Gyroscopic Investing

TennPaGa wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: So, given adjective definition 2, what are you using for the "stake in the ground from which all things are measured" to say something is "right" - i.e. ' true or correct as a fact' since you later say facts can be disproven?

... Mountaineer

I presented a definition of the word "right" as an adjective. Do you disagree with this definition?

A statement of fact can be proven false or true. An opinion cannot.

I did not say facts can be proven wrong. I said statements about them can be.

I think you are trolling now. As soon as I start up you begin nitpicking and needling and missquoting me, on things we covered months ago. Why? You were on this thread then.

Stop being a dick.

Everyone else but you recognizes that Mountaineer is making a good faith effort to engage you in this thread.  You respond with insults.

Stop it.

Mountaineer wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: So, given adjective definition 2, what are you using for the "stake in the ground from which all things are measured" to say something is "right" - i.e. ' true or correct as a fact' since you later say facts can be disproven?

... Mountaineer

I presented a definition of the word "right" as an adjective. Do you disagree with this definition?

A statement of fact can be proven false or true. An opinion cannot.

I did not say facts can be proven wrong. I said statements about them can be.

I think you are trolling now. As soon as I start up you begin nitpicking and needling and misquoting me, on things we covered months ago. Why? You were on this thread then.

Do I disagree with your definition of "right" as an adjective?  In the broadest sense, yes.  Your definition is incomplete since you have not provided a definition of truth or correctness that uses some source external to you - i.e. that "stake in the ground by which you are measuring or judging all things".

Fact:  something can be imaginary.
Fact regarding my unique being:  I am not trolling, I am trying to be purposeful.  Do you not see that for me trolling is against everything I believe?  Trolling is dishonest behavior from my sense of "right and wrong" and is contrary to my intent (but frequently failing) of trying to build others up and not tear them down.
Fact:  I cannot remember verbatim everything that was said by all participants in this thread since it began. 
Fact:  I choose not to try to commit this thread to memory. 
Fact:  Earlier I was requested to not overtly discuss "God things" for the time being, that is until you finish with your attempted proof or until that request is retracted if that comes first; I believe I have honored that request.
Fact:  One man's perception of trolling can be another man's perception of bailing when the going gets tough.

So, if you wish my non-participation, just say so, and I will respectfully consider your request.

... Mountaineer

moda0306 wrote: K,

I think you found it. Ought: the imperative to act or not to act.

Leave the word "correct" out for now. You have to figure out whether that imperative exists.

We KNOW something can be "correct." (The sky is blue)

We understand what an imperative is as a concept, whether or not it exists. Like heaven or sadness.

You have to prove that an imperative exists.


You think you'd be cool with changing 17 to: "ought is an imperative to act."  And just leave the rest for you to prove?  Obviously... If you can prove that imperative exists, that means it is a fact and is correct, and therefore an action can be "correct."

Fair everyone?

moda0306 wrote: K,

What's wrong with that statement is two-fold. It assumes an action/decision can be correct or incorrect, in and of itself. I barely got to the point where I agreed that a decision could be incorrect if it involves an incorrect interpretation of reality, but I think we have to revisit that...

For if my impression of reality is that "if I go to work today, I will be greeted with a million dollar prize," that is an incorrect understanding of reality... However, does this mean I "ought not" to go to work?

As far as your statement goes, it certainly does sound self-contradictory, but I don't think that as long as something is consistent with reality that we "ought" to do it, and if it's inconsistent we necessarily "ought not" to do it.  Even if we leave morality out... It seems to me, the nature of "oughts" is that they must have some value-premise.

There are a lot of mis-understandings of reality that don't necessarily result in things we would say we "ought not" to do.

Any thoughts on this?

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Kshartle wrote: I presented a definition of the word "right" as an adjective. Do you disagree with this definition?

A statement of fact can be proven false or true. An opinion cannot.

I did not say facts can be proven wrong. I said statements about them can be.

I think you are trolling now. As soon as I start up you begin nitpicking and needling and misquoting me, on things we covered months ago. Why? You were on this thread then.

Do I disagree with your definition of "right" as an adjective?  In the broadest sense, yes.  Your definition is incomplete since you have not provided a definition of truth or correctness that uses some source external to you - i.e. that "stake in the ground by which you are measuring or judging all things".

Fact:  something can be imaginary.
Fact regarding my unique being:  I am not trolling, I am trying to be purposeful.  Do you not see that for me trolling is against everything I believe?  Trolling is dishonest behavior from my sense of "right and wrong" and is contrary to my intent (but frequently failing) of trying to build others up and not tear them down.
Fact:  I cannot remember verbatim everything that was said by all participants in this thread since it began. 
Fact:  I choose not to try to commit this thread to memory. 
Fact:  Earlier I was requested to not overtly discuss "God things" for the time being, that is until you finish with your attempted proof or until that request is retracted if that comes first; I believe I have honored that request.
Fact:  One man's perception of trolling can be another man's perception of bailing when the going gets tough.

