Cpt_Folktron t1_ivb7ia9 wrote
Reply to comment by contractualist in Objective Reality and Subjective Experience (explaining two very separate worlds) by contractualist
Empirical testing means that hypotheses (predictions based on causal models) are confirmed or denied by carefully designed tests (the test design isolates causality).
The only reason you can't imagine such a test for, for example, the existence of goodness, is that you have already precluded the possibility. Your tautology doesn't allow it (because you treat your definitions as axiomatic, you can only arrive at conclusions that verify what you already belief).
But, if what you say is true, there either are no sufficient tests for the existence of goodness—and/or there are tests that would verify the relativity of goodness (i.e. we can confirm that we are free to create our own subjective evaluations independent of an objective reality, where free means that there would be no misunderstood or misrepresented causal relationships, the misrepresentation of which would become clear as the "real" world acts in a way that denies the validity of the evaluation).
I think you haven't even tried to test your idea.
So, I'm saying to you: Go out into the world and test it. Is goodness real, independently real, transcendentally real, objectively real, as real as sunshine or gravity? Don't base your conclusion on anecdotal evidence or axioms. Test it.
contractualist OP t1_ivb8je4 wrote
Someone has a meaning X for their lives. How do you test it? What do you test it against?
Cpt_Folktron t1_ivbpe1l wrote
Not someone, everybody. Not X, goodness. And not me—I've already done my tests—you.
You are testing for a transcendental quality of being. It applies equally to everybody, just like gravity or thermal radiation.
So, alright, I'll design the first test for you. I won't full out define goodness, but the test itself will sort of reveal that.
You need to give up something valuable to you to someone who needs it.
An underlying idea here is that goodness requires sacrifice. Simply giving up something you don't value won't work. Another underlying idea is that need takes precedence over want. Giving someone else something that they want is nice, but not necessarily good.
What do people need? They need food, water, clothes and shelter. That's the bare minimum, so your best bet will be one of those things.
You have to do this because you recognize the value of the person you help.
An underlying idea here is goodness requires appreciation for otherness.
In the course of one full day (sure, I will risk putting a time limit on it, even if that's not the best policy, I can't imagine you doing the experiment otherwise), if you don't receive something of greater or equal value to what you sacrificed, it's a failed experiment.
An underlying idea here is that goodness isn't a one way street. It doesn't mean martyrdom. Reciprocity is also a quality of goodness.
However, the reward shouldn't come from the act itself (feeling good) or the person whom you help. The reward should come from something seemingly unrelated.
It needs to come from something seemingly unrelated because you are not looking for emergent local phenomena. You're looking for laws of nature.
Now, correlation doesn't prove causation, right, so you need to not only be able to repeat this test, but you also need to try to disprove other possible causes of the reward.
That means that, if the first test is a success, try doing the good deed and then isolating yourself. If the reward comes anyway, you might want to start looking deeper into what it means to be human and perhaps designing even more tests. If it doesn't work, at least you will have tested for the existence of a transcendental reciprocal goodness with a one day time limit.
iiioiia t1_ivdcpr5 wrote
And this is just one approach.
People that think metaphysical reality cannot be measured with any objectivity are way too pessimistic.
contractualist OP t1_ivbsdcj wrote
> if you don't receive something of greater or equal value to what you sacrificed, it's a failed experiment.
This is part of the issue. No test can determine value or goodness, which is purely subjective. As explained in the article, the objective can provide the means, but the ends are within the realm of the subjective self.
There is no one way to be human that is to be measured against, but is the individual's responsibility to determine.
iiioiia t1_ivdcag7 wrote
> Someone has a meaning X for their lives. How do you test it? What do you test it against?
People who work in Facebook, Google, Twitter, {CorporationX} in the AI / user profiling department may know a thing or two about that topic.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments