"I said "linked". I didn't say they were the same. You have this annoying habit of taking my words and twisting them in subtle ways to create a strawman."

Replace the words "the same" with "linked" then if you want. It makes no difference to me.

"And no, the link is one way. Subjective grows from objective like a seed grows from a plant. You can't un-grow a plant."

Your analogy doesn't fit. Seed-plant is linear where subjective-objective is simultaneous.

"Ok, I watched the video all the way through. It perpetuates the bogus notion that observation changes reality."

Bogus? Are you going to "debunk" quantum physics now? I think that's more than a little beyond your ability.

"That's not what actually happens. For a more accurate explanation see: http://www.flownet.com/ron/qm.pdf"

I read it, I don't see how this information proves that changing perspective doesn't change the information we receive. It's just trying to explain what we don't know. Whether interference

can be measured or not doesn't change the fact that as perspective changes so does our understanding of things.

For example, if you and I stand on either side of a dog the information we receive will be different. The rest of the dog is there, but the information we receive from looking at the dog will be different.

It's different with world models though. They don't "exist" in the same way a dog does. Just because you cant see a dog from all angles doesn't mean the god doesn't exist on the other side, but world models only exist to the extent that you can perceive them. "ethics" come from within, if you have no ethics in you they aren't real. Morals only exist to the extent that you can perceive them. If you can't see what's on the other side. It's not there. There is no hidden truth to contradictions in ethics. If they don't work it's because the model is flawed. It requires something that doesn't exist (because you can't perceive it).

"It seemed like you were attempting to use that example to show the True could be False. I was pointing out that you hadn't actually done that."

No, my point was that you can make a truth statement from a false premise. 1=2 is false, but it I say 1+1=5 then it is true given the premise, but since the premise is false the statement is only true to the extent that you agree to the premise.

For example, You say ethics exist are are defines by utility; therefore people SHOULD do what results in the most utility. The statement "people SHOULD do what results in the most utility" is true to the extent that you believe in the premise, but I say the premise is not true and that is why the statements fall apart. That is the argument I'm getting at.

I see no reason for ethics so I don't see how the statement is true. That's all.

"You're not fit to judge that someone who smokes crack regularly is doing something bad for themselves? Even if they don't understand the effects it has on the body?"

There's a difference between recognizing the harm in smoking crack and forcing people to not smoke up just to fit your personal preference. That's really what ethics are all about; getting people to submit to YOUR personal preferences. "I don't think smoking crack is health, therefore people should be violently forced to not smoke crack".

But who the hell are you to force me to be "healthy"? eating french fries isn't healthy, should I be force not to eat french fries too? Oh sure, crack is much less healthy in that it causes more death than french fries, but where is the line for how healthy something must be before it no longer requires punishment? Who gets to say? You? Why? just because of your personal preference?

Why should your personal preference have anymore say over my life than mine?

"How did you arrive at the definition? The standard definition is "rules according to society"."

I meant ethics. My bad =/

"Just because it's based on the individual doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Subjective is still real."

But its personalized. Think of it this way, trigonometry isn't real (physical), it exists to the extent that you perceive it. In a mind that knows nothing of trig, it doesn't exist; at least to the perspective of that person. The difference between ethics and trig is that you need a2=b2+c2-2bcCOS(A) to solve a triangle, but you don't need ethics to determine your actions.

Again, the truth of a statement is only worth as much as the truth of it's premise.

"What does self-interest mean? You pursue things that ultimately give you positive feelings. Why not apply that perspective from another's point of view? Do that and you arrive at utilitarianism."

What do you mean "anothers point of view"? Another's point of view relative to what? Relative to their own self-interest? Then its the same as my self interest for me, no problem.

Relative to my self interest? Well, there's a problem. the personal preference of another person won't match up to my preferences, so what they want for me will contradict what I want for me.

Everyone is ultimately interested in their own happiness, but what makes everyone happy is different, so there's no point in trying find the formula for happiness, or making rules to follow to achieve happiness. It will be different for everyone, so why not let people pursue it in there own way?

"Why not? Maybe not objectively, but from your point of view, your favorite movie is inherently good."

When I say "inherently" I mean whether I'm there to call it good or not. Things are good to the extent that I perceive them that way. If I never existed, then the movie wouldn't be "good' to me, so I won't call it inherently good.

from my subjective (well, from a biased) view point the movie is good, but if I crack open my head and take an objective view then it becomes obvious that there is no "good" in the movie, it's just the way I see it. Good comes from inside, not the outside.