So, if you wish my non-participation, just say so, and I will respectfully consider your request.

... Mountaineer

I was frustrated because I just re-posted 1-17 and #6 was - A statement of fact is a statement about reality. It can be proven wrong.

Changing that into "facts can be proven wrong" to challenge the idea that The definition of “right”? is: In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct. seemed to me like you are just combing through ever character to be frustrating and not making an honest attempt to add value here.

I'll assume my suspicion is misplaced.

Mountaineer, do you believe anything is "In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct"? If anything is, what is your definition of truth or fact or correctness that uses some source external to you?

Presenting the answer to your own question so we can discuss would actually be a big help as opposed to me having to figure out the precise words that will trigger acceptance for you. If I present my answer there will be a word you want further clarified and another and another after that. I don't know what words have meaning that you will accept without qualification.

Xan wrote: Actually "2" is a symbol representing something.  2+2=4 exactly because of what "2" and "4" represent.  As Godel proved, though, even a system as simple as the natural numbers will have truths that cannot be proven.

K, what you're really jumping into here is conflating facts with "right".  You're taking the principle that a "wrong" has occurred when somebody has his facts incorrect and extending it to mean that a "right" has occurred when somebody doesn't.  That's totally bogus, it seems to me.

Xan wrote: No.  That is not the definition of "right".  It is at best a definition of "right", and it's one used for grading math tests, not for determining morality.

Moda says that we agreed to this, with the understanding that we're not talking about moral right and wrong yet.  I guess it's okay, given that understanding, but I'm not sure what the point would be.

Suppose Hitler decided that the world would be better off without Jews.  (Subjective, cannot be proven wrong.)  Suppose he then decides to make the world that way.  (Just making for a better world, right?  What an altruist!)  He reasons that the way to achieve this is to murder millions of people.  Since his reasoning is sound, he must be "right"!  Right?

Xan wrote: So this "morality" you're going to prove is going to show that Hitler was A-OK, since he's acting correctly according to his subjective opinion?

Xan wrote: Well you've defined the word "right", which I take to be an expression of morality.  Can you use some other word to achieve your aim?  I would help and suggest one, but I have no idea what your aim is.  I'm assuming it's to sneak something in based on having defined (poorly) "right".

moda0306 wrote:
Dirt is better than sand to plant seeds.

Aaaaactually, (show picture of a plant that will only grow in a baron desert).

Is this what K feels like when I ask him about the gray area of "self-ownership?"

Totally kidding, dudes...

moda0306 wrote: Morality can only be included in the agreed-upon version of "right" if we can prove that morality has a basis in fact...


This is what Kshartle is trying to prove.


So, so far, I'm ok with something being "right" as its general meaning, and with me waiting for K to prove that morality can be INCLUDED in that meaning.

Now morality involves "oughts."  But that doesn't mean all "oughts" are moral (I ought to plant seeds in dirt if I want them to grow), but it does involve a non-self-evident value premise (I want the seeds to grow, AND I ought to maximize my wants), and we also have to deal with the fact that just because we can prove that an ought does NOT exist, doesn't mean we can prove the opposite... that we ought NOT to do that thing.

So "oughts" is this area where you are making a decision from various options on how to act... I truly don't see how you can EVER have a preferable act from a group of choices without some VALUE (whether proven as objective or it being subjective) driving it. 

So, K, what you're really saying, is that there are VALUES that are inherent to nature.  Inherent to reality. 

So buried within "You OUGHT to do what is INCORRECT" contains a buried value assumption to drive the very idea that an action can be "correct" or "incorrect" in the first place (whether from a moral standpoint (I "ought not" to kill someone), or from a functional standpoint (I "ought" to plant seeds in dirt)).  To the extent an action is a CONCLUSION (decision) of a distinct argument, with its own premises... But the action, as a conclusion to an argument, can be incorrect in more than one way:

1) Invalid: The conclusion didn't come from a necessary result of premises.
2) Unsound: Some of the premises aren't true.

So, as of yet, the only degree I'm willing to agree that a DECISION on a course of action can be "correct" or "incorrect" is if we dive right back into the laws of deductive reasoning (even if we're dealing with "likelihoods" rather than "certain" premises (it is "more likely" that a seed planted in dirt will grow than in sand).

Does that all make sense?  I'm really not trying to "jump ahead," but moreso be VERY careful to describe the "structure" of how a decision/action can be "correct" or "incorrect," and not just say "oh if it i 'in accordance with reality.'"

