Exactly, which is why Hume's Law is a criticism of axiomatic thinking. We clearly do derive ought from is. Is is the only is that is. Is this a type of moral realism? Emergentist morality?
On 10/12/21 6:03 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote: > As Yogi Berra might have said: all this talk about the ineffable, je ne sais > quoi. > > The way that can be spoken is not the way, because the speaking itself spoils > the effect. Chuang Tzu's butcher can carve a beast in one fluid stroke of > the knife, but he can't explain how he's doing it; and if he did explain how > he was doing it, it wouldn't be the same it anymore. > > https://inference-review.com/article/primate-memory > <https://inference-review.com/article/primate-memory> > > IN MY OWN WORK, I have often described the social learning techniques of > chimpanzees as education by master-apprenticeship.11 > <https://inference-review.com/article/primate-memory#endnote-11> Mothers and > other adults take on the role of the master. The young chimpanzees in the > community learn by carefully observing the behavior of the masters. > Observational learning has three important aspects: the master models > behavior but does not actively teach it; the apprentice has a strong and > intrinsic motivation to copy the behavior; and, importantly, the masters are > tolerant toward their apprentices while they learn. > > > Note that the chimpanzees also learn to be teachers by the same method, they > model the "moral obligation" to teach along with the practical lesson. One > could almost say that the chimpanzees "believe" in teaching their young. Or > that the chimps are practicing a kind of "ancestor worship" by preserving > these activities in their "culture". Then again one could write it all off > to natural selection of traits that accidentally map to moral categories. > > And we taller primates also learn a lot this way, language, moral judgment, > bragging about our language skills and moral judgment, and bullying others to > acknowledge our skills and accept our judgments. > > -- rec -- > > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:53 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <geprope...@gmail.com > <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I feel that way about anyone who "stands in awe" of anything, actually. > We're consistently bombarded with phrases like "the majesty of" this or that > ... or this or that "takes my breath away" and whatnot. Maybe we could call > such nonsense the Idioms of Awe. Religious belief is the favorite bogey of > atheists. But we find it everywhere. Back in Portland, I abutted so many > "foodies", it literally dis-gusted me. Food is fuel. That's it. No matter how > much the True Believers proselytize the latest fad, that Awesome New > Breakfast Place or whatever. It's just food. Please eat so we don't have to > hear you talk anymore. > > We see it a lot in our obComplexity crowd. We see it in the Singularians. > We see it in the formalists and even the Dionysians. Runners are especially > bad, coonnssttantly yapping about their religion. But weightlifters are no > better. Even the mobility bros seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid. Pretty much > anywhere anyone can "get carried away" with something, you'll find the True > Believers waiting in the wings to swoop in and brainwash you. > > At least the Rationalists have a method for mind-changing, unlike most > True Believers. But rationality isn't *fascinating*. People need to be > fascinated. My own pet theory is that our anatomy has been pressured toward > fascination, a desire to concentrate, to focus for an extended time. The > trick is to ask, given the target domain/problem/issue, how long do we need > to focus on it? Perhaps some domains really do need multiple generations of > concentrating individuals. Perhaps some domains only need a few people to > focus on it for a year or so. > > In that context, those who are seemingly stuck in some gravity well of > True Belief are more pitiful than repulsive. (Or maybe they're repulsive > *because* they're so pitiable?) What we need is an education program that > gives the pathetic True Believers some tools that help them climb out of > their hole. But like the cops responding to a call from a homeless camp > littered with human feces and used needles, educating the True Believers can > be dangerous. The abyss stares back into you. > > On 10/11/21 12:38 PM, David Eric Smith wrote: > > Yeah I don’t know. > > > > For some years I was working in ocean-floor engineering, and got a feel > for seawater. For all the devices you design, it is all-surrounding and > omnipresent. It relentlessly intrudes through any crack, seam, or pore, and > it corrodes whatever it touches. For whatever reason, this describes the > affect of my response to people’s religiosity. The more genuine and sincere > they are, the stronger my aversion to that in them. It’s not even the same > as being averse to the whole person. There are people of whom I think the > world, and to whom I am very attached, in whom I just have to work around > this one radioactive thing. n.b., however, that all such people are related > to me by birth. There don’t seem to be any ones I have sought out as friends > of whom that happens to be the case. Maybe, borderline, one or two Jews, who > seem to have a decorum and sense of proper privacy (those particular people, > I mean) for themselves and for others. > > > > There is another metaphor that also serves. I have a friend with > fairly bad arachnophobia. I was commenting that I didn’t know what that > would feel like, as spiders don’t particularly bother me, was for example > ticks do. She commented that it was funny, because her brother had said the > same thing, using the same examples. The reason, of course, is that most > spiders prefer to mind their own business. (Some Australian mouse spiders, > perhaps less so.) For ticks, their business is _you_. Likewise, there is no > box within which religiosity is content to stay. It’s business is always > _you_, so you can never turn your back on it in rest. > > > > In trying to form a clear view, for my own purposes, of why I respond > this way, in a quite different context earlier this week, I was thinking of > trying to explain to someone that I grew up with religious people on me > trying to force some kind of “religious conversion” and, in looking for a > metaphor, the one that came to me was “like cops on a black man”. And no > matter how submissive I am and how much I would like to be cooperative, I so > far have not found it in myself to want to go back into that. > > > > It surprises me that these studies don’t seem to address questions of > domination and constriction, and the degree to which being able to breathe > matters to one or another person. > > > > Eric > > > > > > > >> On Oct 11, 2021, at 2:07 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com > <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Doesn't work for me. My parents are in a very liberal church and (I > think) like it because it gives some structure and support in their > community. My dad's (I think formative) education at a strong liberal arts > college probably contributed to my tendency to deconstruct things. I'm not > particularly annoyed with their semi-religious activities, but there were > plenty of people in my high school that I found to be religious crazies who I > almost felt obligated to abuse. That hardened my atheism, but really it was > hard right away in my early teenage years. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com > <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > >> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:43 AM > >> To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>> > >> Subject: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated > >> > >> Study: Atheists are Made By Their Parents > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fskepchick.org%2f2021%2f10%2fstudy-atheists-are-made-by-their-parents%2f&c=E,1,2G1IsnysW37qkXOrMoyLXGgacehySvzlBBD0wGXgUiHZFPFiq8oRkLu4J8VyPqz0vteY4F9ijy0I1jQMz57JJIg1WkOeQPeOqYDV9WgSFj4,&typo=1 > > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fskepchick.org%2f2021%2f10%2fstudy-atheists-are-made-by-their-parents%2f&c=E,1,2G1IsnysW37qkXOrMoyLXGgacehySvzlBBD0wGXgUiHZFPFiq8oRkLu4J8VyPqz0vteY4F9ijy0I1jQMz57JJIg1WkOeQPeOqYDV9WgSFj4,&typo=1> > >> > >> Much of the argument is about credible displays of faith and > hypocrisy. I thought this might be interesting following on the epically bent > thread on [in]consistency, as well as some old conversations about how well > one can describe/explain some historical decision/branch-point in their own > life. > >> > >> I land about where Rebecca does, I think. -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
