Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

Here are some exciting ideas.

1 A thing can be described in many different ways.

2 A description is always contextual and conventional.

3 A description is not and can never be the thing being described.

4 A description does not create or change the thing being described.

And here's an exciting suggestion. Bear these facts in mind when thinking about 'holding a mirror up to nature' and 'things-in-themselves' and 'absolute reality' and 'polished conjectures' and 'epistemological foundations' and 'models being wrong but useful'. Hollow men. Headpiece filled with straw.

[Skepdick]

1 A thing can be described in many different ways.

Before you can describe any "thing" first you have to individuate it from the whole. First you have to frame/contextualise.

Explain how that works. If you can't do that then you are forever left asking "Why?"

Why are you speaking about the rose petal and not the rose?
Why are you speaking about the rose, and not the rosebush?
Why are you speaking about the rosebush and not the garden?
Why are you speaking about the garden and not the ecosystem?
Why are you speaking about the ecosystem and not the planet?
Why are you speaking about the planet and not the solar system?
Why are you speaking about the solar system and not the galaxy?
Why are you speaking about the galaxy and not the universe?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here are some exciting ideas.

1 A thing can be described in many different ways.

2 A description is always contextual and conventional.

3 A description is not and can never be the thing being described.

4 A description does not create or change the thing being described.

And here's an exciting suggestion. Bear these facts in mind when thinking about 'holding a mirror up to nature' and 'things-in-themselves' and 'absolute reality' and 'polished conjectures' and 'epistemological foundations' and 'models being wrong but useful'. Hollow men. Headpiece filled with straw.

How come your thinking is so kindergartenish?

So far I have not come across any poster here claiming,

A description-of-a-thing-X is the-thing-X-being-described.

As far as I am concerned, I believe,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili

Therefore when a person [humans] describe a thing-X, that thing-X-being-described is co-created by the person [humans] making that description.

At the crudest level, it is the same as me describing a table I made, is the same table created by myself.
Obviously my description of the table I created is not the table I described.
My description merely refer to the table I created.

At the finest philosophical level -not common sense - all of reality is co-created by me and all humans.
Obviously my description of reality I co-created is not the co-created reality I described.
My description merely refer to the reality I co-created.

Don't insult your intelligence with the above sort of kindergartenish philosophical views.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 A thing can be described in many different ways.

Before you can describe any "thing" first you have to individuate it from the whole. First you have to frame/contextualise.

Explain how that works. If you can't do that then you are forever left asking "Why?"

Why are you speaking about the rose petal and not the rose?
Why are you speaking about the rose, and not the rosebush?
Why are you speaking about the rosebush and not the garden?
Why are you speaking about the garden and not the ecosystem?
Why are you speaking about the ecosystem and not the planet?
Why are you speaking about the planet and not the solar system?
Why are you speaking about the solar system and not the galaxy?
Why are you speaking about the galaxy and not the universe?

or

Why are you speaking about the rose petal and not the the molecules therein?
Why are you speaking about the molecules and not the C, H, O, N, atoms?
Why are you speaking about the C, H, O, N, atoms and not the protons and electrons?
Why are you speaking about the protons and electrons and not the sub-atomic particles?
Why are you speaking about the sub-atomic particles and not the wave or particles?
Why are you speaking about the wave or particles not the dilemma you are facing?

[Peter Holmes]

Here are some exciting ideas.

1 A thing can be described in many different ways.

2 A description is always contextual and conventional.

3 A description is not and can never be the thing being described.

4 A description does not create or change the thing being described.

And here's an exciting suggestion. Bear these facts in mind when thinking about 'holding a mirror up to nature' and 'things-in-themselves' and 'absolute reality' and 'polished conjectures' and 'epistemological foundations' and 'models being wrong but useful'. Hollow men. Headpiece filled with straw.

How come your thinking is so kindergartenish?

So far I have not come across any poster here claiming,

A description-of-a-thing-X is the-thing-X-being-described.

As far as I am concerned, I believe,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili

Therefore when a person [humans] describe a thing-X, that thing-X-being-described is co-created by the person [humans] making that description.

