@projects9166 No, I said that lists of traits are not great models of my preferences here or on many things. If the two things have the same propositions true of them, then they are either both humans or both non-human animals, and so they would be asserting a contradiction by asserting that one is a human and the other is a non-human animal. This is true regardless what they say about their moral status.

Gotcha ok. I heard someone who goes by Socradeez in Jack's server suggest that it's controversial to claim that a human is fully reducable to a set of propositions. Do you have any idea what he's talking about? In the mason debate it kind of sounded like you were raising a similar objection like socradeez but now I realize I misinterpreted you.

Lance's position is actually meta ethical indeterminacy, but he studies meta ethics and he doesn't believe stance independence is intelligible and realists are kinda deluding themselves. I believe that's a more fair assessment of Lance's views

@@tracktician6510 Hmm. If A is an upshot of B, and B is grounded in the truth of C, then if I believe the truth of C can't be determined, then it seems like I should not claim A is false in virute of B being unintelligible.

I think there may be a misapprehension about my position. The video was a while ago so perhaps I didn't do a great job explaining my view. First, I do not specifically have an issue with the meaning of stance-independence. I don't have any strong objections to there being stance-independent descriptive facts, like "water is made of hydrogen and oxygen." The issue has more to do with non-naturalist moral realist conceptions of normativity, and in particular the notion of irreducibly normative facts. Second, my objection is not that I, personally, don't understand the concepts in question. Rather, my position is that the putative concepts aren't meaningful at all, and thus *nobody* understands them because there isn't anything to be understood.

@@inquiry6274 I do not hold the position that non-naturalist realism is false because it is unintelligible. I defend a trilemma: That all versions of moral realism are trivial, false, or unintelligible. I don't recall everything I said here but I distinguish unintelligibility from falsehood elsewhere and do not infer falsehood from unintelligibility.

@@lanceindependent trivially true!

why people think Oppy is some kind of a sage of philosophy is beyond me. Of course it's conceivable that the pain and its functional role come apart. For instance, even on identity theory we can just imagine a scenario in which the smell of burnt rubber instead of pain is associated with the firing of motor nerves which cause you to pull your hand away from a stove.

This x infinity

Can easily be debunked by evolutionary biology and neurobiology..

It’s certainly a vindication of a sensible response but come on, the ‘argument’ is utter tripe. It’s hardly surprising that the witnessed correlation exists: the theistic view that it’s surprising is clearly at minimum 2 fallacies intertwined/conflated or at the very least an incredulity argument.

@@christopherhamilton3621 Many theists think it's the "best argument for God ever invented," etc. Even ostensible atheists like Emerson Green have said the argument has moved them into a more agnostic camp. I don't get it. Like you, to me the argument just seems fallacious on its face.

​@@hiker-uy1bi Same

​@@hiker-uy1bi Since theists need to invent an argument for god tells us so much about the actual god.. Also this argument can easily be debunked by evolutionary biology and neurobiology.

😂

Existential inertia is a sign of the majesty of reason!

😂😂

He does somewhere else in an interview but he just states he's an identity theorist and that whatever particular argument/paper that was brought up just ignored the view. It's been awhile As I'm typing this he literally just said the same thing.

I don't think 62% of philosophers are delusional. >>what makes “reasons” incoherent besides you not understanding them? I'm not claiming that I don't understand them. I'm claiming that nobody understands them. A few considerations include that their proponents often claim the concepts are "ineffable," or "unanalyzable" or otherwise incapable of being communicated, coupled with (what I consider) weak arguments (if they present any at all) for how and why they know the concepts in question have these qualities. I also maintain that all relevant phenomena can be accounted for without positing the facts in question, so they're superfluous. More generally, they fail standard pragmatic tests for truths, in that their proponents cannot (again, on my view) present any compelling case for what practical difference the irreducibly normative moral facts would make. There are other considerations, but at least on my view their proponents make a very poor case from the outset, and the concepts in question fail badly on pragmatic grounds.

I love when theists pronounce on cosmology…without having learned the maths to understand the theories. How wonderful for primate brains evolved to hunt and gather under African skies to effortlessly know so much about the Realm outside of/ prior to the Universe…because they have, what shall we call it?, an intuition.

