What could make morality objective?

[Belinda]

TimeSeeker, I thought you said something, somewhere, about Plato as okay or something?

Eternal, unchanging, metaphysical reality is not something my brain can parse.

[TimeSeeker]

TimeSeeker, I thought you said something, somewhere, about Plato as okay or something?

Meaning Plato’s theory of forms.

An idealisation/generalization such as “My brain is a computer” is true enough.

Not exactly, but as a model for metaphysical conversation it will do fine. I just have you a concept that relates to your own experiences that we can use as point of departure!

It's certainly more pragmatic than making you read 5000 pages of Plato, Kant, Hegel and Husserl then arguing about "What they were REALLY trying to say" for 20, 200 or 2000 years.

[Belinda]

TimeSeeker wrote:

Eternal, unchanging, metaphysical reality is not something my brain can parse.

My metaphysics (ideas/beliefs etc.) change constantly. They are also finite - I am taking them to the grave. Unless I figure out how to move them from my head into other heads.

Vedanta is ontologically idealist, monist. Within that ontology it's inappropriate to posit that brains determine minds.

[TimeSeeker]

Vedanta is ontologically idealist, monist.

Yeah. It's completely backwards to physics We have no ontology in science - no grounding.

We thought the atom was "indivisible" e.g building blocks.
Then we figured out it was made up of electrons and protons.
Then we figured out that those are made up of smaller things.

It's turtles all the way down. Also - the core idea is no different to Hegel (Phenomenology of spirit) and yet so different.

[Belinda]

TimeSeeker wrote:

Yeah. It's completely backwards to physics We have no ontology in science - no grounding.

I note your emoticon. How can you be sarcastic? I thought physicists were materialists, so that subatomic entities were accepted as existing materially as validated ultimately by physicists' senses.

[TimeSeeker]

I note your emoticon. How can you be sarcastic? I thought physicists were materialists, so that subatomic entities were accepted as existing materially as validated ultimately by physicists' senses.

Because this:

Physicists of early 19th century were materialists who believed atoms were the ontology of the universe.
Physicists of early 20th century were materialists who believed protons and electrons were the ontology of the universe.
Physicists of late 20th century are materialists who believe quarks and leptons are the ontology of the universe.

How can all three generations be materialists when the ontology changed ?

Is the ontology still going to be quarks and leptons in 300 years?

Of course I am made of the same stuff that the universe is made of. I just don't know if we have discovered all the parts the universe is made of yet.

So I prefer not to put my foot in my mouth by claiming that I know what the ontology of the universe is.

[Belinda]

TimeSeeker wrote:

So I prefer not to put my foot in my mouth by claiming that I know what the ontology of the universe is.

I quite understand all that. From the same point of view as yours I too am a material being. I am however also a mental being and for all I know ideas of brains, quarks and so on are all in the minds. If all ideas of quarks and brains and stuff originates in minds then idealism(immaterialism) is true. If all ideas of quarks and brains and stuff originates in brains then materialism is true. When I say "originates" I don't mean temporally as in natural selection through time. I mean originates according to metaphysical substances; mind and extended substance.

I am wondering if you use the word 'ontology' as I use it.

[Atla]

Vedanta is ontologically idealist, monist.

This is the kind of dangerous nonsense that gives rise to Pseudo-Advaita.

But Belinda can't be stopped from interpreting Eastern nondualism through the Western dualistic substances of mind and matter, a gross category error.

[TimeSeeker]

...category error.

That is a tautology.

All categories are errors - the universe has none. Minds do.

[Belinda]

Atla wrote:

This is the kind of dangerous nonsense that gives rise to Pseudo-Advaita.

I understand.But how can east and west understand each other unless they speak the same language?

[Peter Holmes]

...category error.

That is a tautology.

All categories are errors - the universe has none. Minds do.

Two observations.

1 Reality (the universe, perhaps) consists of things which, obviously, don't categorise themselves as 'the same as' and 'different from' each other. But to say that all categories are errors is to posit some standard against which any categorisation must be assessed as correct or incorrect. But there's no such standard. For example, why must colour categorisation in a natural language be erroneous? If nothing can be correct, nothing can be incorrect.

2 There is no evidence for the existence of mental categories that are anything more than linguistic categories.

[TimeSeeker]

1 Reality (the universe, perhaps) consists of things which,

Yes it does. And to be precise. Reality consists of various arrangements of quarks, leptons and electrons which interact with each other.

obviously, don't categorise themselves as 'the same as' and 'different from' each other. But to say that all categories are errors is to posit some standard against which any categorisation must be assessed as correct or incorrect. But there's no such standard.

There is such a standard. You are calling me a "human" and you distinguish me from a "chimpanzee". Why?

You distinguish this letter -> B
From this letter -> В
Why?

For example, why must colour categorisation in a natural language be erroneous? If nothing can be correct, nothing can be incorrect.

Because the CONCEPT of color doesn't exist without a human mind to perceive it. Colors are light waves, and waves are not quantized into categories. Because there is no physical difference between light and heat except frequency. And yet we perceive light with our eyes and heat with our skin.