At the crudest level, it is the same as me describing a table I made, is the same table created by myself.
Obviously my description of the table I created is not the table I described.
My description merely refer to the table I created.

At the finest philosophical level -not common sense - all of reality is co-created by me and all humans.
Obviously my description of reality I co-created is not the co-created reality I described.
My description merely refer to the reality I co-created.

Don't insult your intelligence with the above sort of kindergartenish philosophical views.

We certainly 'co-describe' the reality we are in. But in what way do we co-create that reality?

Do you really think we co-created the universe?

[Skepdick]

We certainly 'co-describe' the reality we are in. But in what way do we co-create that reality?

Do you really think we co-created the universe?

What and where is "reality" you claim to be describing? Point at it.
What and where is "the universe" you claim to be describing? Point at it.

[VVilliam]

No, your understanding is not deep enough. Mathematics itself is a language. It has verbs, nouns, grammar.

So if "words can be examined..." then mathematical words must be examined via mathematical code. It's not simple, not when you have to explain the process to a computer meta-circular evaluation

Examining English programmatically is an entirely different problem. It's called natural language processing. It's wee bit difficult.


We already have this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing)

That in itself does not inform me, due to the fact that I am illiterate in relation to computer code, so you will have to use a better way in which to convey what it is you are trying to explain to me, if you want me to understand what it is you're arguing.

In the mean time, what I was referring to was human language - words which can be broken down by using a simple code - in this case - The English Language, and assigning a number to each letter, as in "A=1...Z=26"...and from that, creating a database which might then provide any evidence of correlation in regards to said language. Said data can then be independently verified using algorithms one can access which are specific to that use. Such as this one.

One example of such data I am speaking about are...the name "Jesus" and the name "Lucifer". These already have correlation. [Traditionally they are regarded as each others enemy ...] Yet the interesting thing about these names is that mathematically, the simply code [A=1...Z=26] shows that both names add up to the same number.

So, in creating a data base, one can examine words in order to see if they share any direct relationship when simple math is applied.

Another correlation is with the word "Objective" and the word "Mirror" and also with the word "Subjective" and the phrase "Keep an eye on"

"Mirror"??

Note Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature in this OP.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32188

The idea of 'mirror' was inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists [defunct] and the classical analytic philosophers.

The idea of 'mirror of nature' had been trashed and dumped into the rubbish bin by the late-Wittgenstein, Quine and Sellar and the post-analytic philosophers.

In this case we are not so much looking for correlations in abstracts. The word "Objective" and the word "Mirror" have correlation in 'the real world' we are currently experiencing. The mirror is an object and is reflecting back the form {also an object] thus "Objective and Mirror" have real world correlations in relation to the subjective [mind] using the objective mirror to view the objective body it is being subjective through.

Using the same method we can find the number for the word "Morality" and search the database for any corresponding words' under that same number.

We find "Apocalypse" [a disclosure of knowledge, i.e., a lifting of the veil] and " The Grey Area" an ill-defined situation or area of activity not readily conforming to a category or set of rules.] which are both correlated with ideas of morals.

The word "Morals" also has correlation to words such as "Assigned" "Calculate" "Metanoia" "Thetical" and "Visible"

One could then calculate these correlations and see f other calculations show correlation. Such as;

"Calculate Morals" and "The Next Step" in relation to "Visible Morals"

One could even calculate "To Calculate Morals" and find correspondence in "Cleaning Up The Mess " and "The Nature of Angels" or with "To make Morals Visible" and find correspondence in "First Things First"

So a simple process which can be done in a scientific manner as it works with things which can be measured and data which can be accumulated.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How come your thinking is so kindergartenish?

So far I have not come across any poster here claiming,

A description-of-a-thing-X is the-thing-X-being-described.

As far as I am concerned, I believe,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili

Therefore when a person [humans] describe a thing-X, that thing-X-being-described is co-created by the person [humans] making that description.

At the crudest level, it is the same as me describing a table I made, is the same table created by myself.
Obviously my description of the table I created is not the table I described.
My description merely refer to the table I created.

