Without a values framework, rule-based systems fall apart. Maintain social ties can generate healthy options beyond the rule based choiced. Maybe send a hand-written letter.
The AI-generated images of callers in this video are pretty disturbing. The last one shown in the sequence appears to be making a call with her sliced open thumb, rather than a phone.
Our current cultural conflicts seem to be related. The Woke position appears to take DEI etc as Deontological. The opposition so far has been largely Consequentialist. The clash - at the psychological level - is one of Passionate Intensity vs Logic and Evidence. Pathos vs Logos in the framework of Aristotle's Rhetoric - each attempting to define the Ethos of the future society. The current cultural malaise is ultimately Ontological and Teleological. It is unclear whether any Middle Ground is possible.
"...and you are under a different set of obligations." The moral "ought" changes? Or the legal "ought" changes? Or the evolutionary "ought", the economic "ought", the psychological "ought", the scientific "ought", the childish "ought"...changes? Are you trying to eliminate change by changing the "ought"? What exactly is behind this urge to modify the "ought"? Change? Change that happens on its own without my intrinsic consent? Without consent...without "own your own soul" ? Or change that happens with my consent? Without consent "ought" is hollow. Without consent facts are still facts, but they are non-binding, though not extraneous, facts.
@@bimsherwood7006 The facts change the ought? No. The consent to the ought changes the ought. You ought to call someone, but you don't. Why don't you? With the ability to consent every ought is a choice. The ought isn't dictated by the "facts". Is the choice dictated by the facts? By the external facts? No. The external facts are dictated by the choice. It is only after a choice is made that the facts change. What makes a choice a duty: an ought? What makes a choice an intention: a purpose? The "soul" that you may or may not own? What about your ignorance? How does your ignorance affect your choice? Perhaps there is another choice, a hidden choice that you were not aware of. Isn't your ignorance included in your soul? Do you think Jesus "knew" he was going to be resurrected? Would such "knowledge" dictate his ought? Would the fact of that knowledge dictate his ought? If one has foresight then the "fact" of that foresight may dictate the ought. If one has no foresight, if one is ignorant of the future, then of what does an ought consist? Fact or faith?
@@kallianpublico7517 suppose I ought to visit grandma, and that if I visit, I ought to call first to tell her I'm coming. But then my car breaks down (a fact which I did not consent to), and I therefore cannot visit. That external fact surely changes things: I ought NOT call to say I'm coming, because I'm not coming. And consent had nothing to do with it.
@@bimsherwood7006 you can still go, you'll just be late. Is lateness a fact, Or just a pretext? You consented to let the impaired car prevent you from going, isn't that a "fact"?
@@kallianpublico7517 perhaps a broken down car is not forceful enough. Suppose instead that I am sent to jail for the rest of my life. That seems to be a proper fact with no consent taking place, which really does change whether or not I ought to call grandma to say I'm coming over.
The fundamental issue of obligation is consent. The fundamental issue of consent is choice. The fundamental issue of choice is ignorance. The fundamental issue of ignorance is "faith". Do we possess free will? Only insomuch as we are ignorant. Freedom of will and ignorance are an isomorphic pair - the greater one is the lesser the other. If one were omniscient of what would desire consist? A willful ignorance? Tic tac toe is a simple "game", if one knew all the permutations of the "game" would winning or losing or stalemate be your "choice"? Is it only when you play by yourself that you can chose? When you play with someone else isnt it a "fact" that your choice doesn't dictate the other fellow's? Even if you knew your opponent's moves you couldn't dictate your choice. In a game of two consent and desire is an act of faith. In a game by yourself consent and desire is an act of "fact". Any game with two players involves ignorance: your choice involves faith. A game by yourself involves willful ignorance: your choice involves fact. Is Ann playing a game with her grandmother; or playing a game with God; or playing a game with herself? Is there no game only existence?
That's not a paradox... it's just a confusing wording with unnecessary assuming. No, it doesn't follow from "ought to go" "ought to call". That's plainly wrong. If she goes then she calls. Those obligations are context dependent, that's why they change post action. If we are talking about objective moral duties, then that's not the case...pain/pleasure for instance. One is bad one is good no matter the action which you've taken.
@@heatround102 I used to be very involved with Mathematics in the past but now I consider it 50%-70% a waste of my time exactly because of that. It's unnecessary to discuss anything if not connected to reality.
Without a values framework, rule-based systems fall apart. Maintain social ties can generate healthy options beyond the rule based choiced. Maybe send a hand-written letter.
