 AM+schizoaffectiveand depends more on consensus of belief than any outlying reality
10:33:04 AM+CloverwindQuickdance In part, yes.
10:33:11 AM+CloverwindQuickdance But it's rooted in our brains which are adapted by evolution.
10:33:13 AM+schizoaffectivewithout people to have opinions about what is or isn’t right, there is no right or wrong
10:33:30 AM+schizoaffectivei’ll use the same argument i use with religious belief
10:33:43 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: That's unclear @ there wouldn't be a right or wrong without people
10:33:51 AM+schizoaffectiveif someone has wiped out all the religious belief the world had built up of a certain religion, say Christianity
10:33:55 AM+schizoaffectivetotally wiped out all knowledge of it
10:33:58 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Do you agree that evolution provides the basis of morality we find in human society?
10:34:01 AM+schizoaffectiveit would never organically come to be again
10:34:08 AM+schizoaffectivesomething similar might pop up but not the same thing
10:34:14 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Which is further modified by society, i.e. your social contract line of argumentation
10:34:25 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: That's probably false
10:34:32 AM+schizoaffectivebut maths
10:34:35 AM+CloverwindQuickdance But I get your argument
10:34:36 AM+schizoaffectivewill always be the same
10:34:52 AM+schizoaffectiveyou can lose incredibly useful and complex formulas for thousands of years
10:34:58 AM+schizoaffectivethey will be rediscovered exactly the same
10:35:01 AM+CloverwindQuickdance That Christianity emerged was somewhat random, and somewhat connected to the nature of humans
10:35:07 AM+schizoaffectivethis exact thing happened with calculus
10:35:08 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Agreed.
10:35:14 AM→ DreamsXX has joined
10:35:22 AMⓘ Mabus set mode +v DreamsXX
10:35:22 AM+schizoaffectivemorality is in the same boat as religion
10:35:24 AM+CloverwindQuickdance So, if you got beings like humans again, you might see something like Christianity emerge
10:35:32 AM+CloverwindQuickdance And what are the odds of getting beings like humans?
10:35:32 AM+schizoaffectiveevery incarnation of society has its own consensus of what is and isnt right
10:35:38 AM+schizoaffectiveand it shifts as cultural attitudes shift
10:35:38 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Possibly reasonably high, due to convergent evolution
10:35:49 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: That's probably false @ morality
10:35:54 AM+schizoaffectivethere are some things that can be REASONABLY understood to be universally wrong
10:36:05 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Evolution generated behavioral adaptations in humans and other social species to maximize survival
10:36:07 AM+schizoaffectiveand thanks to occams razor we can definitely presume they are approximately correct
10:36:11 AM← DreamsXX has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
10:36:12 AM+schizoaffectivebut we can not prove them.
10:36:12 AM+CloverwindQuickdance This is the roots of what we call morality
10:36:25 AM→ DreamsXX has joined
10:36:27 AM+CloverwindQuickdance For instance, social beings generally care more about kin than non-kin
10:36:29 AMⓘ Mabus set mode +v DreamsXX
10:36:35 AM+schizoaffectiveculture is a more powerful force on a society than you seem to give credit for
10:36:46 AM+schizoaffectiveculture can make it where a society morally values something more than its own survival
10:36:53 AM+CloverwindQuickdance For instance, social beings with sufficient memory tend to be more generous to beings which have previously been generous with them
10:37:05 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: I think culture explains most human diversity
10:37:13 AM+schizoaffectivesuch as when peloponnesians deforested easter island and ended up changing the climate and soil of the island for the worse
10:37:35 AM+schizoaffectivethey needed the resources but didnt have the foresight or understanding of hwo it would effect them
10:37:44 AM+CloverwindQuickdance The Peloponnesians were in Greece.
10:37:51 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Do you mean Polynesians?
10:37:53 AM+schizoaffectiveso they lost all thier arable land
10:38:00 AM+schizoaffectiveyes lol
10:38:30 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: That deforestation can be mathematically modeled
10:38:31 AM+schizoaffectivepeloponnesian is greek peninsula that sparta was on also called morea
10:38:48 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Do you agree humans are the result of natural selection?
