zurew

Now, assuming that is actually true ( I mean you actually truly need to eat some meat) , that would be a justification that most vegans would probably accept.

I meant actually infinite memory, so knowing all the possible chess games that can be played and within those all the possible moves that can be played. The reason why I brought that up, because it seems to me that both of these individuals would have the exact same amount of chance to win - a person with infinite memory going against a person who has infinite intelligence (of course we are talking in the context of chess)

Oh shit Leo is afraid to self-reflect on his own values deep enough, cause he might discover that he needs to change some of his actions.

Yes thats right, but from that doesn't follow that they believe that their preferences are objective. You can have multiple people with the same preferences regarding specific things and all of that is coherent. You can have multiple people have a preference for vanilla over chocolate , but from that doesn't follow that their preference is objective. So yes, people who advocate for certain actions and are subjectivits have a belief that other people share some of their preferences as well. Again this comes back to the point about how much of those logical entailments are you aware of and how well you can evaluate that action according to your preferences. There will be times when it is more foggy, cause you don't see all the second , third ... order effects of your actions, but there will be other times when it is more clear and more direct so that you can make a clear decision about it. Answering your question - Im not sure, because I haven't done an evaluation yet, but yes it might be the case that after evaluation I come to the conclusion that I should stop driving automobiles, but it is not straightforward at all, because not driving automobilies also have its own consequences. Regarding the "will I stop consuming products that are driven to me by automobiles", Im not sure how I could completely dodge that one given the set of circumstances I have right now. Now lets get to the more fun questioning process, where you give your own moral reasons why you are okay with eating meat.

What you are saying doesn't make much sense and you are making kind of a category error there. Its like someone gives a definition for gravity and you say "but that definition doesn't carry much meaning in the context of colors". - well it doesn't suppose to carry any meaning there. If you accept the subject - object divide you shouldn't have problem grasping the meaning between an objectivits and a subjectivist.

Moral subjectivity does exist you should look up the term You have an idiosyncratic definition for morality that excludes subjetivits and thats why you have a problem grappling with the term 'moral subjectivity'.

You are conflating certain terms with meanings that are differently used in the context of a subjectivist. The moral language in the context of a subjectivist mean different than what those mean to an objectivist. Good just means - aligns with my preferences Wrong just means - doesn't align with my preferences. Yes, no one knows all the logical entailments of their actions and all the logical entailments of their beliefs, but the ones that you are aware of are the ones you can decide to do something about. There is action X that I have the choice to do or to not do. Okay I am aware, that action X produces Y outcome and Y isn't aligned with my preferences therefore I won't do action X.

Hence why the term 'moral subjectivist'. You don't need to prove anything objectively, what you do is that you go into another persons subjectivist bubble and check whether they are consistent with their own moral axioms or whether they even self relflected enough to know what their preferences are, regarding moral actions. Thats one way how the persuasion process can work between 2 subjectivists.

It is in the context of subjectivity. Morality is just about what you ought to do and that ought can be grounded in any set of values and that set of values can be your prefences in the case of a subjectivist

No, you still have preferences

Some of the arguments here are bottom of the barrel quality. Relying on a very weird definition for morality like "all types of suffering in any low quantity is necessarily bad" and pretending that if you can establish that morals are subjective that will justify all of your choices that you make without needing to reflect on your own values

Just lay out the syllogism for each of these arguments. Im curious how they look like (if you have any).

@Majed Whats your case for why classical music is objectively better than hip-hop? Also its unclear how you use "better" in this context.

I don't see the relevance of that in the context of this discussion, because veganism can be compatible with the subjectivist view of morality. But if the reason why you brought that up is because you try to explain some vegans crazy attitude towards the defence and the spread of veganism, that can be true and that can explain some portion of vegan activists, but thats a separate topic. People can be subjectivists about morality and have their awakenings and still advocate for or against some things - for example against murder.

Thats like saying whoever says murder is wrong - that person must operate from objective morality , which is false. You are implying that they are definitely lying either to you or to themselves, but the fact of the matter is that their view is compatible with subjective morality.