The AI-generated images of callers in this video are pretty disturbing. The last one shown in the sequence appears to be making a call with her sliced open thumb, rather than a phone.
It could be that visiting without calling or calling without visiting still are better than not.
Our current cultural conflicts seem to be related. The Woke position appears to take DEI etc as Deontological. The opposition so far has been largely Consequentialist. The clash - at the psychological level - is one of Passionate Intensity vs Logic and Evidence. Pathos vs Logos in the framework of Aristotle's Rhetoric - each attempting to define the Ethos of the future society.
The current cultural malaise is ultimately Ontological and Teleological. It is unclear whether any Middle Ground is possible.
"...and you are under a different set of obligations." The moral "ought" changes? Or the legal "ought" changes? Or the evolutionary "ought", the economic "ought", the psychological "ought", the scientific "ought", the childish "ought"...changes? Are you trying to eliminate change by changing the "ought"? What exactly is behind this urge to modify the "ought"? Change? Change that happens on its own without my intrinsic consent? Without consent...without "own your own soul" ? Or change that happens with my consent?
Without consent "ought" is hollow. Without consent facts are still facts, but they are non-binding, though not extraneous, facts.
The 'kind' of ought doesn't matter here. It's *what* ought to happen which is changing.
@@bimsherwood7006 The facts change the ought? No. The consent to the ought changes the ought. You ought to call someone, but you don't. Why don't you?
With the ability to consent every ought is a choice. The ought isn't dictated by the "facts". Is the choice dictated by the facts? By the external facts? No. The external facts are dictated by the choice. It is only after a choice is made that the facts change.
What makes a choice a duty: an ought? What makes a choice an intention: a purpose? The "soul" that you may or may not own? What about your ignorance? How does your ignorance affect your choice? Perhaps there is another choice, a hidden choice that you were not aware of. Isn't your ignorance included in your soul? Do you think Jesus "knew" he was going to be resurrected? Would such "knowledge" dictate his ought? Would the fact of that knowledge dictate his ought?
If one has foresight then the "fact" of that foresight may dictate the ought. If one has no foresight, if one is ignorant of the future, then of what does an ought consist? Fact or faith?
@@kallianpublico7517 suppose I ought to visit grandma, and that if I visit, I ought to call first to tell her I'm coming. But then my car breaks down (a fact which I did not consent to), and I therefore cannot visit. That external fact surely changes things: I ought NOT call to say I'm coming, because I'm not coming. And consent had nothing to do with it.
@@bimsherwood7006 you can still go, you'll just be late. Is lateness a fact, Or just a pretext? You consented to let the impaired car prevent you from going, isn't that a "fact"?
@@kallianpublico7517 perhaps a broken down car is not forceful enough. Suppose instead that I am sent to jail for the rest of my life. That seems to be a proper fact with no consent taking place, which really does change whether or not I ought to call grandma to say I'm coming over.
The fundamental issue of obligation is consent. The fundamental issue of consent is choice. The fundamental issue of choice is ignorance. The fundamental issue of ignorance is "faith".
Do we possess free will? Only insomuch as we are ignorant. Freedom of will and ignorance are an isomorphic pair - the greater one is the lesser the other.
If one were omniscient of what would desire consist? A willful ignorance? Tic tac toe is a simple "game", if one knew all the permutations of the "game" would winning or losing or stalemate be your "choice"? Is it only when you play by yourself that you can chose? When you play with someone else isnt it a "fact" that your choice doesn't dictate the other fellow's? Even if you knew your opponent's moves you couldn't dictate your choice.
In a game of two consent and desire is an act of faith. In a game by yourself consent and desire is an act of "fact". Any game with two players involves ignorance: your choice involves faith. A game by yourself involves willful ignorance: your choice involves fact.
Is Ann playing a game with her grandmother; or playing a game with God; or playing a game with herself? Is there no game only existence?
That's not a paradox... it's just a confusing wording with unnecessary assuming.
No, it doesn't follow from "ought to go" "ought to call". That's plainly wrong. If she goes then she calls.
Those obligations are context dependent, that's why they change post action. If we are talking about objective moral duties, then that's not the case...pain/pleasure for instance. One is bad one is good no matter the action which you've taken.
@@heatround102 I used to be very involved with Mathematics in the past but now I consider it 50%-70% a waste of my time exactly because of that. It's unnecessary to discuss anything if not connected to reality.