Moral Realism

Bigstew, let me try to understand you regarding the intrinsic "dis"-value of pain. Do you mean to say that "value" can be either positive or negative, from the perspective of the valu-er, and that "dis-value" refers to a negative value? In that case, a relativist-subjectivist might argue that the value is not intrinsic (or objective); it is what it is because of the value placed on it by the "subject".
Or, as I would put it, at a higher level of abstraction this subjective process is an objective fact, and as such it has intrinsic value (regardless of its positive or negative valence).

...every time I come to think in not keep hammering the FUNCTIONS subject unfortunately almost immediately I am confronted with a real example on poor understanding on them...it pisses me off that I have to go through it time and again non stop...

...it is a necessary reaction out of contrasting variables, not just, although it might count for something, a conscious choice in the subject JL...

I'm sure you are making good points, but I have so much trouble understanding you that I don't give many of your efforts sufficient attention. Your favorite concept, function, remains--for me at least--unexplained. I think of it as something like an effect (a result as opposed to a causal determinant), i.e., the service it performs for the maintenance of some kind of pattern or system*. What does it mean to you? I hope it's not an abstract mathematical notion that cannot be put into words.

*e.g., the function of the heart is the circulation of blood throughout the body--and therefore its contribution to the maintenance of the system.

yeah...think of functions as ordered dynamics at work, the rotation of a key in a lock, the pumping of the heart, the opening of a door...but also in less linear terms on a 2 level of order, the very objects themselves as phenomena may well be dessicated further down as functions...for instance is the "yellowish" in the yellow a function in between a certain wave-length and the receptive apparatus in the subject ? ...and its not just about a relational interpretation between subjects and things...how does that wave-length works with other stuff ? a rock does not see yellow but might feel the pressure of a few quarks occasionally colliding with it here and there with a certain rhythm or frequency...conjugated functions give rise to new systems to new forms new objects, and further up in the chain, on another layer level these emerging objects will again form more function sets and more complex systems...functions may be more or less energy effective as they fulfil their role better or worse, think of them as a path in a labyrinth...the shortest way between 2 points input/output is always the more energy efficient...it has the best algorithm, the best set of instructions...equally "objects" may operate other, less optimal, functions...you can drink water with a spoon but a glass would do it better...in there is implied the specificity with you, the relation...functions necessitate further extrinsic order to be optimized...a hole in a spoon diminishes the optimal function when you are eating a soup...and so on and so on, you get the idea from there...

... the interesting thing with functions is that you don´t need any more to speak on "subjects" and "objects", they are the same at base level, they only differ in the type of the system they form...instead you speak only of sets...that is, systems of functions, which are things, interacting between themselves with yet more functions, to form new bigger sets, new "effects", new property´s...new things once more ! Nevertheless there is the need for one true substance at the bottom of the pyramid...I prefer the bit of information due to its abstract non material definition...but in ancient Greece they thought of atoms...it does n´t really matter much what one wants to call them, they are equal and the base of unity, of no transcendence in the world...

I wish you had provided this "definition" much earlier. It still has--for me--the problem of saying too much, of covering too large a range of things. I'll have to study your post. Thanks.

...the interesting bit is that functions take time and time is relative to operators speed reference points...

Can you paraphrase "operator's speed reference points"?
And I'm trying to figure out what is not a function?

...next time you look into a painting you can try to imagine how would it look as music...I mean the algorithms expressed in the the system which is a painting,( imagine a graph with an instructions sequence of ups and downs ), can be translated into a scale of dynamic notes, the system music...the base information is the same in both, but it branches and presents different property´s as it is expressed in different systems...

...the relative speed of each entity...I am an operator you are another the sun is another, a quark is another, etc etc...operators can be smaller or bigger systems of functions...
(here on Earth we are all more or less synchronized in terms of speed)

...I believe only bits are not functions in themselves...they are the bricks of the world...
(but you can use atoms as they were meant in Greece or something else)

Yes. I can easily enjoy the music in a non-representational abstract painting. More difficult but possible is to see music as a moving visual design.
Sometimes I wish I had synesthesia.

Yes. I can easily enjoy the music in a non-representational abstract painting. More difficult but possible is to see music as a moving visual design.
Sometimes I wish I had synesthesia.

...so hopefully now you can see what I mean when I say a question has a scope, a relative "resolution", contextual layer, or depth...a biology question makes not so much sense at a chemistry level or further down at an atomic level..it loses optimal functionality !

...truth then becomes a problem of size (resolution)...for a biology layer sized question a perfectly corresponding and optimally functional similarly biology sized answer...

...the thing is we are not the size of the Universe so our resolution of understanding is always low...we cannot compute or calculate something far larger then us at a bit level...although general patterns repeat at bigger and smaller scales...we loose detail accuracy but still can capture the general idea...

I think we are close to agreement, but disagree on a few specific points.

First, a subjectivist might argue that value is placed on pain by the subject, but how is that done? How is "badness" placed on the experience of pain? The only plausible answer that I can see is that "badness" is a function of our attitudes, but that only begs the question as to how do we determine our attitudes regarding pain? To me, the common sense answer is that we dislike pain because it feels bad. In other words, we adopt certain attitudes towards pain because of the intrinsic value pain holds. That would mean value is not placed on pain, but rather, value is manifested by the experience of pain, and when it is manifested, it really matters in the objestive sense.

Second, I agree that pain might only be bad to people in particular, but that doesnt necessarily mean intrinsic values don't exist. Intrinsic values may very well require the existence of particular person's experiences, but even so, such particular experiences can still hold objective value. They can really matter in other words.

Is that because the "biology question" makes more "sense" to us because it is an emergent quality whereas at the level of chemistry and physics the information (because it is a product of reductionism) is less "human" (like the info in the biology question) in its "functionality"?

Yet we continue to try to shrink the universe to the size of our brains (I prefer to phrase it, shrink the world to the size of my skull).

I imagine that pain is intrinsically negative because of its biological function of motivating us to avoid something (in order to avoid or end the pain). Yet for the ascetic who places value on the amount of pain he can endure it is extrinsic in its value.
This does not disagree with your first and second points. Its mostly a matter of differing emphases, as I see it.

Our brains are fairly easy to determine the size of. I don't think it is as easy to determine the size of our minds. I'd say they are at least as vast as the universe itself, simply because they are one and the same...