At the finest philosophical level -not common sense - all of reality is co-created by me and all humans.
Obviously my description of reality I co-created is not the co-created reality I described.
My description merely refer to the reality I co-created.

Don't insult your intelligence with the above sort of kindergartenish philosophical views.

We certainly 'co-describe' the reality we are in.
But in what way do we co-create that reality?

Do you really think we co-created the universe?

The question is co-create 'in what way'.

Humans are not the co-creators of reality in the ways that human conventionally create things like tables, buildings, boats, airplanes and the likes.
As such to understand [not necessary agree with] my point, you cannot be stuck with the above conventional perspective.

Here is the perspective where humans are the co-creator of reality.
Create = to cause to come into being,
Reality [all there is] exists, i.e. emerges.
The fact is humanity [i.e. man] is a factor that cause reality into being.
Therefore, humans collectively are the co-creator of reality - all there is - thus including the universe.

I am not going to explain above in thorough details until I note you are able to shift perspectives in this case.

However I have already given you various clues, e.g. the Youtube link above.

Here is another clue I had often linked, i.e. the Mask Illusion,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKa0eaKsdA0
What we have here is a mask with a concave and convex side.
When the mask is turning, how is it that ALL [no exceptions] humans participating, only see a 3-D convex face?

An image example;

This face of Björn Borg appears convex (pushed out), but is actually concave (pushed in).


If we were to present the above to a group of humans who are totally ignorant of what is going on, they will insist what is real is a 3-D mask with both sides as convex.
No amount of arguments will convince them to change their mind as to what they perceive and realize as reality.
( they will only realize the truth if they are told of the illusion).

Btw, blind sonar bats are not likely to perceive the above in the same mode as humans.

Now let turn to our conventional reality of external physical things we can
touch as solid, e.g. table, stones, apples, metal, trees, animals, people, etc.
see like clouds, steam, vapors, etc.
It is possible that we humans [generic] view the above things as what they are, but like those who are ignorant of the Mask Illusion, what see as physically real could be another form of illusion which we are not aware of because we are so habitualized to it for 4 billions of years [since our one-celled ancestors].

We are quite sure blind sonar bats and others of the likes [if can able to describe] will not agree with our descriptions of what is reality to us.

And WHO ARE WE HUMANS to insist our description of the reality is THE REAL REALITY.
Aliens who are 1000 times more advanced than earthly human are not likely to agree with our human description of reality [justified within the human FSK].

But recently [last 50-75 years] Quantum Physics has revealed to us, there is no ultimate reality as with the wave-particle dilemma and that the subject is inevitably entangled with what is realized as real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.

Since there is not certainty of what is real and what is real is relative to whether the realizer of reality are bats, humans, aliens, etc., each of these groups are the co-creator of their own reality.

As such humans are the co-creators of human-based-reality via the human FSR.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Mirror"??

Note Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature in this OP.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32188

The idea of 'mirror' was inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists [defunct] and the classical analytic philosophers.

The idea of 'mirror of nature' had been trashed and dumped into the rubbish bin by the late-Wittgenstein, Quine and Sellar and the post-analytic philosophers.

In this case we are not so much looking for correlations in abstracts. The word "Objective" and the word "Mirror" have correlation in 'the real world' we are currently experiencing. The mirror is an object and is reflecting back the form {also an object] thus "Objective and Mirror" have real world correlations in relation to the subjective [mind] using the objective mirror to view the objective body it is being subjective through.

Using the same method we can find the number for the word "Morality" and search the database for any corresponding words' under that same number.

We find "Apocalypse" [a disclosure of knowledge, i.e., a lifting of the veil] and " The Grey Area" an ill-defined situation or area of activity not readily conforming to a category or set of rules.] which are both correlated with ideas of morals.

The word "Morals" also has correlation to words such as "Assigned" "Calculate" "Metanoia" "Thetical" and "Visible"

One could then calculate these correlations and see f other calculations show correlation. Such as;

"Calculate Morals" and "The Next Step" in relation to "Visible Morals"

One could even calculate "To Calculate Morals" and find correspondence in "Cleaning Up The Mess " and "The Nature of Angels" or with "To make Morals Visible" and find correspondence in "First Things First"

So a simple process which can be done in a scientific manner as it works with things which can be measured and data which can be accumulated.