"In accordance with reality" is too damn vague.  Everything we do is "in accordance with reality" because it is REAL that we did it.  If our INTERPRETATION of reality is incorrect, which it often is, then actions (insofar as they are decision conclusions) can be incorrect if based on those interpretations, but we have to structure that properly and not just hand wave it as true... we have to put our "decision" into a logical statement to decide whether it is "invalid" or "unsound."

So we probably shouldn't even us the term "correct" or "incorrect" when it comes to decisions... it should probably be "valid," "sound" etc.

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Morality can only be included in the agreed-upon version of "right" if we can prove that morality has a basis in fact...


This is what Kshartle is trying to prove.


So, so far, I'm ok with something being "right" as its general meaning, and with me waiting for K to prove that morality can be INCLUDED in that meaning.

Now morality involves "oughts."  But that doesn't mean all "oughts" are moral (I ought to plant seeds in dirt if I want them to grow), but it does involve a non-self-evident value premise (I want the seeds to grow, AND I ought to maximize my wants), and we also have to deal with the fact that just because we can prove that an ought does NOT exist, doesn't mean we can prove the opposite... that we ought NOT to do that thing.

So "oughts" is this area where you are making a decision from various options on how to act... I truly don't see how you can EVER have a preferable act from a group of choices without some VALUE (whether proven as objective or it being subjective) driving it. 

So, K, what you're really saying, is that there are VALUES that are inherent to nature.  Inherent to reality. 

So buried within "You OUGHT to do what is INCORRECT" contains a buried value assumption to drive the very idea that an action can be "correct" or "incorrect" in the first place (whether from a moral standpoint (I "ought not" to kill someone), or from a functional standpoint (I "ought" to plant seeds in dirt)).  To the extent an action is a CONCLUSION (decision) of a distinct argument, with its own premises... But the action, as a conclusion to an argument, can be incorrect in more than one way:

1) Invalid: The conclusion didn't come from a necessary result of premises.
2) Unsound: Some of the premises aren't true.

So, as of yet, the only degree I'm willing to agree that a DECISION on a course of action can be "correct" or "incorrect" is if we dive right back into the laws of deductive reasoning (even if we're dealing with "likelihoods" rather than "certain" premises (it is "more likely" that a seed planted in dirt will grow than in sand).

Does that all make sense?  I'm really not trying to "jump ahead," but moreso be VERY careful to describe the "structure" of how a decision/action can be "correct" or "incorrect," and not just say "oh if it i 'in accordance with reality.'"

"In accordance with reality" is too damn vague.  Everything we do is "in accordance with reality" because it is REAL that we did it.  If our INTERPRETATION of reality is incorrect, which it often is, then actions (insofar as they are decision conclusions) can be incorrect if based on those interpretations, but we have to structure that properly and not just hand wave it as true... we have to put our "decision" into a logical statement to decide whether it is "invalid" or "unsound."

So we probably shouldn't even us the term "correct" or "incorrect" when it comes to decisions... it should probably be "valid," "sound" etc.

moda,

Basically, it seems you are talking about what I was trying to get K to say re. "What is your stake in the ground by which you are measuring and judging?"  Which I do remember being answered yet by K.

And, as an aside  you can grow seed without dirt.  The seed only requires some location that will allow nutrients to be delivered to the seed at the proper temperature for germination and growth.  Example: hydroponically grown tomatoes.  So, you can grow seeds in sand, you will just have to assure a source of nutrients (fertilizer, minerals, etc.). 

My point: Can you see why I (and I believe Xan) are such sticklers for very precise definitions?  What one person thinks is so startlingly clear can be very blurry or muddy to another.  Words have meaning.  A group of words conveys one or more thoughts from the speaker's mind to the mind of the recipient.  If the words are not perceived exactly the same, it is likely the resulting conveyed information will not be that which was intended.  It is just like buying a car:  if you send a letter to a car salesman and say "I want a new car to drive to work" without being very clear, you could end up with a Rolls Royce with 0 miles on the odometer that is painted in bright pink and green or a used Yugo rust bucket (new to you) that breaks down every 100 feet (the Yugo would in all probabilty get you to work eventually but just not in the time frame or manner in which you intended, and, here you thought all rational humans, including the idiot salesman, would understand your statement in your letter).

... Mountaineer

moda0306 wrote: And I am fully aware that my "sky" and "dirt" analogies are ONLY useful to the extent the illustrate a difference between another type of assertion... I think people get what I mean ... when I explain a "moral ought" (you ought to save that child), to a non-moral ought (you ought to plant those seeds in dirt).

Can you imagine what would happen if philosophers were to write a dictionary?

I can't even imagine...