10:39:02 AM+schizoaffectiveit does now.
10:39:03 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Natural selection is an incredibly 'real' process, as opposed to any constructed process
10:39:12 AM+CloverwindQuickdance The idea that culture is somehow independent of that is untenable
10:39:26 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Culture is a continuation of evolution
10:39:36 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Morality is as 'real' as anything else generated by evolutiono
10:39:39 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Like eyeballs and flight
10:39:51 AM+schizoaffective.... and that is irrelevant
10:40:01 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Morality allows organisms to work together in ways that benefit their survival
10:40:06 AM+schizoaffectivebecause the existance of morality is seperate from the actual moral valuations
10:40:11 AM+CloverwindQuickdance It doesn't get much more fundamental than that
10:40:22 AM+schizoaffectiveso do economics
10:40:25 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Are you familiar with factor analysis?
10:40:39 AM+schizoaffectiveyou are talking in circles see
10:40:44 AM+schizoaffectivei will only say this one last time.
10:40:47 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Sociologists and anthropologists are clear that the moral valuations of cultures across time and geography vary
10:40:55 AM+CloverwindQuickdance However, you can do a factor analysis on those variations and find patterns
10:41:00 AM+CloverwindQuickdance This has been done repeatedly and extensively
10:41:02 AM+schizoaffectivestudying the existance of morality is not related to assigning moral values to different behaviors/events
10:41:09 AM+CloverwindQuickdance If your assertion is that moral valuations in human culture vary, then you are right
10:41:19 AM+CloverwindQuickdance If your assertion is that moral valuations are arbitrary and random in human culture, then you are wrong
10:41:49 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Do you agree that all morality was borne from minds?
10:41:51 AM+schizoaffectivewhat is a universal ethic to you
10:41:59 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Some of that output now being recorded in texts and other artifacts
10:42:14 AM+CloverwindQuickdance So, if I study the human mind, the thing generated morality, I would better understand human morality, right
10:42:29 AM+schizoaffectivethat doesnt make morality a science
10:42:37 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Nobody has that thesis
10:42:43 AM+schizoaffectiveany more than studying geometry makes shapes and holes science
10:43:15 AM+schizoaffectivei dont understand what you are trying to argue
10:43:19 AM+CloverwindQuickdance I am only using the word morality because you started using it
10:43:24 AM+schizoaffectivemake your point
10:43:24 AM← venusNmars has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
10:43:36 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: I model ethics as a fractal
10:43:54 AM+CloverwindQuickdance This is by corollary to a University of Chicago model of the law as a fractal
10:44:19 AM+CloverwindQuickdance That is, an infinitely recursive collection of statements and sub-statements to designate lawful behavior
10:44:30 AM+schizoaffectiveI don’t see your point in regards to anything I’ve said.
10:44:32 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Which I am generalized to 'correct' behavior
10:44:45 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Humans can be modeled as computational processes
10:44:58 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Ethics, then, become guidelines/predictions on behavior, given state of that agent
10:45:08 AM+schizoaffectiveThat’s simplistic and grossly underestimating humans.
10:45:16 AM+CloverwindQuickdance That's how science works
10:45:26 AM+CloverwindQuickdance We use the computational resources we have, at the time, to make the best models we can
10:45:31 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Later, those models get better
10:45:45 AM+schizoaffectiveWe already know that idea is flawed
10:45:49 AM+schizoaffectivebecause it doesn’t work in practice
10:45:54 AM+schizoaffectiveit doesn’t pass real world application.
10:45:55 AM+CloverwindQuickdance I am claiming that a computational modeling of humans can make ethics as understandable a process as viral transmission or gravitation
10:46:23 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: NSA operates a model of human society with simplistic agents for all Americans
10:46:23 AM+schizoaffectiveThere are individuals who grow up in a culture and totally disreguard its ethics, laws, etc.
10:46:33 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: That is explicable
10:46:42 AM+CloverwindQuickdance It may not be known, today, why they behave that way
10:46:54 AM+schizoaffective“But it might be known in the future.”