"Meaning you sacrifice lesser utility right now for greater utility later."

Not necessarily. Sometimes I may let my ego get the better of me and sacrifice utility for the illusion of utility, or for something I know will result in less utility. Or maybe I really do think I will get more out of it, but end up with less.

Sometimes I even close the doors to later utility for a short term utility. It really doesn't matter to me, I do what I want. I don't apply ethics to all my actions so doing stuff is a lot more simple.

"If you reject 1, then you are simply rejecting reality, and any conclusions you draw are invalid."

Ethics exist to YOU. there are no ethics floating around, so I can reject ethics and still be in reality. I don't say "stealing is wrong" and yet I can still arrive to the conclusion that I don't want my stuff stolen. Do you see the statement "I don't want my stuff stolen" to be invalid, Jess?

You must, because you say I'm rejecting reality, so logically any conclusion I come to free of ethics should be invalid. =/

"As for 2, how could you possibly argue against the notion that ethical things should be done? It seem tautological to me. The word "ethical" and "should" both mean the same thing in the sense that I am using them: That which will result in the greatest utility. #2 reduces to #1, so it is invalid for the same reason."

It's possible for someone to have an ethical system and purposely go against that system, so I felt the need to point out that you must both believe in ethics and believe what is ethical should be done to reach the conclusions you've reached.

"I'm not saying they do. I'm saying that if you accept that you want certain things, and that others want certain things, then from those facts you can derive ethics and morality."

And if you accept that cheese tastes good than you can derive that people should be forced to eat cheese.

You can derive anything from anything, it doesn't mean it makes sense and as far as I'm, concerned it doesn't make sense to say "I want x, therefore It is unethical to do what doesn't get me closer to x". And then to further say "other people like x, therefore other people should be forced to do what is needed to achieve x".

If it really is natural for people to want x, then you don't need to force people to do anything. They will go for it on there own. I think your ethics comes from the fear that people will do things that you have no power over to achieve their goals, so you want to force other into your preferences (i.e. no killing, stealing, lying, etc) to make it life generally easier for you.

I can see the logic in it, but at the same time it is pointless because you will have to come up with exceptions to every rule you make (and exceptions to those exceptions) for when a situation comes up that you have to break one of you own rules. you don't want to be unethical after all. It all gets stupidly complicated and you end up spending more time weighing the ethical factors of every action and situation even before they happen, then you spend actually doing those things. And what happens when a variable pops up that you hadn't thought of? Now you make mistakes and need to once again rethink ethics, make weights and calculations, all while the very people that made you think ethics are needed in the first place (killers, thieves, etc) are doing the very things you have decided are unethical regardless of any sense of ethics or morals.

"I was speaking of segments of reality. We don't need an understanding of every atom in the universe in order to understand the Newton's Laws, for example.

And we can understand more than you seem to think through the power of abstraction. For example, the concept of infinity: ∞. A finite mind can clearly reason in terms of the infinite, just look at Calculus."

OK, so we can deal with infinity theoretically, but we have no understanding of it like we can understand a finite number.

Besides, you ethics require knowledge that we simply cannot have. we don't know whether a chimp or a dolphin feels more pain, we can't make an ethical choice. I don't know if the business I'm starting up will result in more utility than I spent starting it up, I can't make an ethical choice. It's all a gamble and since it's all a gamble there's no point in worrying about them, so why do I need ethics?

I feel no need to punish myself for the things I don't know and I don't need to punish myself for the things I already know I don't want to do (because I won't do them) so why do I need ethics?

"The universe is consistent. At least inconsistency has never been demonstrated."

Obviously there is inconsistency. If there is consistency then there must be inconsistency, just as if there is light there must be dark. I feel you are being inconsistent, you feel I am being inconsistent. We are both part of the universe so regardless of who is right there is inconsistency in the universe.

Of course, consistent/inconsistent are just concepts in the same way hot and cold are just concepts, take our observations away and things just "are", free of definitions and borders. but you are going to apply the term consistent then there must also be inconsistent.

"I wasn't trying to imply they are somehow forced to do anything, I just meant that it was the logical thing to do. Replace 'should' with 'will' and the meaning is the same."

No, the meaning changed dramatically. When you use "should" it means that if people for some reason don't then they must be made to do so, otherwise they need some form of punishment to deter them. When you say "will" it is better, but not perfect because it rejects the possibility that people will sometimes be irrational, or at least have reasons beyond what we can see for their actions.

