I saw you started the objective-subjective article. I don't remember if you uploaded those clips of Sisyphus redeemed?
I think there's probably a lot of related content in this thread we can copy over, and maybe some quotes from less wrong.
I don't think we should need to do that. We can look at behavior. This isn't just a black box with no output.DrSinger wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:38 amBecause when we're talking about what is morally good, at first we are talking about qualia/experiences of the mind, like happiness, sadness etc. So we can use our intuition/thoughts to get at what qualia are fundamentally good, then we can talk about what that corresponds to physically.How so?
We see that the animal responds to operant conditioning to get/eat the cookie, we can surmise that the animal wants to do that since it has modified its behavior in order to achieve that end; there is clear intent there (we can confirm that with multiple setups, that it wasn't coincidence).
Seems like an open and shut case of determining empirically, without any intuition whatsoever being fundamentally necessary, what something wants, at least to a moral certainty.
Sure we can use "intuition" to approximate what an animal's interests probably are, based on what we think our own would be, but both experimentally and structurally the data is there for objective analysis of most interests we can assess.
There are some interests we can not yet evaluate through objective scientific means, but just as Russell's teapot isn't a subjective matter, neither is this.
I think that's more of a definition matter, as you said... probably not a good analogy.
Are there any good analogies?
I think it's fair to say something a being is trying to get is something that being wants. That's probably a matter of definition too, but it's linked to empirical facts as I said.