What could make morality objective?

[popeye1945]

You don't even understand your own damn perspective!

There are no objects in the world in the absence of biological consciousness, yet (somehow) there are subjects in the world in the presence of biological consciousness.

You are trapped in your distinctions. Like every idiot-philosopher. You are trapped in the subject/object distinction.

So, uuuh, what makes me a subject, but not an object?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
[/quote]

Skepdick,

You get hostile at the drop of a hat, try understanding before you shoot your mouth off!! Physics tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, apparent reality is a place of things, what do you imagine makes the difference? You are both subject and object, your body being in the outer world makes you object. It is your biological reactions that creates things and it is through your body that you produce the biological readout which is apparent reality/your every day reality. Think before you get rude.

[RCSaunders]

Physics tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, apparent reality is a place of things, what do you imagine makes the difference? You are both subject and object, your body being in the outer world makes you object. It is your biological reactions that creates things and it is through your body that you produce the biological readout which is apparent reality/your every day reality. Think before you get rude.

If, "ultimate reality is a place of no things," what exactly is it that physics studies, since it cannot be ultimate reality itself? It's absurd. Ultimate reality is the actual things that exist just as they are perceived, and all of science is nothing more than an explanation of what those actual entities and their nature are. If there were no actual entities, there would be nothing for physics to study.

The view you are espousihg is as mystical as any religion: "ultimate reality is some ineffable thing that can never be fully known but is the, "cause," of what only appears to be real." It's just another version of Platonic realism.

I know that's not what you intend or probably think what you say means, but the denial of perceived reality as actual reality is always some form of mysticism. Why are people so afraid that a cow is actually exactly what it appears to be and is as real as real can possibly be?

[Peter Holmes]

Physics tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, apparent reality is a place of things, what do you imagine makes the difference? You are both subject and object, your body being in the outer world makes you object. It is your biological reactions that creates things and it is through your body that you produce the biological readout which is apparent reality/your every day reality. Think before you get rude.

If, "ultimate reality is a place of no things," what exactly is it that physics studies, since it cannot be ultimate reality itself? It's absurd. Ultimate reality is the actual things that exist just as they are perceived, and all of science is nothing more than an explanation of what those actual entities and their nature are. If there were no actual entities, there would be nothing for physics to study.

The view you are espousihg is as mystical as any religion: "ultimate reality is some ineffable thing that can never be fully known but is the, "cause," of what only appears to be real." It's just another version of Platonic realism.

I know that's not what you intend or probably think what you say means, but the denial of perceived reality as actual reality is always some form of mysticism. Why are people so afraid that a cow is actually exactly what it appears to be and is as real as real can possibly be?

Couldn't agree more. Nicely expressed.

[RCSaunders]

Physics tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, apparent reality is a place of things, what do you imagine makes the difference? You are both subject and object, your body being in the outer world makes you object. It is your biological reactions that creates things and it is through your body that you produce the biological readout which is apparent reality/your every day reality. Think before you get rude.

If, "ultimate reality is a place of no things," what exactly is it that physics studies, since it cannot be ultimate reality itself? It's absurd. Ultimate reality is the actual things that exist just as they are perceived, and all of science is nothing more than an explanation of what those actual entities and their nature are. If there were no actual entities, there would be nothing for physics to study.

The view you are espousihg is as mystical as any religion: "ultimate reality is some ineffable thing that can never be fully known but is the, "cause," of what only appears to be real." It's just another version of Platonic realism.

I know that's not what you intend or probably think what you say means, but the denial of perceived reality as actual reality is always some form of mysticism. Why are people so afraid that a cow is actually exactly what it appears to be and is as real as real can possibly be?

Couldn't agree more. Nicely expressed.

Thank you!

[Peter Holmes]

I just wanted to nail my point about the neuro-scientist Penfield's conclusion that what we call the mind is not a metaphor, but rather a 'real' but non-physical thing somehow different from the brain. And the issue boils down to a causal explanation.

A physical effect can never be linked back to a non-physical cause, so it can never be evidence for a non-physical cause. There is no causal mechanism, which is why it can never be more than an appeal to magic. Which is a childish superstition.

We obviously strayed from the OP topic - but I expect there's a route back to it from the recognition that an appeal to supposed non-physical or abstract things is irrational.

