Gyroscopic Investing

Kshartle wrote:I must say I appreciate the irony of people saying that morality can't be objectively provable arguing that feelings can be morally right or wrong.

And yes, of course actions can too!  I'm not arguing against the existence of morality in any way, shape, or form.  "Not objectively provable" is not the same as "non-existent".  I'm sure it probably is in your little world where human logic is your god, but here it reality, it isn't.  Moda has said this a hundred times.

Xan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:I must say I appreciate the irony of people saying that morality can't be objectively provable arguing that feelings can be morally right or wrong.

And yes, of course actions can too!  I'm not arguing against the existence of morality in any way, shape, or form.  "Not objectively provable" is not the same as "non-existent".  I'm sure it probably is in your little world where human logic is your god, but here it reality, it isn't.  Moda has said this a hundred times.

Ok I'm going to move on but before I do....can I ask you one thing? To the best of my understanding you have not answered why you think it's impossible to prove that anything is immoral even though you believe that to be true. That is...unless your belief is based on the idea that you cannot go from an "is" to an "ought". I'm ok leaving it there.

Ok. Regardless.

What is the basis for your belief that some actions are immoral and some are moral? I've explained my thoughts on this in detail dozens of times and we are now going piece by painful piece through it. I am genuinely curious about yours. What is the basis for this belief? Why do you think that it's true that some actions are morally correct and some are morally incorrect (because we agree on that)?

Simonjester wrote:

Kshartle wrote:
We are not in agreement about the definition of feelings then. I am assuming this is something you don't control. You are assuming control or choice right?

I would call that a thought at least and distinguish it from a feeling. We can choose what we think about.

This is completely irrelavent either way. I must say I appreciate the irony of people saying that morality can't be objectively provable arguing that feelings can be morally right or wrong. I'll agree even for the sake of moving on because I don't think it matters one drop. If you want to argue that a feeling can be morally right or wrong then I'm all ears. Saying it's wrong because it "might" lead to something is silly though......since it "might" not. If the rightness or wrongness of a feeling is based on what it might lead to......what feeling isn't wrong since they can lead to just about any decision or non-decision. Right?

yes i assume control or the often un-exercised option of control. Feelings and thoughts are interrelated and influence each other in a chicken/egg egg/chicken way.  i am not arguing that they are or aren't morally wrong, only trying to point out the religious perspective says they are, and that the non religious view is undecided or will vary from person to person, or be dependent on (not immoral unless) it having resulted in immoral action.. 

i don't think it is relevant to the nap/logic argument  just a interesting aside at best...

The belief in the unprovable (religious beliefs) can certainly make other discussions where the attempt is to understand the world in a provable way difficult.

Kshartle wrote:What is the basis for your belief that some actions are immoral and some are moral? I've explained my thoughts on this in detail dozens of times and we are now going piece by painful piece through it. I am genuinely curious about yours. What is the basis for this belief? Why do you think that it's true that some actions are morally correct and some are morally incorrect (because we agree on that)?

I believe in many things that are unprovable, and so do you.  Logic is unprovable.  Please, prove the axioms of logic.  And remember Godel: even arithmetic is not consistent nor complete.

Kshartle wrote:The belief in the unprovable (religious beliefs) can certainly make other discussions where the attempt is to understand the world in a provable way difficult.

None of your premises are really provable.  They're all the foundational assumptions of your argument.  For purposes of the discussion, most folks here generally have agreed with them so far, but you can only prove something to someone when they happen to agree with your unprovable premises.  So your worship of absolute provability is unwarranted.

Xan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:What is the basis for your belief that some actions are immoral and some are moral? I've explained my thoughts on this in detail dozens of times and we are now going piece by painful piece through it. I am genuinely curious about yours. What is the basis for this belief? Why do you think that it's true that some actions are morally correct and some are morally incorrect (because we agree on that)?

I believe in many things that are unprovable, and so do you.  Logic is unprovable.  Please, prove the axioms of logic.  And remember Godel: even arithmetic is not consistent nor complete.

Kshartle wrote:The belief in the unprovable (religious beliefs) can certainly make other discussions where the attempt is to understand the world in a provable way difficult.