10:47:04 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Facebook has models of enormous populations with very detailed psychographic models of each agent
10:47:11 AM+schizoaffectiveYou are not positing science, you are positing last-thursdayism
10:47:15 AM+CloverwindQuickdance It's unclear what you mean at "doesn't pass real world application"
10:47:27 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: So, science has limits, then, yes?
10:47:36 AM+schizoaffectiveGood god.
10:47:40 AM+schizoaffectiveI give up on you.
10:47:50 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You appear to be arguing it will forever be unknowable why somebody disregards their community's ethics.
10:47:56 AM+schizoaffectiveMake a point in 3 sentences or less please.
10:48:04 AM+CloverwindQuickdance I am claiming that a computational modeling of humans can make ethics as understandable a process as viral transmission or gravitation
10:48:27 AM+schizoaffectiveI am definitely not making any considerably comparable argument as you seem to claim
10:48:35 AM+CloverwindQuickdance We currently have large-scale models of human populations and their behavior at NSA and Facebook
10:48:47 AM+CloverwindQuickdance These models will improve over time
10:48:51 AM+schizoaffectiveThe problem with your desire to ascribe data to understanding is
10:49:04 AM+CloverwindQuickdance That is my point in 3 sentences
10:49:25 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Do you agree you have a non-scientific view of ethics?
10:49:29 AM+schizoaffectiveyou don’t seem to understand that predictive models based on humans do not have an application of understanding humans
10:49:34 AM+CloverwindQuickdance That is, you imagine it is of Type Ineffable
10:49:38 AM+schizoaffectivethey only have applications of making broad predictions based on patterns
10:49:45 AM← Sobel has quit (Ping timeout)
10:49:49 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Largely agree
10:50:17 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: When I make a model of a gravitational process, and it makes useful predictions about gravitational phenomena, how meaningful is it to say that model doesn't possess the qualia of gravity?
10:50:22 AM+CloverwindQuickdance I would say 'Very little'
10:50:33 AM+schizoaffectiveyour definition of understanding is eluding me.
10:50:41 AM+schizoaffectiveagain
10:50:48 AM+schizoaffectivemorality is arbitrary and subjective
10:51:00 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Okay. Clear thesis.
10:51:02 AM+schizoaffectivethere are individuals who entirely outly their cultural ethics
10:51:07 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Agreed.
10:51:16 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Allow me to refute your thesis.
10:51:40 AM+CloverwindQuickdance 1. Do you agree the collection of all human thoughts and human actions, in the history of humans is a finite-information construct?
10:51:42 AM+schizoaffectivethe majority of peoples morals change depending on the relativity of the subject.
10:51:48 AM+CloverwindQuickdance That is, I could record it and put it into a computer, theoretically
10:52:05 AM+schizoaffectiveeven if you did
10:52:09 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Wait.
10:52:10 AM+schizoaffectiveyou would only have data on what happened
10:52:12 AM+schizoaffectivenot why
10:52:19 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Let's go step by step.
10:52:26 AM+schizoaffectiveand certianly not on the “universal ethos” theory that you seem to be using this to support
10:52:32 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You are guess my argumentation.
10:52:34 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Your guess is wrong.
10:52:50 AM+CloverwindQuickdance What you are saying is useful, though.
10:53:01 AM+CloverwindQuickdance So, I could load all that data into a computer.
10:53:01 AM+schizoaffectiveknowing that 7 billion people take poops does not determine what 7 billion peoples favorite food is.
10:53:08 AM→ Sobel has joined
10:53:08 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Terrible analogy.
10:53:13 AMⓘ Mabus set mode +v Sobel
10:53:15 AM+schizoaffectiveIt isn’t.
10:53:19 AM+CloverwindQuickdance It would provide significant insight into the favorite foods of people.
10:53:22 AM+schizoaffectiveEven if they all ate something more often than anything else
10:53:29 AM+CloverwindQuickdance But, let us abandon your analogy, as analogical reasoning is notoriously tricky.
10:53:32 AM+schizoaffectivethat wouldnt assure you that said thing was tehir favorite food.
10:53:39 AM+CloverwindQuickdance There are no assurances in science.
10:53:42 AM+schizoaffectiveOK.