There is also plenty of evidence that color-words like 'red' and 'blue' did not appear at the same time through human history:
https://thedoctorweighsin.com/evolution ... olor-blue/
http://zeteojournal.com/2015/03/02/blue/

The colors you recognize are fully dependent on the evolution of your eyes: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... or-vision/

2 There is no evidence for the existence of mental categories that are anything more than linguistic categories.

Bullshit! Look around you - in 10 seconds I have managed to find at least 3 things in my house for which we have no English words for!

Are you trying to convince me that until I give them labels the OBSERVATIONS (conceptual category) don’t exist?!?

[Peter Holmes]

1 Reality (the universe, perhaps) consists of things which,

Yes it does. And to be precise. Reality consists of various arrangements of quarks, leptons and electrons which interact with each other.

obviously, don't categorise themselves as 'the same as' and 'different from' each other. But to say that all categories are errors is to posit some standard against which any categorisation must be assessed as correct or incorrect. But there's no such standard.

There is such a standard. You are calling me a "human" and you distinguish me from a "chimpanzee". Why?

You distinguish this letter -> B
From this letter -> В
Why?

For example, why must colour categorisation in a natural language be erroneous? If nothing can be correct, nothing can be incorrect.

Because the CONCEPT of color doesn't exist without a human mind to perceive it. Colors are light waves, and waves are not quantized into categories. Because there is no physical difference between light and heat except frequency. And yet we perceive light with our eyes and heat with our skin.

There is also plenty of evidence that color-words like 'red' and 'blue' did not appear at the same time through human history:
https://thedoctorweighsin.com/evolution ... olor-blue/
http://zeteojournal.com/2015/03/02/blue/

The colors you recognize are fully dependent on the evolution of your eyes: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... or-vision/

2 There is no evidence for the existence of mental categories that are anything more than linguistic categories.

Bullshit! Look around you - in 10 seconds I have managed to find at least 3 things in my house for which we have no English words for!

Are you trying to convince me that until I give them labels the OBSERVATIONS (conceptual category) don’t exist?!?

1 To say 'all categories are errors' is to say that no categorisation, such as the distinction between 'human' and 'chimpanzee' is correct. (Your claim, not mine.)
2 To perceive light waves is not to perceive the concept of colour - whatever that means.
3 An observation (a perception) is not a conceptual category - whatever that is.
4 Please give an example of a concept - or a supposed conceptual category - that isn't a linguistic expression.

[TimeSeeker]

1 To say 'all categories are errors' is to say that no categorisation, such as the distinction between 'human' and 'chimpanzee' is correct. (Your claim, not mine.)

False dichotomy. You are the one who is STILL clinging onto logical contra-position. Insisting that the opposite of 'error' is 'correctness'. I've long given up the law of excluded middle - sorry. In my world the negation of A is (1 - A). You think it's ¬A

Categorization serves purpose. Purpose requires 'ought'. Otherwise both 'chimpanzees' and 'humans' are both mammals, or animals, or quarks, leptons and electrons fluctuating through spacetime.

One can CHOOSE to identify only the difference.
One can CHOOSE to identify only the similarity.

Why have you CHOSEN (an ought!) to see the difference?

2 To perceive light waves is not to perceive the concept of colour - whatever that means.

To perceive heat (through your skin) is to perceive colors (through your eyes). Same physical phenomenon (waves!)- different human sensation.

3 An observation (a perception) is not a conceptual category - whatever that is.

What is it then?

My conception of phenomenon A is different from my conception of phenomenon B.BECAUSE I can tell a difference they are classified (categorized) differently in my head.

And if I had any intention of communicating them to somebody else - I would give them different labels/words.

4 Please give an example of a concept - or a supposed conceptual category - that isn't a linguistic expression.

OK. Here are THREE conceptual categories that aren't linguistic expressions:

http://www.piano-midi.de/ogg/beethoven/ ... us10_1.ogg

drawn-artwork-mc-escher-12.jpg

54213-primary-0-740x560.jpg

[surreptitious57]

Physicists of early 19th century were materialists who believed atoms were the ontology of the universe
Physicists of early 20th century were materialists who believed protons and electrons were the ontology of the universe
Physicists of late 20th century are materialists who believe quarks and leptons are the ontology of the universe

How can all three generations be materialists when the ontology changed ?

Is the ontology still going to be quarks and leptons in 300 years ?

Of course I am made of the same stuff that the universe is made of I just dont know if we have discovered all the parts

So I prefer not to put my foot in my mouth by claiming that I know what the ontology of the universe is

I am a materialist but this is not a description set in stone but instead an approximation based upon what is known about the Universe
Less one knows the fundamental nature of what is commonly referred to as reality then approximations are really all one has to go on
And as scientific knowledge is provisional then absolute knowledge can never be obtained

There is so much we still do not know :

We do not know what Dark Energy or Dark Matter are [ ninety six per cent of the observable Universe ]
We have no Theory Of Quantum Gravity that will unite Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity
We do not know what happens inside the centre of a black hole [ requires Quantum Gravity ]
We do not know what happened before the Big Bang [ requires Quantum Gravity ]
We do not know how many dimensions exist at the quantum level
We do not know if the Multiverse exists

300 years from now these questions may be answered but there will simply be more complex ones awaiting investigation

Ultimately it matters not one little bit as we will become extinct long before the Universe dies
There are only five billion years left before the Sun goes red giant and Earth becomes a fireball