None of your premises are really provable.  They're all the foundational assumptions of your argument.  For purposes of the discussion, most folks here generally have agreed with them so far, but you can only prove something to someone when they happen to agree with your unprovable premises.  So your worship of absolute provability is unwarranted.

To quote my friend Kshartle,  "Bingo"

... Mountaineer

Xan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:What is the basis for your belief that some actions are immoral and some are moral? I've explained my thoughts on this in detail dozens of times and we are now going piece by painful piece through it. I am genuinely curious about yours. What is the basis for this belief? Why do you think that it's true that some actions are morally correct and some are morally incorrect (because we agree on that)?

I believe in many things that are unprovable, and so do you.  Logic is unprovable.  Please, prove the axioms of logic.  And remember Godel: even arithmetic is not consistent nor complete.

Kshartle wrote:The belief in the unprovable (religious beliefs) can certainly make other discussions where the attempt is to understand the world in a provable way difficult.

None of your premises are really provable.  They're all the foundational assumptions of your argument.  For purposes of the discussion, most folks here generally have agreed with them so far, but you can only prove something to someone when they happen to agree with your unprovable premises.  So your worship of absolute provability is unwarranted.

You just keep repeating the same thing. You never answer the question. This leads me to believe you have no basis for your beliefs. You likely just picked them up along the way because someone you trusted told you they were true and you never questioned or explored them.

When I ask why you think something isn't provable your answer is "because it isn't".

When I ask why you believe something is true your answer is "I believe in uprovable things".

We already know you believe in unprovable things. You believe a guy in the sky loves his children so much he made a lake of fire to put them in for all eternity.

Since you won't take responsibility for your statements I will just move on.

It's weird to me though. If I beleived something was true but couldn't explain why, and someone else said they beleived they knew why I was right and wanted to prove it.....I doubt I would just keep repeating to them that it's impossible over and over. That seems really weird to me. I suppose I might want to do that if I feared my little world would get shattered and I'd actually be truly responsible for my actions and couldn't just pawn them off on my "sinful" nature and then get a free pass from the man in the sky because I "believe" in him too.

Kshartle wrote:

Xan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:What is the basis for your belief that some actions are immoral and some are moral? I've explained my thoughts on this in detail dozens of times and we are now going piece by painful piece through it. I am genuinely curious about yours. What is the basis for this belief? Why do you think that it's true that some actions are morally correct and some are morally incorrect (because we agree on that)?

I believe in many things that are unprovable, and so do you.  Logic is unprovable.  Please, prove the axioms of logic.  And remember Godel: even arithmetic is not consistent nor complete.

Kshartle wrote:The belief in the unprovable (religious beliefs) can certainly make other discussions where the attempt is to understand the world in a provable way difficult.

None of your premises are really provable.  They're all the foundational assumptions of your argument.  For purposes of the discussion, most folks here generally have agreed with them so far, but you can only prove something to someone when they happen to agree with your unprovable premises.  So your worship of absolute provability is unwarranted.

You just keep repeating the same thing. You never answer the question. This leads me to believe you have no basis for your beliefs. You likely just picked them up along the way because someone you trusted told you they were true and you never questioned or explored them.

When I ask why you think something isn't provable your answer is "because it isn't".

When I ask why you believe something is true your answer is "I believe in uprovable things".

We already know you believe in unprovable things. You believe a guy in the sky loves his children so much he made a lake of fire to put them in for all eternity.

Since you won't take responsibility for your statements I will just move on.

It's weird to me though. If I beleived something was true but couldn't explain why, and someone else said they beleived they knew why I was right and wanted to prove it.....I doubt I would just keep repeating to them that it's impossible over and over. That seems really weird to me. I suppose I might want to do that if I feared my little world would get shattered and I'd actually be truly responsible for my actions and couldn't just pawn them off on my "sinful" nature and then get a free pass from the man in the sky because I "believe" in him too.

