What could make morality objective?

[popeye1945]

Age,

I say; the human body, itself, like ALL bodies, are SENSING and TELLING 'you', the 'being' WITHIN the human body, EXACTLY what the One and ONLY so-called 'Utimate' 'Reality' is REALLY-LIKE. Obviously, the body, itself, can ONLY 'experience/sense' what ACTUALLY and ONLY exists. Then through ANY of the five senses of the human body that 'experience' or 'information' is relayed to the human brain, where then 'thoughts' ABOUT that 'outside world' are made. When who and what the 'you', the 'individual person', IS, EXACTLY, is learned and/or becomes KNOWN, then it IS DISCOVERED that it is NOT the 'body' that is TELLING 'you' ANY so-called "apparent reality". The body, through the five senses, TELLS or INFORMS 'you' of what thee One and ONLY ACTUAL 'Reality' IS, EXACTLY. But, it is 'you', who CHANGES thee ACTUAL Truth around to "FIT IN" with your OWN individual PERCEIVED, RELATIVE VIEW, which if 'it' does NOT correspond with 'Reality', Itself, is therefore just an "apparent reality".

And, by the work, how to work out what is just "the apparent reality", from what IS JUST thee ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE Reality' is an EXTREMELY VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY thing to do. That is; once 'you' learn and KNOW HOW-TO do it.
[/quote]

We only experience a small amount of what is out there, it is all wave frequencies, our senses, as well as enabling are also limiting in this sense. You seem to be saying in the above that all objects sense, no, inanimate objects do not sense, only life forms sense. If all there was to reality is what is apparent to our senses, science would be out of business. There is, whether you like it or not an apparent reality and what science terms ultimate reality. In fact, to underline the fact that your everyday reality is a biological readout, read apparent, science says that ultimate reality is a place of no things, in other words, the rest of the stuff is not read/sensed, they are talking wave frequencies here. All meaning is derived by biology, by how what we do sense from the outer world, is relative to the well being of bodies. Something cannot be hot by itself, it is just a wave frequency, the frequency is experienced/sensed as hot by our bodies. "Very easy to do, once you know how to do it." Please expand upon

[Peter Holmes]

Peter,

A tree falls in the forest, if there is no one there to hear it does it make a noise. Well, the answer is no it doesn't make a noise, for in order for there to be noise an ear drum is of necessity. Now, apply that same reasoning to the world as object, or all the contents of the physical world. Meaning is defined by how the physical world affects the biology of a subject, again, the physical world is known only cognitively, there is no other means.

If there is no eye to see it, then there is no light? The universe was dark until life evolved on earth? Okay.

[Age]

Peter,

A tree falls in the forest, if there is no one there to hear it does it make a noise. Well, the answer is no it doesn't make a noise, for in order for there to be noise an ear drum is of necessity.

But, what do you mean by "if 'no one' is there"?

What happens if within a forest a sound recording device is placed, and a tree falls over when no human being is there, then could we use that sound recording to device to verify if there was a noise or not when a tree fell over in a forest when no human being was 'there'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Now, apply that same reasoning to the world as object, or all the contents of the physical world.

Okay, done this now, and with the SAME 'reasoning' what I ascertain is trees and forests do exist with or with not human beings existing, and trees still fall in forests as well.

Meaning is defined by how the physical world affects the biology of a subject, again, the physical world is known only cognitively, there is no other means.

But although this is true, in itself, this does NOT mean that there is NO 'physical world' existing if there is NO 'sense' bearing beings existing.

Or, do you actually think or BELIEVE that without 'sentient beings', then there, literally, could be NO 'physical world' ALSO?

Your Honesty here will be much appreciated.

[popeye1945]

The physical world can only be known cognitively, stay with that awhile.

[Age]

Age,

I say; the human body, itself, like ALL bodies, are SENSING and TELLING 'you', the 'being' WITHIN the human body, EXACTLY what the One and ONLY so-called 'Utimate' 'Reality' is REALLY-LIKE. Obviously, the body, itself, can ONLY 'experience/sense' what ACTUALLY and ONLY exists. Then through ANY of the five senses of the human body that 'experience' or 'information' is relayed to the human brain, where then 'thoughts' ABOUT that 'outside world' are made. When who and what the 'you', the 'individual person', IS, EXACTLY, is learned and/or becomes KNOWN, then it IS DISCOVERED that it is NOT the 'body' that is TELLING 'you' ANY so-called "apparent reality". The body, through the five senses, TELLS or INFORMS 'you' of what thee One and ONLY ACTUAL 'Reality' IS, EXACTLY. But, it is 'you', who CHANGES thee ACTUAL Truth around to "FIT IN" with your OWN individual PERCEIVED, RELATIVE VIEW, which if 'it' does NOT correspond with 'Reality', Itself, is therefore just an "apparent reality".

And, by the work, how to work out what is just "the apparent reality", from what IS JUST thee ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE Reality' is an EXTREMELY VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY thing to do. That is; once 'you' learn and KNOW HOW-TO do it.

We only experience a small amount of what is out there, [/quote]

So what?

it is all wave frequencies, our senses, as well as enabling are also limiting in this sense.

What is 'it', which is ALL 'wave frequencies'?

What are the words, 'our senses', in relation to here, EXACTLY?

'Senses' are NOT limiting AT ALL.

'Senses' pick up absolutely EVERY thing the body experiences. The body, however, can OBVIOUSLY only 'experience' a certain amount of ALL-THERE-IS.

But what is Truly limiting is what STOPS and PREVENTS the 'you', the person, from being Truly OPEN. And, what STOPS and PREVENTS 'you', human beings, from being Truly OPEN are your very OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

You seem to be saying in the above that all objects sense, no,

If that is what I SEEM to be saying, then I am NOT SURE WHY it SEEMS that way to you. Is there absolutely ANY thing in what I have said above that even remotely ALLUDES to 'that', let alone DIRECTLY SAYS 'that'?

If yes, then WHERE, EXACTLY?

inanimate objects do not sense, only life forms sense.

I NEVER even 'thought' inanimate objects sense, let alone ever 'alluded' to 'that', let alone EVER SAID absolutely ANY thing like 'that'. Unless, OF COURSE, we are SHOWN otherwise.

If all there was to reality is what is apparent to our senses, science would be out of business.

How 'big' or 'large an area' contains 'Reality', to you? And, how much of that 'area' do human bodies ACTUALLY 'sense', to you?

WHY would you even BEGIN to ASSUME that in absolutely ANY thing I have SAID there is absolutely ANY thing that even remotely ALLUDES to:
What is apparent to human senses is ALL-there-is to 'reality'?

'you', posters, in the days when this was being written, REALLY do NEED to STOP making ASSUMPTIONS and/or JUMPING to CONCLUSIONS, BEFORE you gain ACTUAL CLARITY of 'things' FIRST. That way 'you' WILL STOP being SO Wrong, SO OFTEN.

There is, whether you like it or not an apparent reality and what science terms ultimate reality.

I KNOW, ALREADY.

And, this is ALREADY PROVED True as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED the DIFFERENCE between the 'two'.

So, ONCE MORE, ANOTHER ASSUMPTION of YOURS that is TOTALLY Wrong, AGAIN.

I suggest reading ONLY the ACTUAL WORDS that I USE and WRITE here, and ONLY 'them', WITHOUT absolutely ANY 'preconceived thinking' or 'background assuming' taking place AT ALL, and then 'you' WILL STOP being SO Wrong here.

In fact, to underline the fact that your everyday reality is a biological readout, read apparent, science says that ultimate reality is a place of no things, in other words, the rest of the stuff is not read/sensed, they are talking wave frequencies here.

Are you even slightly AWARE that 'science', itself, does NOT say absolutely ANY thing AT ALL, and that it is ONLY 'you', human beings, who SAY 'things'?

And, if ANY one says; "ultimate reality is a place of NO things", then who are they, EXACTLY? They have a LOT of 'answering' to do here.

HOW can there be 'wave frequencies' IF 'ultimate reality' is SUPPOSEDLY a place of ABSOLUTELY NO 'things' AT ALL?

WHERE is this OTHER 'place', which is NOT an 'ultimate reality', where 'wave frequencies' are coming from, EXACTLY?

All meaning is derived by biology, by how what we do sense from the outer world, is relative to the well being of bodies.

WHY are you SAYING 'this' AGAIN, to me.

Are you AWARE that I have ALREADY AGREED with 'this'?

Something cannot be hot by itself, it is just a wave frequency, the frequency is experienced/sensed as hot by our bodies.

The body, ITSELF, does NOT 'sense' 'hot' NOR 'cold'. The body, ITSELF, just REACTS, to 'sensations'.

What IS 'hot' OR 'cold' is found within the 'meaning', or, in other words, found within the 'definition' of those words. 'Meaning' and 'definitions' exist because of the 'conscious being'.

Human bodies CAN and DO 'sense' 'things', and SOME of those 'things' 'sensed' are KNOWN as 'hot' or 'cold'. But, just to go even deeper, there is NO ACTUAL 'hot' NOR 'cold' in Existence, Itself. There are, however, senses experienced by human bodies, which 'you', human beings, have put the label and names of 'hot' and 'cold' to particular sensations.

"Very easy to do, once you know how to do it." Please expand upon

Once 'you' KNOW that EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT some 'thing', which is being 'thought', then that 'thing' IS IRREFUTABLE and THUS what some of 'you' refer to as the 'ultimate reality'. And, when a 'thing', which is being 'thought', could NOT be IN AGREEMENT WITH and ACCEPTED BY EVERY one, then that is just 'the apparent reality', that is; if one 'thinks' or BELIEVES 'that thought' is true or 'real', a 'reality'.

If you would like to PROVIDE some of your 'thoughts', then I can PROVIDE examples of how to work out if they are just 'an apparent reality' or are just (what some call) 'the Ultimate reality'.

[Age]

The physical world can only be known cognitively, stay with that awhile.

Is this directed at ANY one in particular?

If yes, then WHO, EXACTLY?

And, when 'you', human beings, use the term or phrase, 'physical world', what is 'it' that 'you' are referring to, EXACTLY?

Also, has ANY one even SUGGESTED, let alone SAID or STATED, that the 'physical Universe/world' can be KNOWN in ANY other way than 'cognitively'?

If yes, then WHO was that, EXACTLY?

NO one that I have SEEN here has suggested ANY such a thing. BUT, you have been implying that physical actions/reactions do NOT exist if there are NO 'sentient' beings existing, correct?

If this is NOT what you have been implying, then what do you MEAN EXACTLY when you CLAIM that when a tree falls in the forest and there are NO 'sentient' beings around, then there is NO 'noise' AT ALL?

If you just want to SAY and CLAIM that without 'sentient' beings, then 'things' can NOT be KNOWN, then I think you will find that there will be NO one DISAGREEING with this Fact.

BUT, if ANY one would like to DISAGREE with 'this', then please go on ahead.

[Atla]

Are you BRAVE enough to put your CLAIM here to the test?

If yes, then go ahead.

Until then you are AGAIN here saying NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY.

You sound, literally, like the Truly clueless one here, You say, "you're the one who is clueless", but then provide absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support YOUR CLAIM.

And, whenever I question or challenge you over YOUR CLAIM, you provide absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

So, what IS 'human nature', which you CLAIM I am CLUELESS about. Let us SEE just how MUCH of a CLUE you have, or how CLUELESS it is YOU who REALLY IS here.

Also, what is 'it', which you CLAIM I am CLUELESS about in regards to 'the past' and 'the present'?

AGAIN, let us SEE if you REALLY do have ANY CLUE, AT ALL.

Your lack of answering AND clarifying, by the way, REVEALS the True extent of YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING here.


Can they?

Let us SEE you try and do it.

By the way, are you REALLY that STILL that STUPID.

WHEN did I EVER even BEGIN to START 'teaching' about 'the future'?

Also, let NOT the readers FORGET your complete and utter LACK OF ALL ABILITY to answer and clarify the CLARIFYING questions that I have ALREADY posed to you, PREVIOUSLY.

There are no readers, and even if there were, you would be clueless about their nature too. You require clarification for everything obvious and already said, and you're the one who keeps developing amnesia, but the average reader isn't this dumb or dishonest and will see right through you.

1. You say and claim; "There are NO readers", BUT THEN also claim, "the average reader isn't ...". So, are there readers or NOT?

2. You say and claim; I "would be clueless about the nature of 'readers', IF there are some". Which amounts to this being YOUR argument: "You are clueless. I am not. Therefore, I am right and you are wrong". The "maturity" of this type of "arguing/name calling" speaks for itself. And, this is without even mentioning the STUPIDITY of saying, "There are NO readers", but, "If there were, ...".

3. You FAIL EVERY time to CLARIFY. The reason for this is becoming MORE and MORE OBVIOUS, for the 'readers'.

4. You make the CLAIM that I "keep developing amnesia". Now, is it even possible to "keep" "developing" "amnesia"? Is it NOT the case that either one 'has' amnesia or one does not?

5. You, ONCE AGAIN, just ALLUDE ONLY to some 'thing' WITHOUT EVER actually NAMING what 'it' IS, EXACTLY. This time you make the CLAIM that the 'reader' (which let us NOT forget you first said, "There is NONE of"), is NOT "dumb" or "dishonest". But, what are you ALLUDING TO that the 'reader' is SUPPOSEDLY NOT "dumb" 'to' nor "dishonest" 'about' EXACTLY? I, literally, have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE AT ALL in regards to what 'it' IS you are referring to EXACTLY. And, from previous experiences you are NEVER going to INFORM us, readers, what 'it' IS, EITHER, correct?

6. What does, "see right through you", even referring to, EXACTLY.

Now, your ABILITY, or LACK there of, to CLARIFY here will SAY and SHOW far MORE about 'you', than it does about 'me'. So, please proceed.

No need to clarify simple, clear sentences, not my problem that you have such comprehension issues.

[Age]

There are no readers, and even if there were, you would be clueless about their nature too. You require clarification for everything obvious and already said, and you're the one who keeps developing amnesia, but the average reader isn't this dumb or dishonest and will see right through you.

1. You say and claim; "There are NO readers", BUT THEN also claim, "the average reader isn't ...". So, are there readers or NOT?

2. You say and claim; I "would be clueless about the nature of 'readers', IF there are some". Which amounts to this being YOUR argument: "You are clueless. I am not. Therefore, I am right and you are wrong". The "maturity" of this type of "arguing/name calling" speaks for itself. And, this is without even mentioning the STUPIDITY of saying, "There are NO readers", but, "If there were, ...".

3. You FAIL EVERY time to CLARIFY. The reason for this is becoming MORE and MORE OBVIOUS, for the 'readers'.

4. You make the CLAIM that I "keep developing amnesia". Now, is it even possible to "keep" "developing" "amnesia"? Is it NOT the case that either one 'has' amnesia or one does not?

5. You, ONCE AGAIN, just ALLUDE ONLY to some 'thing' WITHOUT EVER actually NAMING what 'it' IS, EXACTLY. This time you make the CLAIM that the 'reader' (which let us NOT forget you first said, "There is NONE of"), is NOT "dumb" or "dishonest". But, what are you ALLUDING TO that the 'reader' is SUPPOSEDLY NOT "dumb" 'to' nor "dishonest" 'about' EXACTLY? I, literally, have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE AT ALL in regards to what 'it' IS you are referring to EXACTLY. And, from previous experiences you are NEVER going to INFORM us, readers, what 'it' IS, EITHER, correct?

6. What does, "see right through you", even referring to, EXACTLY.

Now, your ABILITY, or LACK there of, to CLARIFY here will SAY and SHOW far MORE about 'you', than it does about 'me'. So, please proceed.

No need to clarify simple, clear sentences, not my problem that you have such comprehension issues.

'I am DUMB', and, 'you are SMART', correct?

[Atla]

'I am DUMB', and, 'you are SMART', correct?

Yes but almost anyone is smart compared to you, so that's not a big achievement.

[Age]

'I am DUMB', and, 'you are SMART', correct?

Yes but almost anyone is smart compared to you, so that's not a big achievement.

If that is what you want to SAY, then, literally, SO BE 'it'.

What IS happening AND occurring here WILL BE RECOGNIZED and SEEN. But I would be very surprised if ANY of the 'posters' here can, YET.

[Atla]

'I am DUMB', and, 'you are SMART', correct?

Yes but almost anyone is smart compared to you, so that's not a big achievement.

If that is what you want to SAY, then, literally, SO BE 'it'.

What IS happening AND occurring here WILL BE RECOGNIZED and SEEN. But I would be very surprised if ANY of the 'posters' here can, YET.

Again, there won't be future readers, but they would probably RECOGNIZE and SEE you as dumb as well.

[Age]

Yes but almost anyone is smart compared to you, so that's not a big achievement.

If that is what you want to SAY, then, literally, SO BE 'it'.

What IS happening AND occurring here WILL BE RECOGNIZED and SEEN. But I would be very surprised if ANY of the 'posters' here can, YET.

Again, there won't be future readers, but they would probably RECOGNIZE and SEE you as dumb as well.

If you say and BELIEVE so, then it MUST BE SO, correct?

[Atla]

If that is what you want to SAY, then, literally, SO BE 'it'.

What IS happening AND occurring here WILL BE RECOGNIZED and SEEN. But I would be very surprised if ANY of the 'posters' here can, YET.

Again, there won't be future readers, but they would probably RECOGNIZE and SEE you as dumb as well.

If you say and BELIEVE so, then it MUST BE SO, correct?

51 now, see?

[Age]

Again, there won't be future readers, but they would probably RECOGNIZE and SEE you as dumb as well.

If you say and BELIEVE so, then it MUST BE SO, correct?

51 now, see?

But you STILL had NEVER answered this question until AFTER I wrote this in ANOTHER thread.

Also, if your number is Wrong is it because you are a LIAR or just can NOT count correctly?

Furthermore, have you REALLY got ANY purpose in this forum?

If yes, then what is 'it', EXACTLY?

You are OBVIOUSLY NOT producing ANY thing AT ALL of ANY REAL PURPOSE.

[Atla]

But you STILL had NEVER answered this question until AFTER I wrote this in ANOTHER thread.

I did both implicitly and explicitly, and to a degree, this is the theme we've always been talking about. Again you're not fooling any 'reader'.