The 'mirror' metaphor may have some use conditionally, but it is archaic in relation to modern philosophical and more realistic views.

As I had stated,
The idea of 'mirror of nature' had been trashed and dumped into the rubbish bin by the late-Wittgenstein, Quine and Sellar and the post-analytic philosophers.

You need to read Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature to understand why the idea of 'Mirror' is not an effective metaphor, misleading and tend toward bad philosophy.

[Peter Holmes]

Here is the perspective where humans are the co-creator of reality.
Create = to cause to come into being,
Reality [all there is] exists, i.e. emerges.
The fact is humanity [i.e. man] is a factor that cause reality into being.
Therefore, humans collectively are the co-creator of reality - all there is - thus including the universe.

Codswallop. Humans don't cause reality to come into being. Humans describe reality in different and changing ways. You mistake the description for the described - the map for the terrain. It's a fundamental - but fashionable - conceptual mistake.

Here are your two claims.

1 What we call and describe as reality is a human, social construct.

2 We can empirically demonstrate the existence of facts - features of reality - and describe them contextually (within an 'FSK').

That's called wanting to have your cake and eat it. The existence of what can we empirically demonstrate? A thing we've caused to 'come into being'?

The claims of anti-realists detonate themselves, because they entail contradictions. Anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

[Skepdick]

Codswallop. Humans don't cause reality to come into being. Humans describe reality.

What or where is this "reality" that you are describing?

Point at it already!

It's a fundamental - but fashionable - conceptual mistake.

How is that even possible? You keep feigning skepticism about abstractions/concepts/ideas? What or where are concepts and in what way do they "exist?" Isn't that what you keep asking?

Seems you found those lost concepts of yours...

[VVilliam]

"Mirror"??

Note Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature in this OP.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32188

The idea of 'mirror' was inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists [defunct] and the classical analytic philosophers.

The idea of 'mirror of nature' had been trashed and dumped into the rubbish bin by the late-Wittgenstein, Quine and Sellar and the post-analytic philosophers.

In this case we are not so much looking for correlations in abstracts. The word "Objective" and the word "Mirror" have correlation in 'the real world' we are currently experiencing. The mirror is an object and is reflecting back the form {also an object] thus "Objective and Mirror" have real world correlations in relation to the subjective [mind] using the objective mirror to view the objective body it is being subjective through.

Using the same method we can find the number for the word "Morality" and search the database for any corresponding words' under that same number.

We find "Apocalypse" [a disclosure of knowledge, i.e., a lifting of the veil] and " The Grey Area" an ill-defined situation or area of activity not readily conforming to a category or set of rules.] which are both correlated with ideas of morals.

The word "Morals" also has correlation to words such as "Assigned" "Calculate" "Metanoia" "Thetical" and "Visible"

One could then calculate these correlations and see f other calculations show correlation. Such as;

"Calculate Morals" and "The Next Step" in relation to "Visible Morals"

One could even calculate "To Calculate Morals" and find correspondence in "Cleaning Up The Mess " and "The Nature of Angels" or with "To make Morals Visible" and find correspondence in "First Things First"

So a simple process which can be done in a scientific manner as it works with things which can be measured and data which can be accumulated.

The 'mirror' metaphor may have some use conditionally, but it is archaic in relation to modern philosophical and more realistic views.

As I had stated,
The idea of 'mirror of nature' had been trashed and dumped into the rubbish bin by the late-Wittgenstein, Quine and Sellar and the post-analytic philosophers.

You need to read Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature to understand why the idea of 'Mirror' is not an effective metaphor, misleading and tend toward bad philosophy.

No I do not - although I probably still will do.

My focus is not on drawing attention to good or bad philosophy. Rather I am showing the relationship between simply mathematic coding and symbols representing sounds, and how this adds evidence to the possibility that we exist within some type of virtual reality -

[VVilliam]

Here is the perspective where humans are the co-creator of reality.
Create = to cause to come into being,
Reality [all there is] exists, i.e. emerges.
The fact is humanity [i.e. man] is a factor that cause reality into being.
Therefore, humans collectively are the co-creator of reality - all there is - thus including the universe.