Kshartle, in all seriousness, you had best hope your worldview is correct and not Xan's or mine.  From my perspective, Xan and I have both answered your questions repeatedly and very thoroughly; I am sorry that you do not understand what we are trying desperately to communicate to you and that we have not yet hit the method that does that communication effectively - and I really, really do not intend that statement in a condescending way.  I know this is likely meaningless to you at this point, but all I can do is pray that someday you are able to hear God's promises and that they start resonating with you.  In the meantime, proceed with your premises but please do realize, as Xan stated, to me they are just as unprovable (actually more so) as Christianity and you have not addressed the source of those premises or why you have faith they are correct.

Peace,  ... Mountaineer

Kshartle wrote:

Xan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:What is the basis for your belief that some actions are immoral and some are moral? I've explained my thoughts on this in detail dozens of times and we are now going piece by painful piece through it. I am genuinely curious about yours. What is the basis for this belief? Why do you think that it's true that some actions are morally correct and some are morally incorrect (because we agree on that)?

I believe in many things that are unprovable, and so do you.  Logic is unprovable.  Please, prove the axioms of logic.  And remember Godel: even arithmetic is not consistent nor complete.

Kshartle wrote:The belief in the unprovable (religious beliefs) can certainly make other discussions where the attempt is to understand the world in a provable way difficult.

None of your premises are really provable.  They're all the foundational assumptions of your argument.  For purposes of the discussion, most folks here generally have agreed with them so far, but you can only prove something to someone when they happen to agree with your unprovable premises.  So your worship of absolute provability is unwarranted.

You just keep repeating the same thing. You never answer the question. This leads me to believe you have no basis for your beliefs. You likely just picked them up along the way because someone you trusted told you they were true and you never questioned or explored them.

When I ask why you think something isn't provable your answer is "because it isn't".

When I ask why you believe something is true your answer is "I believe in uprovable things".

We already know you believe in unprovable things. You believe a guy in the sky loves his children so much he made a lake of fire to put them in for all eternity.

Since you won't take responsibility for your statements I will just move on.

It's weird to me though. If I beleived something was true but couldn't explain why, and someone else said they beleived they knew why I was right and wanted to prove it.....I doubt I would just keep repeating to them that it's impossible over and over. That seems really weird to me. I suppose I might want to do that if I feared my little world would get shattered and I'd actually be truly responsible for my actions and couldn't just pawn them off on my "sinful" nature and then get a free pass from the man in the sky because I "believe" in him too.

Well, Kshartle, you believe in unprovable things too.  They're the foundation of your worldview as well.  And when I point this out, you ignore it.  So who's not taking responsibility here?

We can move on with the primary exercise in this thread.  But as Mountaineer says, your premises and therefore conclusions are not truly provable.

Mountaineer wrote: From my perspective, Xan and I have both answered your questions repeatedly and very thoroughly;

You honestly think that "I believe in unprovable things" is a thorough answer to the question "Why do you believe that"?

I don't think you're being honest with me or yourself. How can you possibly consider that a thorough answer?

If neither of you are interested in the concept of anything being provable because of the belief that nothing is provable since it comes from God and he's not provable.....why are you posting in this thread?

It's just plain weird to me. I think it's to protect a worldview you hold that you suspect is fragile and you're intolerent of people who attempt to prove it so. Of course I could be wrong. You might just dislike me personally or you may sincerely think you're adding valuable insight. I can't be certain.

Kshartle wrote:If neither of you are interested in the concept of anything being provable because of the belief that nothing is provable since it comes from God and he's not provable.....why are you posting in this thread

Well, the point of this thread is to give you a shot at demonstrating your worldview, and for everyone else to show you the myriad ways you are wrong.  So we're participating fully, I think.  But by all means continue!

Just saw your latest addition: are you trying to prove that God doesn't exist in this thread?  I wouldn't think that objectively provable morality would have any bearing on that, one way or the other.  So no, I don't think anybody's faith is being threatened here.

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: From my perspective, Xan and I have both answered your questions repeatedly and very thoroughly;

You honestly think that "I believe in unprovable things" is a thorough answer to the question "Why do you believe that"?

I don't think you're being honest with me or yourself. How can you possibly consider that a thorough answer?

If neither of you are interested in the concept of anything being provable because of the belief that nothing is provable since it comes from God and he's not provable.....why are you posting in this thread?

It's just plain weird to me. I think it's to protect a worldview you hold that you suspect is fragile and you're intolerent of people who attempt to prove it so. Of course I could be wrong. You might just dislike me personally or you may sincerely think you're adding valuable insight. I can't be certain.

