[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There's also a video trying to refute is-ought problem based on a paper by C. Pigden.

The is-ought gap is vacuous (paper by C. Pigden).

If we expect anyone to be convinced by our derivation of ought from is, we need to start with the most convincing case of "is". The cogito as the first knowledge is the most convincing information there is.

Let's start with a case where once upon a time, we're thinking about our own existence. This establishes the "is" case, which is there exist at least one conscious entity in the universe. The alternative for this case is : there's no conscious entity in the universe.
How can this fact be used to derive the ought version of the same case?

Since we can't change the past, the alternatives available for ought cases are:
1. Conscious entity ought to stay existing in the universe.
2. Conscious entity ought to stop existing in the universe.
3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.

[alancalverd]

There are photosynthetic animals.  They acquire photosynthetically-fixed carbon by forming symbioses with algae and cyanobacteria.

By your definition, humans are photosynthetic because we cultivate plants. Indeed we can't live without them. Admittedly "species" has no fixed definition, but "symbiosis" clearly implies that there are two distinct species involved. 

[alancalverd]

I don't know why you waste your life with philosophy,. "Ought" is what you (or society in general) want, "is" is what you have.

There are no cosmic imperatives - even the "laws" of physics are observations, not prescriptions.

[paul cotter]

Alan, you are in error( shock, horror ). You said animals can't synthesize proteins and this is not the case. Animals can't synthesize certain amino acids and vitamins necessary for protein synthesis. Hamdani, that must be a ropey diesel if 10 mins are necessary for cover. Any well maintained diesel with good batteries will be up to speed and ready for load acceptance in 10sec or less. The spec on a very old Holech rotary ups fitted with a Mercedes diesel claimed something like 3.5sec from initiation of the start signal but I find that to be pushing credibility. I generally don't respond to these long threads as fairness would demand that one reads the lot before commenting and that would take far too long.

[alancalverd]

Animals can't synthesize certain amino acids and vitamins necessary for protein synthesis.

Point taken - it's good to meet another pedant. I can't make gold therefore I can't make a gold watch!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There are photosynthetic animals.  They acquire photosynthetically-fixed carbon by forming symbioses with algae and cyanobacteria.

By your definition, humans are photosynthetic because we cultivate plants. Indeed we can't live without them. Admittedly "species" has no fixed definition, but "symbiosis" clearly implies that there are two distinct species involved. 

Have you heard about endosymbiosis?
Cows and termites can do what most other species can't due to symbiosis in their digestion system.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I don't know why you waste your life with philosophy,. "Ought" is what you (or society in general) want, "is" is what you have.

Elon Musk was once told reusable rockets don't work, and he shouldn't waste time and money trying to build them. But now they are the norm. Single use rockets are now sound stupid, except for extremely small use cases.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Hamdani, that must be a ropey diesel if 10 mins are necessary for cover. Any well maintained diesel with good batteries will be up to speed and ready for load acceptance in 10sec or less. The spec on a very old Holech rotary ups fitted with a Mercedes diesel claimed something like 3.5sec from initiation of the start signal but I find that to be pushing credibility. I generally don't respond to these long threads as fairness would demand that one reads the lot before commenting and that would take far too long.

They were installed in the early 90s. Normally, they are ready within 20 seconds. But there were cases where the auto-start failed, and operators had to interfere which may took around 5 minutes to normalize. Most often, the mains failure are only a few seconds, which were caused by switching power sources due to maintenance by electricity provider. The new battery UPS can provide 10 minutes window within the budget of the flywheel UPS which can only provide around 30 seconds. We can say that the additional 9 minutes are bonus.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Ought" is what you (or society in general) want, "is" is what you have.

There are no cosmic imperatives - even the "laws" of physics are observations, not prescriptions.

If we expect anyone to be convinced by our derivation of ought from is, we need to start with the most convincing case of "is". The cogito as the first knowledge is the most convincing information there is.