10:53:43 AM+CloverwindQuickdance There are probability distributions.
10:53:55 AM+schizoaffectiveKnowing that most people do not consider it ok to kill babies
10:54:06 AM+schizoaffectiveyou can then not say, it is universally unethical to murder babies
10:54:06 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Okay, so I have stored all that information in a computer.
10:54:12 AM→ venusNmars has joined
10:54:12 AMⓘ ChanServ set mode +o venusNmars
10:54:14 AM+schizoaffectivemore importantly
10:54:18 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You have stated that morality is arbitrary and subjective.
10:54:35 AM+schizoaffectiveeven if no one ever killed a baby, you could never use that data to suppose that every person ever felt that it was morally wrong to do so.
10:54:58 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: I have never argued for a universal ethic in this conversation.
10:55:17 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: So, I have loaded this data into the computer.
10:55:25 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You have stated that morality is arbitrary and subjective.
10:55:26 AM+schizoaffectiveand?
10:55:46 AM+schizoaffectivebecause you can randomly change your own moral compass very easily.
10:56:52 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Do you agree your thesis is mathematically equivalent (the arbitrary part) to saying 'There are no patterns in that data set, for the subset of thoughts and actions which we agree are of type Moral'?
10:56:58 AM+schizoaffectiveif they havent so far, egging them on to do so is irresponsible
10:57:20 AM+CloverwindQuickdance This is why I mentioned the factor analysis of human morality.
10:57:35 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Yes, there is a lot of variation. Yes, there are underlying patterns.
10:57:48 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Jonathan Hadit, for example, came up with a 6 factor model of human moral reasoning
10:57:52 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Called his Moral Foundations Theory
10:58:04 AM+CloverwindQuickdance He generated this by studying 80 human cultures across time and geography
10:58:18 AM+schizoaffectivethe problem with science is
10:58:25 AM+schizoaffectivea “limitation” if you must call it that
10:58:34 AM+schizoaffectivefor anything to be right, is very challenging
10:58:54 AM+schizoaffectiveoutside the realm of pure mathematical formula (and geometry which is essentially mathematics)
10:59:00 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Do you agree the Moral Foundations Theory refutes your thesis of the arbitrary nature of human moral reaosning.
10:59:11 AM+schizoaffectivei do not think it refutes anything
10:59:17 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Many people do not really understand the definition of arbitrary.
10:59:19 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Do you feel you do?
10:59:24 AM+schizoaffectiveyou just threw me off track from my response though
10:59:32 AM+CloverwindQuickdance I didn't really understand it until I took my algorithms class at university
10:59:45 AM+schizoaffectivebased on random chocie or personal whim rather tahn any reason or system
10:59:53 AM+CloverwindQuickdance That is not the definition of arbitrary
10:59:59 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Not in computer science/mathematics
11:00:03 AM+schizoaffectivei can randomly decide that murdering babies is ok, and convince myself of it by going out and attempting to murder babies
11:00:07 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Arbitrary means 'Do whatever'
11:00:13 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Random is not arbitrary
11:00:20 AM+schizoaffectiveMorality is not mathematical
11:00:26 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Strawman
11:00:43 AM+CloverwindQuickdance So, say I have a large set of possible actions/thoughts to a situation
11:00:50 AM← Hedrin has quit (Client closed connection)
11:00:51 AM+schizoaffectivebut since you want to go there.
11:00:58 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Arbitrary means, any process which chooses from them according to any logic is valid
11:01:01 AM+schizoaffectiveMorality is indeed mathematically arbitrary
11:01:01 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Random would be acceptable
11:01:04 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Or always choosing the first
11:01:11 AM+schizoaffectiveIt is of unspecified value
11:01:17 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Or choosing the 3rd that starts with the letter F
11:01:28 AM+schizoaffectivebecause anyone can (arbitrarily) assign value as they see fit to suit thier personal will
11:01:52 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: So, when we study human cultures, you feel what we see is an arbitrary construction of moral reasoning
11:01:52 AM+schizoaffectivetotally and completely ignoring the forces of culture and societal pressure and even evolutionary pressures in the process of doing so
11:02:01 AM+CloverwindQuickdance That would mean that is just as likely that I value stars above babies
11:02:06 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Or trees above water
11:02:16 AM+schizoaffectivethe different moral values are arbitrarily different
11:02:17 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Or dirt above water
11:02:26 AM+schizoaffectivedifferent cultures think different things are right or wrong
11:02:32 AM+schizoaffectivedespite coming from the exact same species
11:02:43 AM+schizoaffectivethere is no uniformity to it
11:02:48 AM+schizoaffectiveit is not a specified value
11:02:56 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Variation is not abitrary
11:02:58 AM@InfradeadSow hat?