Kshartle,

I cannot speak for Xan, but I based my statement on many posts, perhaps several dozen, in this thread and the religion thread among others where I have expressed my worldview.  You continue to nibble around the edges and not see the big picture - my opinion only - pretty much like a trees/forrest thing.  And, what you are accusing me with my worldview of is exactly what you are doing to defend yours, but I don't think you see it.  I really do not dislike you personally, quite the contrary.  If I did not care about you (and other non-believers) so much, I would just shut up and let you damn yourself.  Unfortunately, I can't do that knowing there is always hope.  Yes, I realize to an unbeliever how condescending that must sound.  And, since you apparently do not believe in absolute truth, you have no reason to believe that I am telling the truth. 

You may wish to watch this, it will do a better job that I can do: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65H9JmRZ ... ploademail

Like I said before, .....

Peace,

... Mountaineer

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: If an action is POSSIBLE, the action corresponds with reality... it's our INTERPRETATION of reality that is "incorrect."  Does it follow that an action can be "incorrect" if it corresponds with an incorrect interpretation of reality?  We tend to talk about things like that, but it it NECESSARILY logically true?  Can an ACTION be incorrect (assuming not having gotten to "morality" yet)?

Also, not to dip into one of the gray areas, but just for clarification, is it "incorrect" for a deer who doesn't understand thin ice to walk out onto thin ice?  I guess what I'm asking is, is it our conscious thought that potentially makes an action "correct" or "incorrect?"  Not trying to argue about gray areas, but moreso establish what could make a behavior "incorrect."

To me, a behavior is what it is.  Our interpretation of reality could be "incorrect," but an action either is or isn't... unless we insert some sort of value statement connecting actions to "incorrect" or "correct" interpretations of reality.

The interpretation is incorrect, therefore the decision is incorrect. If you want to say the action cannot be incorrect that's fine, I don't think there's any conflict there. It's the decision that's wrong. If you want to say it's not possible to make a wrong decision because it's possible to make a decision.....we will be drowing in self-inflicted nonsense.

It's possible to pick up a pawn and move it backwards in chess. If you want to say that because someone can physically do it it's not wrong ok for now (without delving further I think this is a moot point). Clearly the decision is wrong in the context of the game. If you think the decision cannot be wrong because it's possible to make a decision, I have to ask what you think the words "right & wrong" actually mean.

I thought I laid out an agreed upon definition earlier.

K,

Yes.. the decision to move your pawn, in the context of the rules of the game.

That's the key thing... is that every "correct" or "incorrect" decision has a context.  Misinterpretation of reality affecting prediction of cause/effect, rules of a game, morality, etc.

A decision either occurs or it does not.  My interpretation of biology can be correct or incorrect based on empirical or logical fact, but this doesn't necessarily logically flow to the decision, to me.  For a decision to be correct or incorrect, in needs some sort of context to measure it against.  It's not objectively "correct" or "incorrect."  Multiple contexts apply.

We always must establish that context, whether it be the preference for survival, some measure of morality, following pre-set rules of a game, predicting/expecting some logical result, etc.

Because we make free choice, but haven't put any weight on those choices yet with logic, we need to find a measuring stick for those choices, and there is where the "correctness" of that choice lies.  Some logical measuring stick must exist that connects our decisions with reality in some more nuanced way than "our decisions are part of reality and therefore are correct."

Take my decision to tackle someone.  In the context of the following, it might be "correct," or "incorrect."

- The rules of a game.
- Morality: NAP
- Morality: Utilitarianism
- Physical consequence
- Personal well-being
- The other person's safety

Correctness in decisions needs context.  I see no other way.  Even if the ONLY valid context for decisions was a result of a "correct interpretation of reality" you could say almost NONE of our decisions are truly "correct," because they all fail to interpret reality with 100% accuracy.

moda0306 wrote: Even if the ONLY valid context for decisions was a result of a "correct interpretation of reality" you could say almost NONE of our decisions are truly "correct," because they all fail to interpret reality with 100% accuracy.

It's 100% accurate I can't breathe underwater without help.

If I try to I drown.