That's why I prefer to say people "typically will" or people "will try". But that in no way means they same as using an oppressive "should".

"Well I suppose doing harm to oneself is evil, but so long as you aren't harming others, infringing on your freedom would a greater evil."

So you say people can do what they want with themselves? Great! Now, about that women and her "late" abortion. How is it unethical? She can do what she wants with herself, and as you say it is more "evil" to infringe on her personal freedom, so if she's willing to live with the possible complications of late abortion then what is the problem? Sure, perhaps the fetus will feel pain, but it would cause a greater loss in utility to keep it or send it off to live an unloved life,

And an unwanted pregnancy is really no different than any other parasite, so is it also OK for a women to chose her own abortion time?

"There are no contradictions! Only human failings."

But your system is the cause of these "human failings". Your system requires us to know things we can't know (what feels more pain, what will result in more utility), and it's not needed for the things we do know (I don't need ethics to not want my stuff stolen).

It's like saying if I think it's moral to be able to jump 2 meters (for whatever reason) people will fail a lot. Would it make sense to say that the problem is the people or the problem is the system? Sure, the people are technically failing the system too, but the problem only exists if the system does. Take that away and everything is fine.

The contradictions are only there if the system sets them up.

"Pain is just negative utility. Justice can be a expressed in terms of utility. Utility is the foundational concept."

So then why do you say the act of killing the hermit will result in a loss of justice if the only result of this action is more utility?

"How can you "want" something if good and bad don't exist?"

Because good and bad are just concepts. I get a good feeling when I eat a cheeseburger, but the cheeseburger doesn't possess "good", the good comes from me, just like the bad comes from me.

"Please elaborate, because I see no failings. You have given numerous examples where the right answer is unclear but have not given any where the simple idea of maximizing utility yields a contradiction."

It's not the desire to maximize utility that creates contradictions, it's the fact that we won't know what will lead to more utility until the action is done. For example, two persons desire to start a business on the same land will be a conflict. Who should get the land? You wont know who will create more utility, even once you chose who gets it because you will never know what could of happened if the other man got the land.

Say the man who got the land failed and his business collapsed, this is an action that results in a loss of utility. But you can't punish anyone, because you would be punishing a person for what he didn't know; which would be like punishing a child for not knowing calculus. So, in this the situation where we can't know the outcome, utilitarianism is useless.

Sure, we can use each mans track record to determine which has the better chance at creating the most utility, but you don't need ethics for this. You can decide which man to sell the land to without the fear of being unethical. Utilitarianism doesn't cover these situations.

So what about what it does cover, like killing and stealing? We know the result of killing and stealing, so this should be easy, but it's not. Different people have different views of what is ethical. Can you really say a man who will kill in self defense is less ethical than a man who would sooner let himself be murdered than kill another person?

And furthermore, even if there was no problems when things got complicated there is the problem that there is no need for ethics in these situation either. As I've said, I don't need to say stealing in unethical to not want my stuff taken. I don't need to say killing is immoral to convince myself not to go on a killing spree. Utilitarianism is useless here as well.

Sure, it may make sense to say "what results in more utility is ethical" as long it it always stays that simple, but you can't go anywhere from there. Put that boat in the water and you have nowhere to sail to.

"The ideal is to give everyone what they want. Whether it is actually possible to do that is irrelevant."

... That's like saying "the ideal is to have food for 100 people at this wedding. Whether that is actually possible or not is irrelevant". If your wedding planner said that I bet you'd fire her on the spot, at least I would.

If being able to accomplish your goal isn't relevant to your goal then what the hell is? Why even have that as a goal if is isn't practical or even POSSIBLE?

"You keep conflating real-world implementation details with basic philosophical ideals. Stop doing that. It serves no purpose other than muddling the discussion."

If you're not even going to relate your philosophical ideals to the real world then you're wasting your time thinking about this stuff. You're like the guy who always talks about how awesome it would be to bake a pie but never does anything to actually get to the point of baking one.

"The vast majority of the time society's loss is greater than the individual's gain."

I'm not talking about the times that killing results in less utility for society. I'm sure there are thousands, perhaps millions of cases in the world where the death of a person will result in higher efficiency for a society. Hell, societies are at odds all the time. It may be result in enormous amounts of utility for society A to kill off society B. Utility doesn't stop mass murders at all.

"A murder that somehow ultimately results in greater utility is ethical, yes. But there are often better alternatives. Persuading someone to be a productive member of society, for example, would be a better way of handling the situation."

And if there is not, you will kill this hermit?