11:03:00 AM+CloverwindQuickdance I just went over that
11:03:02 AM@InfradeadSo what?
11:03:06 AM+schizoaffectiveindeed
11:03:10 AM+schizoaffectivebut it is not just variation
11:03:16 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Showing variation in a data set does not show that data set was generated arbitrarily
11:03:22 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Wanna a counterexample?
11:03:26 AM@InfradeadJust because different people believe different things about something doesn't imply there is no fact of the matter regarding it.
11:03:29 AM+CloverwindQuickdance I can instantly refute your claim
11:03:36 AM← ForexTrader has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
11:03:55 AM+schizoaffectivethere is no fact of matter that is measurable about the “goodness” or “badness” of murder
11:03:55 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: I have a normal distribution that I'm going to sample from
11:04:01 AM+CloverwindQuickdance I then generate a value for each human on Earth
11:04:06 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Do you agree their values vary?
11:04:12 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Do you agree they are generated by a simple process?
11:04:18 AM+schizoaffectiveyou are discussing the existence of things that can be measured
11:04:22 AM+schizoaffectiveright and wrong can not.
11:04:23 AM+CloverwindQuickdance The range of the normal distribution is -inf to inf
11:04:23 AM→ ForexTrader has joined
11:04:31 AMⓘ Mabus set mode +v ForexTrader
11:04:34 AM+CloverwindQuickdance And yet it's a 2-parameter distribution
11:04:39 AM+schizoaffectiveI really can’t continue this.
11:04:43 AM+schizoaffectiveWe will have to agree to disagree.
11:04:47 AM← DreamsXX has quit (Ping timeout)
11:04:54 AM+schizoaffectiveYou’re walking in circles and I squarely disagree with it.
11:04:55 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: I would like you to see something that you haven't yet grasped
11:05:05 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You have claimed that human morality is arbitrary
11:05:23 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Do you see how you have stated, equivalently, that human moral reasoning is uncaused?
11:05:34 AM→ Plan has joined
11:05:36 AM+schizoaffectiveI can today decide that murdering infants with sharpened wooden spoons is morally CORRECT
11:05:40 AM+CloverwindQuickdance That is, it is not causally connected to any other component of the universe
11:05:41 AMⓘ Mabus set mode +v Plan
11:05:51 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Do you see that
11:05:57 AM+schizoaffectiveand justify it with a belief that the united states has a higher birth rate than it should
11:06:02 AM+schizoaffectiveand act on those beliefs
11:06:07 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Say that I could show you that there is a causal connection between human moral reasoning and phenomenon X
11:06:12 AM+schizoaffectiveseparate from every evolutionary or biological impulse i have, i can still do so
11:06:27 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Then, if I can show a non-arbitrariness to X, I have done the same for human moral reasoningi
11:06:29 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Agreed?
11:06:35 AM+schizoaffectivebecause humans can force themselves to believe things, and force themselves to act against instinct.
11:06:50 AM+schizoaffectiveno you can’t
11:06:53 AM+schizoaffectivebecause correlation is not causation
11:06:56 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Those thoughts are casually connected to neuronal networks
11:07:00 AM+CloverwindQuickdance They're not uncaused
11:07:02 AM+schizoaffectivemany black people steal tvs, apparently
11:07:07 AM+schizoaffectiveis it because they are black?
11:07:16 AM+schizoaffectiveis their blackness the root of their having stolen those tvs?
11:07:17 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: You seem to not be educated in mathematical modeling
11:07:28 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You don't have sufficient tools in this space to understand my argumentation
11:07:37 AM+schizoaffectiveyou can have all the data you want to support that people didnt kill babies
11:07:47 AM+schizoaffectiveyou can never use it to say definitievly that they thought killing babies was wrong
11:07:52 AM+schizoaffectiveyou need expressive data
11:07:55 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: I recommend you look at probabilistic graphical models and their subtype Bayesian networks
11:07:59 AM+schizoaffectiveand as anyone who has ever studied this sort of thing knows
11:08:03 AM+schizoaffectivenot everyone agrees
11:08:07 AM+CloverwindQuickdance schizoaffective: Have you ever studied Bayesian networks
11:08:15 AM+schizoaffectivethere is not one single universal ethic
11:08:24 AM+CloverwindQuickdance (Strawman)
11:08:34 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You appear to not have the cognitive resources to continue
11:08:37 AM Ignoring schizoaffective!*@*
11:08:43 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Thank you for the conversation, schizoaffective
11:08:54 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You seem reasonably smart, but you also don't seem smart enough for this conversation
11:09:36 AM+CloverwindQuickdance In a Bayesian network, your model expresses causal relationships between variables
11:09:49 AM+CloverwindQuickdance So, you could have X->Y
11:09:55 AM+CloverwindQuickdance This means Y is conditionally dependent on X
11:10:03 AM+CloverwindQuickdance So, if I know the value of X, I gain information on the value of Y
11:10:19 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You are stating that Y, human moral reasoning, is arbitrary
11:10:46 AM+CloverwindQuickdance This is mathematically equivalent to 'There is no process generating human moral reasoning'
11:10:56 AM+CloverwindQuickdance That is the definition of arbitrary: use whatever process you want
11:11:15 AM+CloverwindQuickdance So, that means Y is not conditionally dependent on any phenomenon in the universe which is also not arbitrary
11:11:35 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Because if Y was conditionally dependent on X, and X was not arbitrary, then the process generating X would be partially generating Y
11:11:41 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Which would violate our assumption it is arbitrary
11:11:56 AM→ DreamsXX has joined
11:11:57 AM+CloverwindQuickdance There is no known phenomenon in the universe that is arbitrary
11:12:02 AMⓘ Mabus set mode +v DreamsXX
11:12:47 AM+CloverwindQuickdance There are random processes, like nuclear decay, or particles popping in and out of existence, but those can still be modeled in aggregate
11:13:02 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You can model nuclear decay with an exponential function, for example
11:13:22 AM+CloverwindQuickdance The wave equation is also not arbitrary
11:13:51 AM+CloverwindQuickdance So, you believe that human moral reasoning, which is generated in human minds made of neurons, glial cells, etc., composed of atoms, is independent of the wave equation
11:13:57 AM+CloverwindQuickdance This is false, prima facie
11:14:28 AM+CloverwindQuickdance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_network
11:16:54 AM+CloverwindQuickdance One other point
11:17:23 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Your example of being able to think the killing of babies is moral and then switch to thinking it's immoral is evidence of arbitrary human moral reasoning was unimaginative
11:17:41 AM+CloverwindQuickdance You specifically used baby killing because you intuitively understand the killing of babies is something humans generally care about
11:17:55 AM+CloverwindQuickdance In mathematics, there was a century of analysis done on non-pathological functions
11:18:08 AM+CloverwindQuickdance That is, functions that were generally finitely piecewise continuous
11:18:16 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Almost all mathematical functions are not non-pathological
11:18:49 AM+CloverwindQuickdance There is a one-to-one mapping of pathological functions to R and a one-to-one mapping of non-pathological functions to Q
11:19:10 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Yet, humans intuitively almost always think about modeling phenomena with non-pathological functions
11:19:20 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Which would show that our selection of functions is non-arbitrary
11:19:58 AM+CloverwindQuickdance If you wanted to provide an example that had a better chance of showing human moral reasoning, you should have just said, that's like valuing killing babies over <random_bit_string>
11:20:27 AM+CloverwindQuickdance Because an arbitrary process can select any construct however it wants
11:20:47 AM+CloverwindQuickdance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_(mathematics)