Great comments on new #namethetrait video

[DrSinger]

Also we could easily just have a double standard for this new individual animal and the other animals, since that are not the same individual. We'll have to add this to the wiki

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK7kE8PDau8

gonna watch this vid now, supposedly a debunk of NTT.

btw is it possible to stop the auto log out on the wiki, or have it set to a longer time?

Edit: His reformulation

PavlovsDog.png

[brimstoneSalad]

I would probably have a section like

Proving NTT fails as a formal argument

- Summary/mini intro
- Steel-Manning P2 (explaining the issues with deeming etc., explaining why we have chosen the interpretation we did)
- Proof in First Order Logic

Sounds good. If you have time, can you add in those sections? I have to go just now.


http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3505&start=170#p34667

This post I left here yesterday is like half-organized in explaining the other options. It can be copied and pasted into the Wiki and we can clean it up and clarify stuff from there.

Also we could easily just have a double standard for this new individual animal and the other animals, since that are not the same individual. We'll have to add this to the wiki

Yes, unless they literally became the same individual (I covered that in the last long post about Bessie).

btw is it possible to stop the auto log out on the wiki, or have it set to a longer time?

I've never been logged out. It says it lost sessions data, and then I just have to scroll down and click "save changes" again (all the changes are still in the text box).

It depends if we want to focus on just debunking NTT as presented or coming up with every possible interpretation and debunking them also. I think it should be a balance of both

A balance sounds good.

[Gavel]

It seems the Virtue Vegan comment has now been deleted?

[brimstoneSalad]

Welcome to the forum Gavel!

It seems the Virtue Vegan comment has now been deleted?

Yes, Ask Yourself blocked Virtue Vegan, as he ultimately blocks all of his persistent and articulate critics.

If you only post once you're pretty safe, but if you dare respond to his "murking" with anything but assent, it's block time a.k.a. echo chamber time.

[DrSinger]

It seems the Virtue Vegan comment has now been deleted?

It's invisible because I edited it after being blocked.

If you could repost it that'd be good. (I have ran out of un-blocked accounts)

the comment is

NTT debunk

NTT

P1 - Humans are of moral value
P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
C - Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by deeming animals valueless

Debunk

- P2 requires trait that can be absent in humans
- Traits that can be absent in humans are all traits except 'being human' and 'moral value' (moral value because of P1)
- Traits that could give moral value to animals based on P1 are 'being human' or 'moral value'
- Neither of these can satisfy P2 as they cannot be absent in humans
- Therefore P2 does not assign the traits 'moral value' or 'being human' to animals
- Hence C 'Animals have moral' does not follow from the premises and the argument is a non sequitur

Additionally if you allow 'us/ourselves' to be human then P2 becomes irrelevant since P1 says humans can never be valueless.

Furthermore, even if NTT did establish 'that there is no moral value giving trait absent in all animals' that would only imply 'that there is at least one animal with the moral value giving trait', not that 'all animals have the moral value giving trait' (which is the conclusion)

Try to prove me wrong

Protip: You can't, it's not possible to prove C follows from P1 & P2. Anyone with a basic understanding of formal logic knows that AY is wrong

[Gavel]

So he wants to have a cult. That's a good indication of how insecure he is. Well after reading the wiki and watching his response, I unsubscribed. I'm sure a ban will follow soon.

Edit: oh and thanks for the welcome, brim!

[DrSinger]

So he wants to have a cult. That's a good indication of how insecure he is. Well after reading the wiki and watching his response, I unsubscribed. I'm sure a ban will follow soon.

Edit: oh and thanks for the welcome, brim!

He's actually driven me and lots of others to the forum, which is great, and I've actually learned a lot in the process, and enjoyed contributing to the article, which is good. It seems like the floodgates are open now, I'm interested to hear what people think of pavlovsdog's video.

(seems like he's saying moral value being based on a property, e.g. being human, would be a premise itself)

Yes, unless they literally became the same individual (I covered that in the last long post about Bessie).

I'm slowly adding this stuff in

[PhilRisk]

Confirmation that he still insists it follows from the premise.

Also, confirmation on what I was saying about traits. A human could be rendered a cow in this argument, according to Isaac.

EDIT: It seems like we may be literally talking about temporal transformation of a being. In which case, it's easy to say the new being still has moral value because it was imbued with it from the previous being having moral value. Having been human at one point is not a trait that can be taken away in such a thought experiment.

I am still not sure what kind of separation he has in his mind. One option is the following:

One might presuppose, that there is an essential trait for moral value. If this is taken for granted together with P2 than it is clear, that if there is no such essential trait in all humans (that animals do not have) that we could loose, then the essential trait need to be a trait some nonhuman animal has as well.
Therefore, some animals have moral value.
But to make a clear case one would have to name the trait that shows, which animals have moral value. In order to prove veganism one would have to say the trait is being an animal.

Actually, it is hard to talk about missing premises, because it is guesswork.

To bring this a little further, the question I have in my mind is why accept P2 for animals and not organisms. What is the trait, that make animals distinct from organisms?

Argument for organisms moral value
P1 - [Animals] are of moral value.
P2 - There is no trait absent in [nonanimal organism] which if absent in [animals] would cause us to deem ourselves [as animals] valueless.
C - Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in [nonanimal organisms], we contradict ourselves by deeming [nonanimal organisms] valueless.

Therefore, if someone accepts NTT for the animal case, one should ask him to name the trait for the organism case.

Edit:
Actually, this can be brought further. What is the reason why only organism have moral value?
NTT simply is an argument for saying, what constitutes the trait for having moral value. Therefore, my suspicion that he is searching for an essential trait for having moral value might be correct.

[PhilRisk]

P2: ¬ ( ∃t: ( ∀x: A(x) ⇒ t ∉ T(x) ) ∧ ( ∀y: H(y) ⇒ ( t ∈ T(y) ∧ ( ∀q: ( □ (T(q) = T(y) \ { t } ) ⇒ ¬ M(q)) ) )

Would that change anything with regard to the proofs we have given? Also I'd be interested to know what people think of the cases given in the symbolic logic section that show how NTT fails.

The section "Separating humans and nonhuman animals " would become more realistic but not change essentially. The change is only:

With the changed P2 the replicas would not have to exist in reality, but only in a possible world.

(Actually I did not added '∧ ¬H(x)' for no reason. Could be added if one wishes to)

[Gavel]

DrSinger: re-posted