We are moralizing all the time when we talk about things what we should or shouldn't do and you do this as well, especially when you talk about politics. The goal of these debates is not to establish objective morality (most vegans are subjectivists anyway), but to 1) make an internal critique (where you show that their view is incoherent , because even if you take their moral view for granted, there will be most likely a contradiction regarding veganism ) and 2) This can be a good exercise to make them review their own beliefs and morals about this subject matter and check whether their belief(s) about veganism really align with their own preferences and values or not.

You are definitely wrong. The level of AI glazing on this forum is getting crazy

I don't think it will remove the need to think and to understand things. Your level of understanding of a certain thing will determine what quality of questions you can ask to the AI and if your questions are vague or meaningless, the AI won't be able to provide you the answers that you might be looking for or you won't even realize that you are asking the wrong questions in the firstplace. The more understanding you have and the more nuance you can recognize, the better and more specific questions you will be able to ask to the AI and that will elevate the AI's usefulness and efficiency.

What would be the difference between a person who has infinite memory vs a person who has infinite intelligence?

Yes, I think its useful to separate knowledge from intelligence. Yeah thats a good breakdown. A little longer version of Vervaeke's relevance realization is something like this (this is for other users, I know you know these things): Ideally we would solve problems algorithmically if we could, which means 100% certainty regarding either confirming that there is no logically possible solution for a problem or finding the best possible solution. The issue is that , that would entail searching the whole problemspace beforehand and checking all logically possible options and the connection between those options. Now of course, thats not really viable when it comes to most problems , because the amount of logically possible options and the connections between those options is way too large. So we end up using herusitics, where finding a solution or confirming that it is logically impossible to solve a problem is not guaranteed. A Heruistic basically means bias. A Heruistic in the context of problemspace can mean 2 different things: 1) The framing of the problem (how you want to connect/contextualize the parts together) and 2) Preemptively selecting a small fraction from the whole problemspace and hoping that all the relevant information to solve the problem will be there. And thats where self-deception comes in. So the self deception: There is a difference between psychological certainty (when you are unable to question or deny the validity of your conclusion, because you can't conecieve of a different conclusion) and between logical certainty (which is deductive validity, where its logically impossible for the solution to be false if the premises are true). Now, because we use heruistics, we only focus on certain things and we completely ignore and are unaware of things, we often times end up with highly certain conclusions about things, even though none of them is deductively justified. Sometimes you misframe a problem (you try to connect the dots together in a way , where they cant be connected) and thats why you can't find a solution for it and other times the reason why you can't find a solution, is because you are not aware of all the relevant info that would be necessary to solve the problem. - and thats where the concept of breaking the salience landscape comes in. Salience landscape is all the things that you are aware of a given moment (all the thoughts, sounds, feelings, sights etc, that are salient to you). In the context of problemspace, salience landscape is basically the small fraction that you are aware from the whole. Breaking the salience landscape is necessary so that you can become aware of other parts and other connections in the problemspace. And this is where the usefulness of psychedelics . meditation, yoga and other methods comes in.

I don't really have a solid theory for intelligence, but I agree with John Vervaeke on how he defines general intelligence , which is basically about your ability for relevance realization in multiple different contexts - which can be translated to using the right heruistic(s) at the right time and the right place, without searching the whole problemspace beforehand.

Yeah I agree.

They want justice not just peace. Any side could achieve peace right now, if they would completely drop all their standards and would completely submit to the other side's wants , but of course both sides take into consideration much more than just instant peace at all costs.

The redpill logic: If she talks about it publicly then she must doing it just purely for attention and if she doesn't talk about it or report it right away, then it must be because it didn't happen, because it if would have happened, then she would have talked about it publicly.

Which specific protocol was not followed? Not flipping anything. Again very basic stuff - you make a statement with an incredibly high conviction , bring evidence that substantiates that high conviction - if you can't, then dial way down your conviction and be honest that you don't have any tangible evidence for your speculation. Notice you are using weasel words like "can". Do you think the standard when it comes to any medicine should be "0% chance of killing anyone"? If your answer is yes, then you are living in lala-land and you would actually cause much more harm on a global scale by that standard than good. If your answer is no, then tell me what do you think in contrast has a higher chance to kill people, the vaccine or catching covid?