I wouldn't trust humans to as a group come to the truth. It might die rather than accept the truth. Or the truth might not help people survive odd as that might be.
Specific evaluations that are objectively more likely for the human evaluator to lead to positive evaluations within any value system can be derived.
As for non-evaluative truths? These cannot be proven as certainties to any subject - since our senses, evaluations and even our logic are not provable as perfectly authoritative and many of our sources are secondary - but it is likely that the truth is objective. If a statement is meaningful, it is objectively either true or false.
Humans are social animals and it is better (internally coherent value set likely to keep us in a state capable of making evaluations) for most of us to preserve and advance society, to construct safety nets and fair markets; i a small subset of the population may have a 'cheaters niche' in the population, but if the majority acted to deter cheaters, it would be objectively true for the cheater that cheating is a high risk likely to lead to negative consequences.
Some value sets are more internally coherent than others, and therefore objectively more likely to be positively evaluated from within any value system. The nature of the evaluator (on earth - a human or higher animal) is objective, and can be used to assess weather a set of values is likely to lead to consequences that evaluator will objectively react negatively to or to consequences the evaluator will react positively to.
Evaluation capable objects appear to be always composites of many parts, which change when exposed to almost any stimulus into another object - in a predictable manner - so the values of that object may change - predictably - over time, but are still objectively held at the instance of the evaluation.
Does it 'mean' much to say "for a person who currently believes baby rape is wrong, and curry tastes good, it is objectively true that baby rape is wrong and curry tastes nice"?
Values are properties of an object capable of making evaluations; ham tastes good is meaningless, ham tastes good to me has either a positive or negative truth value. Any object capable of evaluating a stimulus is, as a consequence of this deterministic world, objectively guaranteed to have the same truth value whenever that object (while it remains that object) is exposed to the stimulus. X is wrong is meaningless unless an evaluator is brought in, after that the evaluation is objectively true
Only 68 views...
MidwinterSon 1 year ago
I wouldn't trust humans to as a group come to the truth. It might die rather than accept the truth. Or the truth might not help people survive odd as that might be.
unassumption 1 year ago
Specific evaluations that are objectively more likely for the human evaluator to lead to positive evaluations within any value system can be derived.
As for non-evaluative truths? These cannot be proven as certainties to any subject - since our senses, evaluations and even our logic are not provable as perfectly authoritative and many of our sources are secondary - but it is likely that the truth is objective. If a statement is meaningful, it is objectively either true or false.
unassumption 1 year ago
Humans are social animals and it is better (internally coherent value set likely to keep us in a state capable of making evaluations) for most of us to preserve and advance society, to construct safety nets and fair markets; i a small subset of the population may have a 'cheaters niche' in the population, but if the majority acted to deter cheaters, it would be objectively true for the cheater that cheating is a high risk likely to lead to negative consequences.
unassumption 1 year ago
Some value sets are more internally coherent than others, and therefore objectively more likely to be positively evaluated from within any value system. The nature of the evaluator (on earth - a human or higher animal) is objective, and can be used to assess weather a set of values is likely to lead to consequences that evaluator will objectively react negatively to or to consequences the evaluator will react positively to.
unassumption 1 year ago
Evaluation capable objects appear to be always composites of many parts, which change when exposed to almost any stimulus into another object - in a predictable manner - so the values of that object may change - predictably - over time, but are still objectively held at the instance of the evaluation.
Does it 'mean' much to say "for a person who currently believes baby rape is wrong, and curry tastes good, it is objectively true that baby rape is wrong and curry tastes nice"?
unassumption 1 year ago
Values are properties of an object capable of making evaluations; ham tastes good is meaningless, ham tastes good to me has either a positive or negative truth value. Any object capable of evaluating a stimulus is, as a consequence of this deterministic world, objectively guaranteed to have the same truth value whenever that object (while it remains that object) is exposed to the stimulus. X is wrong is meaningless unless an evaluator is brought in, after that the evaluation is objectively true
unassumption 1 year ago
Ahh, the tipping point of inevitable transformation!
Proud of you Gary, I am ready whenever you are to conversate about these subjects in the future. Did you see my latest video?
musclestream 1 year ago
@musclestream
I am not Gary.
InmendhamVideos 1 year ago
The first vloggerheads link is giving a "page cannot be found" error.
GeraldWatercrest 1 year ago
@GeraldWatercrest
oops...working now. Thanks.
InmendhamVideos 1 year ago
6:21 - 7:12
Well said.
CosmicSeaman 1 year ago