Am I missinterpreting reality?

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Even if the ONLY valid context for decisions was a result of a "correct interpretation of reality" you could say almost NONE of our decisions are truly "correct," because they all fail to interpret reality with 100% accuracy.

It's 100% accurate I can't breathe underwater without help.

If I try to I drown.

Am I missinterpreting reality?

That doesn't make any particular action "correct" or "incorrect".

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Even if the ONLY valid context for decisions was a result of a "correct interpretation of reality" you could say almost NONE of our decisions are truly "correct," because they all fail to interpret reality with 100% accuracy.

It's 100% accurate I can't breathe underwater without help.

If I try to I drown.

Am I missinterpreting reality?

I just threw a piece of trash away. I didn't place in in the trash can. Instead I held it aloft and released my grip and trusted gravity to pull it into the basket. It worked. I don't think this was a lucky guess.

Where was my misinterpretation?

I'm not an expert in these concepts because I think they are really nonsensical but listen.....I'm open to any explanations of how I missed reality here?

A fact can be true, and if it is true, it must be correct. But this doesn't take us to the moral realm, where "correct" has a different meaning and in that context is NOT simply a synonym of "true."

Pointedstick wrote: A fact can be true, and if it is true, it must be correct. But this doesn't take us to the moral realm, where "correct" has a different meaning and in that context is NOT simply a synonym of "true."

Agreed. If it's freezing outside and don't realize that and I go outside in shorts and a tee-shirt I made a mistake. I saw the sun shining and thought it was warm out and was wrong. This is not grounds for calling that action immoral imo.

People are free to make the case that it is however. I'm interested to hear it. 

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Even if the ONLY valid context for decisions was a result of a "correct interpretation of reality" you could say almost NONE of our decisions are truly "correct," because they all fail to interpret reality with 100% accuracy.

It's 100% accurate I can't breathe underwater without help.

If I try to I drown.

Am I missinterpreting reality?

Absolutely.

Your interpretation is "incorrect."

Your "decision," however, needs to be measured against a given context.  You seem to be deciding that proper interpretation of reality leading to a decision is an objective measure, making the decision "objectively correct." (or so it seems)

So when it comes to interpretation, I think we both agree.  The decision, on the other hand, seems to need a context to be labelled "correct" or "incorrect."  Maybe it's because "reality" contains too many factors to "interpret." 

For instance, the decision on whether it is correct to tackle someone.  Even without morality, it depends on so many aspects of my interpretation of reality, some of which might conflict with others. 9/10 of my interpretations of reality might be correct, but if I am to say that tackle was an "incorrect decision," I'm going to have to be particular about in what context it was incorrect.  It could be because I used bad form that will eventually result in head injury.  It could be because I used bad form that immediately resulted in injury.  It could be because I'm not playing a game, but just tackled someone in a grocery store, against the rules of that community.  It could be because I tackled the player right after the whistle.  It could be because I tackled the coach instead of the player.

See how just ONE aspect of reality being misinterpreted can make the action "incorrect" under your definition?

Is this all ok with you?  Can an action be at all correct, since you were correct about certain aspects of reality, or is it wrong if you were wrong about any aspect of reality?  Is there any gray area?  If there is, are we just leaving that aside for now, like the others?

moda0306 wrote: Is this all ok with you?  Can an action be at all correct, since you were correct about certain aspects of reality, or is it wrong if you were wrong about any aspect of reality?  Is there any gray area?  If there is, are we just leaving that aside for now, like the others?

What I meant was am I interpretting reality incorrectly when i say I can't breathe underwater without help.


lemme think about those questions..........

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Is this all ok with you?  Can an action be at all correct, since you were correct about certain aspects of reality, or is it wrong if you were wrong about any aspect of reality?  Is there any gray area?  If there is, are we just leaving that aside for now, like the others?

What I meant was am I interpretting reality incorrectly when i say I can't breathe underwater without help.


lemme think about those questions..........

I almost don't know if a decision can be "correct" or "incorrect," yet.  We tend to talk in every day life like it can, but it usually either has 1) a moral element, or 2) is basically referring to someone's interpretation of reality being implicitly incorrect.

