I selected:
> designation. However, if we eliminate human individual as the basis for
> "objective morality", what logically remains except a volitional, valuing
> superior being?" To be more precise, what remains is a 'feeling' that
> something superior to individual exists. Do we not need an external
> "something" volitional thing to create an "objective morality?"
I altered along the reality/morality analogy axis:
> >In an alternate Universe, you wrote:
> >> However, if we eliminate individual opinions as the basis for
> >> "objective reality", what logically remains except the opinions of a
> >> superior being?" To be more precise, what remains is a 'feeling' that
> >> something superior to individual exists. Do we not need an external
> >> "something" opinionated thing to create an "objective reality?"
And you complained:
> First, I never wrote anything in "alternative Universe." I even reject the
> phrase as a contradiction. The only thing I can find that even has a very
> vague similarity by a line or two is this:
>
> {{{{{Nevertheless, when we eliminate human
> individual as reference for the concept, morality, what remains
> except an expressed or implied superior being; indeed, what
> psychological force does the concept, morality, have without
> subordinating individual to an "external superior?"}}}}}
Wrong. My version was altered from yours almost verbatim, maintained most of
the phrasing, and did not alter any meaning except substituting "reality" for "morality".
> Hardly a match, is it? As you can see, what you're saying I wrote is quite
> a bit removed from my actual statement. There are several instances of this
> in your post and its most confusing. Sometimes a whole paragraph is not
> mine, and sometimes there appears to be a mix. I have no idea what happened,
> but considering the circumstance, I'll just respond to a major point or two.
Please take a little more time to check what you said before accusing me of
misquoting you. I am not responsible if you forget what you say because
you're making it up as you go along.
Oh, and about this:
> First, I never wrote anything in "alternative Universe." I even reject the
> phrase as a contradiction.
Right. You reject the phrase as a contradiction, even though you know
perfectly well what I'm talking about (alternate Universes a la "Lord Kalvan
of Otherwhen" or "All the Myriad Ways" or two hundred other books), and even
though counterfactual processes are built into the basic ontological substrate
of reality (quantum mechanics; the Schrodinger equation and linear evolution).
When it comes to morality, I couldn't have expressed the flaws in your
objections more clearly.
I am not debating with someone who mysteriously forgets what the term
"objective morality" means after starting an attack on it. There is a
difference between analyzing a definition and pretending not to understand it.
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://tezcat.com/~eliezer/singularity.html
http://tezcat.com/~eliezer/algernon.html
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you
everything I think I know.