Let's start with a case where once upon a time, we're thinking about our own existence. This establishes the "is" case, which is there exist at least one conscious entity in the universe. The alternative for this case is : there's no conscious entity in the universe.
How can this fact be used to derive the ought version of the same case?

Since we can't change the past, the alternatives available for ought cases are:
1. Conscious entity ought to stay existing in the universe.
2. Conscious entity ought to stop existing in the universe.
3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.

From three logically possible "ought" cases, which one do you think is the most correct?

[alancalverd]

Elon Musk was once told reusable rockets don't work, and he shouldn't waste time and money trying to build them. But now they are the norm. Single use rockets are now sound stupid, except for extremely small use cases.

All you have done there is distinguish between genius and consensus. EM thought he "ought" to have a reuseable rocket, so he worked until it became an "is". The fact that others couldn't see the point, is irrelevant. Which just proves my point that engineering (turning ought into is) is important, whilst philosophy (pretending that the difference isn't obvious) is a waste of time.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

philosophy (pretending that the difference isn't obvious) is a waste of time.

I don't think that's what philosophy is. Some philosophers are moral realists. They just haven't found a way to convince their opponents using convincing arguments.

[alancalverd]

They just haven't found a way to convince their opponents using convincing arguments.

Therefore philosophy is a waste of time. QED. Mathematical proof (if A then B) or scientific proof (hypothetical prediction not falsified by experiment) is not a waste of time.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

They just haven't found a way to convince their opponents using convincing arguments.

Therefore philosophy is a waste of time. QED. Mathematical proof (if A then B) or scientific proof (hypothetical prediction not falsified by experiment) is not a waste of time.

Tesla wasn't convinced about special theory of relativity, while Einstein wasn't convinced about quantum mechanics. Some modern physicists are not convinced about dark matter and string theory, as well as quantum gravity and unified field theory.
In your logic, they are waste of time.

[alancalverd]

No, because relativity and quantum mechanics do meet the criterion of experimental proof, and dark matter is at least in principle disprovable. String theory does smell a bit like philosophy at present: what is needed is a testable prediction, but none seem to be forthcoming.  A hypothesis that can only be supported by argument is by definition useless.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

  A hypothesis that can only be supported by argument is by definition useless.

It sounds like you are talking about mathematics.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

They just haven't found a way to convince their opponents using convincing arguments.

Therefore philosophy is a waste of time. QED. Mathematical proof (if A then B) or scientific proof (hypothetical prediction not falsified by experiment) is not a waste of time.

What makes you think that problems in philosophy is impossible to solve, or at least much harder than mathematics or other branches of science?

[alancalverd]

Philosophers would be out of business if they posed solvable problems. Their business is to pretend that other people don't understand what they are doing, and that philosophical problems require indefinite debate.

Constructing a square with the same area as a circle is impossible. Proving it is impossible is everyday mathematics.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

philosophy (pretending that the difference isn't obvious) is a waste of time.

I don't think that's what philosophy is. Some philosophers are moral realists. They just haven't found a way to convince their opponents using convincing arguments.

At 3:00 it shows premises about objectivity. And the word matter here means important, instead of physical substance.
I've said previously that objective morality is an oxymoron. Morality is defined as concern about good and bad, which requires goals, which in turn requires consciousness. In a universe without consciousness, there's no goal, hence there's no morality. This refutes premise 2 in the video. An objectively true statement requires that it's true even when no one is aware of it, and remain true even when there's no conscious entity in the universe.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Philosophers would be out of business if they posed solvable problems. Their business is to pretend that other people don't understand what they are doing, and that philosophical problems require indefinite debate.

Constructing a square with the same area as a circle is impossible. Proving it is impossible is everyday mathematics.

Do you have a proof that it's indeed impossible to solve?
Even if every philosopher conspires to not solve the philosophical problems, it can't prevent non-philosophers from trying to solve them.

[paul cotter]

I don't get that one( maybe too old or too stoopid! ), surely I can make a circle or square with any arbitrary area? Or is some condition missing in the original statement?