Perhaps it's just the interpretation, and the decision is the obviously the consequence of the incorrect interpretation, but isn't "correct" or "incorrect" in and of itself.  we tend to mix all of it up in our daily lives, and I am thinking this is a logical error.

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Is this all ok with you?  Can an action be at all correct, since you were correct about certain aspects of reality, or is it wrong if you were wrong about any aspect of reality?  Is there any gray area?  If there is, are we just leaving that aside for now, like the others?

What I meant was am I interpretting reality incorrectly when i say I can't breathe underwater without help.


lemme think about those questions..........

I almost don't know if a decision can be "correct" or "incorrect," yet.  We tend to talk in every day life like it can, but it usually either has 1) a moral element, or 2) is basically referring to someone's interpretation of reality being implicitly incorrect.

Perhaps it's just the interpretation, and the decision is the obviously the consequence of the incorrect interpretation, but isn't "correct" or "incorrect" in and of itself.  we tend to mix all of it up in our daily lives, and I am thinking this is a logical error.

I hear you. I'm trying to think of why a decision based on a misinterpretation would not be classified as a wrong decision. I'm trying to argue against my own point.

K,

I was almost going to concede this one based on these definitions:

Correct: "In accordance with fact or truth."

Accordance: "In a manner conforming with."



Well, if a DECISION is "in a manner not conforming with truth," it would appear that my decision could be "incorrect."  However, is it the DECISION that is, at its core, "not conforming with the truth," or the INTERPRETATION that lead to the decision.

I think the interpretation is the ultimately "incorrect" part, and the decision is just an effect of the act of interpreting.  Perhaps we can connect the two, but if the decision is "incorrect," then is the action, by logical connection, "incorrect?"  What about the result of my interpretation/decision/action?  If I make a decision to turn left when I didn't have enough time to miss traffic, was the resulting accident "incorrect?"  Of course not.  It just "was."  It was the natural result of my misinterpretation of reality.  That's where the train went off the tracks.

moda0306 wrote: K,

I was almost going to concede this one based on these definitions:

Correct: "In accordance with fact or truth."

Accordance: "In a manner conforming with."



Well, if a DECISION is "in a manner not conforming with truth," it would appear that my decision could be "incorrect."  However, is it the DECISION that is, at its core, "not conforming with the truth," or the INTERPRETATION that lead to the decision.

I think the interpretation is the ultimately "incorrect" part, and the decision is just an effect of the act of interpreting.  Perhaps we can connect the two, but if the decision is "incorrect," then is the action, by logical connection, "incorrect?"  What about the result of my interpretation/decision/action?  If I make a decision to turn left when I didn't have enough time to miss traffic, was the resulting accident "incorrect?"  Of course not.  It just "was."  It was the natural result of my misinterpretation of reality.  That's where the train went off the tracks.

1. The decision to act or not is not separate from the interpretation imo.

2. The consequences are not what makes the decision wrong as you stated.

I'll try to make this case for #1 this evening.  I've been studying the human decision making process as a side project to teach myself how to trade EXTREMLEY short term futures markets. This has been consuming all of my free time (of which there isn't enough).

When I say extremely short term I'm talking the 1 minute charts and lower. The live-session sim results have been very encouraging but that's a matter for another thread perhaps.

manner - a way of doing or being
truth - the property of being in accord with fact or reality

Thus - if a DECISION is "in a way of doing or being not in conformity with the property of being in accord with fact or reality" ...... it is incorrect/wrong

Remember that words aren't magical, they just represent more complex ideas sometimes.

A way of doing or being is active. Even "being" has an active property to it i think. This the is the active decision part that we control (unless we're possesed of course).

Ok, so this is the definition of decision:

a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration.


So a decision appears to be a "conclusion," or more-so a step in the process of "interpretation."  I was thinking more as an intermediary step between interpretation and action.

Can we agree on that?

So my "decision" (conclusion) to breathe underwater is incorrect, because I'm concluding, explicitly or implicitly, that I can breathe underwater.

But the actual ACTION of attempting to breathe underwater, I don't think, can be correct or incorrect.  Sorry to keep moving around on you. I'm discovering my "interpretations" and "decisions" on this stuff as I take the "action" of typing.