@@oldpossum57 I love it how atheists miraculously create truth, logic, love, and reason. All from inanimate random objects (that serve no purpose and have no value or meaning) floating around inside their brains. How glorious their reflected image in a mirror must be to see themselves as god like creators of Truth, Love, Life, & Freedom. Sure we’re all free to serve anything we like. But we’re not creators of that meaning or purpose or value to Life itself. Nor do we grant the inherent Freedom of any human ever to exist. Our intuition to Love is not one any human may take credit for, yet atheists often neglect to give Love any value or meaning beyond the chemicals reacting in their brain. Then go on in life to take a knee and propose to their spouse as if their Love for a partner is valuable, meaningful, true, and a word that represents a factual bond. Atheists lack a foundation of truth and love, as they are ungrateful for the freedoms they’ve been granted in Life. Or possibly grateful, but to many gods of which many are created by their own random processes inside their brain. How might an atheist claim their Love is True when so many object’s in their reality have more meaning, value, and purpose? How might an atheist claim those they love are meaningful & valuable when they are not grateful to Love itself for the Life it gifted? How might an atheist claim their worldview is greater than the Truth that is Love itself? Atheists often trip over the Truth and swiftly get back up to walk away before anyone sees what happened. Leaving their free will behind, moving on serving random intuitions they are willing to leave undefined.

@@oldpossum57 I love when KZbin deletes my replies and an atheist magically creates life, freedom, truth, logic, reason, & love from random meaningless objects floating around without any purpose inside a human brain. If love is simply a chemical reaction in a brain, as was previously suggested, what are those chemicals reacting to? If Love is not the Truth, then why do you tell your family & friends that? If life was created from inanimate objects that have no meaning, purpose, or objective; then what Life gave humans freedom to do that on our own? To what do we owe our thanks, for giving us the present, that is the present 🎁, the gift 💝 of Life 💞 ❤️ 💗💓🫀❤️‍🔥🫶🏼, with Freedom to Love? Do we simply credit the 1st humans to procreate & survive? That leads to infinite regress. Which leads to what moved 1st? 1, 0.1, 0, 0^0 = 1, 0! = 1? Surely life has a material body and nature to its existence. But the depths of a mind do not fit inside our tiny brain unless we’re willing to let it stay imprisoned in that way. The largest gap to be bridged for an atheist is NOT one between the origins of the universe from nothing, life from death, defining gender, or what was 1st the chicken or egg, male or female. The largest gap for the atheist is the longest 12” distance measured in the universe and that’s the gap between the brain and the heart. This is not a god of gaps theory. This is the gap between love and truth that an atheist will deny their own personal free will to intentionally leave behind their freedom. “The most beautiful things in life cannot be seen or heard, but must be felt with the heart.” Helen Keller “You don’t judge a Navy Seal by the size of their muscles or paddle. You measure them by their character and size of their heart.” Admiral ‘Wild Bill’ McCraven

@@oldpossum57 let’s put it this way. I have faith I’m right, you have faith you’re using rational logical reasoning to evaluate the truth. 1. The truth about what exists before the universe, actually exists. We’re not able to determine that. We can speculate and bear witness to the truth to determine what’s logical and rational as True. As science has proven there is no proof. Why? The universe expands faster than the speed of light and prevents us from seeing the outer regions of the universe. Leaving us no possible way to examine that. The last time we checked, Stephen Hawking put it like this. “Nothing is perfect. Without our imperfections, nothing would exist.” While he simultaneously agreed with the Bible that the universe was created out of nothing. Neglecting to mention what or who created it out of nothing. 2. Either I’m right and we’ll prove that when we meet our maker. Where the truth will be further revealed. Or! I’m wrong and neither of us are right. Because “right” does not exist in a universe of subjective opinions about nothing. A universe where life is created by meaningless random chance and dumb luck correlates to our own chemicals in our brain imposing their meaningless will on our beliefs and leaving us no reason to value life as much as we do, and gives us very little reason to believe our will is free. Where our logic and reason is without an objective to love because love does not exist as the truth. Therefore the truth exists in a reality in which we don’t matter. Why? Because if I’m here by dumb luck, then I’m a human being dumb. If I’m here by random chance, this is one big mistake. Where neither of us will ever know who was right and all we’ll both ever be was wrong and next to nothing.

It would be more accurate to focus on Consciousness which is described as ‘the hard problem’ today in philosophy. In the East the definition of God is: Consciousness; Existence; Bliss. As humans we share in the Consciousness and in the Existence but unfortunately, so far, not in the Bliss. That may have to wait for an afterlife, although from the experience of the Saints maybe Bliss is attainable here also if we reign in or egos and align ourselves with Reality. The assumption that Reality (all that exists) ultimately is God: everywhere, all-knowing; all powerful, would bring the idea of God as abstract (transcendent) but also immanent as God could be both; not being confined to either/or.

They've never been adequately explained in the first place. One might wonder why you expect so much of me in explaining why they don't make sense but so little from those employing the terms to explain why they do.