Codswallop. Humans don't cause reality to come into being. Humans describe reality in different and changing ways. You mistake the description for the described - the map for the terrain. It's a fundamental - but fashionable - conceptual mistake.

Here are your two claims.

1 What we call and describe as reality is a human, social construct.

2 We can empirically demonstrate the existence of facts - features of reality - and describe them contextually (within an 'FSK').

That's called wanting to have your cake and eat it. The existence of what can we empirically demonstrate? A thing we've caused to 'come into being'?

The claims of anti-realists detonate themselves, because they entail contradictions. Anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

I understand that humans are not who they think they are, and it is this identity crisis which leads to incorrect understand as to the nature of reality.

Humans are just 'skins' or "suits" which are worn by entities who created this virtual reality. We are possibly or even probably those entities who created this VR and the mistake made is that - not knowing this - we mistake ourselves as the experience rather than those who are having the experience ...and this notion is further reinforced by beliefs that our consciousness emerges from brain-matter.

This is the same thing as your referencing "Mistaking the map for the terrain"

[Peter Holmes]

Here is the perspective where humans are the co-creator of reality.
Create = to cause to come into being,
Reality [all there is] exists, i.e. emerges.
The fact is humanity [i.e. man] is a factor that cause reality into being.
Therefore, humans collectively are the co-creator of reality - all there is - thus including the universe.

Codswallop. Humans don't cause reality to come into being. Humans describe reality in different and changing ways. You mistake the description for the described - the map for the terrain. It's a fundamental - but fashionable - conceptual mistake.

Here are your two claims.

1 What we call and describe as reality is a human, social construct.

2 We can empirically demonstrate the existence of facts - features of reality - and describe them contextually (within an 'FSK').

That's called wanting to have your cake and eat it. The existence of what can we empirically demonstrate? A thing we've caused to 'come into being'?

The claims of anti-realists detonate themselves, because they entail contradictions. Anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

I understand that humans are not who they think they are, and it is this identity crisis which leads to incorrect understand as to the nature of reality.

Humans are just 'skins' or "suits" which are worn by entities who created this virtual reality. We are possibly or even probably those entities who created this VR and the mistake made is that - not knowing this - we mistake ourselves as the experience rather than those who are having the experience ...and this notion is further reinforced by beliefs that our consciousness emerges from brain-matter.

This is the same thing as your referencing "Mistaking the map for the terrain"

Is there any evidence for the VR claim? Maybe I missed it. It seems to me just a tech-update of Descartes' malicious demon. But, as we're constantly reminded, people will believe any old cobblers.

[VVilliam]

Codswallop. Humans don't cause reality to come into being. Humans describe reality in different and changing ways. You mistake the description for the described - the map for the terrain. It's a fundamental - but fashionable - conceptual mistake.

Here are your two claims.

1 What we call and describe as reality is a human, social construct.

2 We can empirically demonstrate the existence of facts - features of reality - and describe them contextually (within an 'FSK').

That's called wanting to have your cake and eat it. The existence of what can we empirically demonstrate? A thing we've caused to 'come into being'?

The claims of anti-realists detonate themselves, because they entail contradictions. Anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

I understand that humans are not who they think they are, and it is this identity crisis which leads to incorrect understand as to the nature of reality.

Humans are just 'skins' or "suits" which are worn by entities who created this virtual reality. We are possibly or even probably those entities who created this VR and the mistake made is that - not knowing this - we mistake ourselves as the experience rather than those who are having the experience ...and this notion is further reinforced by beliefs that our consciousness emerges from brain-matter.

This is the same thing as your referencing "Mistaking the map for the terrain"

Is there any evidence for the VR claim? Maybe I missed it. It seems to me just a tech-update of Descartes' malicious demon. But, as we're constantly reminded, people will believe any old cobblers.

Science is being done regarding the possibility we exist within some type of VR, yes. Plenty of information on the internet for those interested. One such article paper can be read here.