[Atla]

Physics tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, apparent reality is a place of things, what do you imagine makes the difference? You are both subject and object, your body being in the outer world makes you object. It is your biological reactions that creates things and it is through your body that you produce the biological readout which is apparent reality/your every day reality. Think before you get rude.

If, "ultimate reality is a place of no things," what exactly is it that physics studies, since it cannot be ultimate reality itself? It's absurd. Ultimate reality is the actual things that exist just as they are perceived, and all of science is nothing more than an explanation of what those actual entities and their nature are. If there were no actual entities, there would be nothing for physics to study.

The view you are espousihg is as mystical as any religion: "ultimate reality is some ineffable thing that can never be fully known but is the, "cause," of what only appears to be real." It's just another version of Platonic realism.

I know that's not what you intend or probably think what you say means, but the denial of perceived reality as actual reality is always some form of mysticism. Why are people so afraid that a cow is actually exactly what it appears to be and is as real as real can possibly be?

Science, psychology and philosophy have all refuted naive realism, you're the one way too afraid to let go of your delusion that we experience the world exactly as it is. We experience the representation in our head.
And ultimately reality is continuous, it's not being made of separate things, but can be seen as "one thing". Science has proven this as well. Science divides the indivisible into objects, making it easier to study it.
Nothing to do with saying that nothing exists. Nothing to do ith Platonic realism. Nothing to do with denial of actual reality. Nothing to do with fear.

Way to go, role model.

[Atla]

Physics tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, apparent reality is a place of things, what do you imagine makes the difference? You are both subject and object, your body being in the outer world makes you object. It is your biological reactions that creates things and it is through your body that you produce the biological readout which is apparent reality/your every day reality. Think before you get rude.

If, "ultimate reality is a place of no things," what exactly is it that physics studies, since it cannot be ultimate reality itself? It's absurd. Ultimate reality is the actual things that exist just as they are perceived, and all of science is nothing more than an explanation of what those actual entities and their nature are. If there were no actual entities, there would be nothing for physics to study.

The view you are espousihg is as mystical as any religion: "ultimate reality is some ineffable thing that can never be fully known but is the, "cause," of what only appears to be real." It's just another version of Platonic realism.

I know that's not what you intend or probably think what you say means, but the denial of perceived reality as actual reality is always some form of mysticism. Why are people so afraid that a cow is actually exactly what it appears to be and is as real as real can possibly be?

Couldn't agree more. Nicely expressed.

Don't be an idiot.

[Peter Holmes]

If, "ultimate reality is a place of no things," what exactly is it that physics studies, since it cannot be ultimate reality itself? It's absurd. Ultimate reality is the actual things that exist just as they are perceived, and all of science is nothing more than an explanation of what those actual entities and their nature are. If there were no actual entities, there would be nothing for physics to study.

The view you are espousihg is as mystical as any religion: "ultimate reality is some ineffable thing that can never be fully known but is the, "cause," of what only appears to be real." It's just another version of Platonic realism.

I know that's not what you intend or probably think what you say means, but the denial of perceived reality as actual reality is always some form of mysticism. Why are people so afraid that a cow is actually exactly what it appears to be and is as real as real can possibly be?

Couldn't agree more. Nicely expressed.

Don't be an idiot.

No, you don't be an idiot. Nah, nah, nah-nah, nah.

Or. The claim that what we perceive as and call reality is 'really' something else is utterly fatuous.

[Atla]

Couldn't agree more. Nicely expressed.

Don't be an idiot.

No, you don't be an idiot. Nah, nah, nah-nah, nah.

Or. The claim that what we perceive as and call reality is 'really' something else is utterly fatuous.

I don't know what you call reality. I call reality all of reality, but we can only actually experience a fraction of that, and assume the rest to be out there. That fraction is the mind, it's inside the head, and it's a model of the rest of the world, a representation. We can't actually know what the world beyond the mind is like, we can only assume and guess. If you haven't figured this out yet then you are totally lost.

[RCSaunders]

Physics tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, apparent reality is a place of things, what do you imagine makes the difference? You are both subject and object, your body being in the outer world makes you object. It is your biological reactions that creates things and it is through your body that you produce the biological readout which is apparent reality/your every day reality. Think before you get rude.

If, "ultimate reality is a place of no things," what exactly is it that physics studies, since it cannot be ultimate reality itself? It's absurd. Ultimate reality is the actual things that exist just as they are perceived, and all of science is nothing more than an explanation of what those actual entities and their nature are. If there were no actual entities, there would be nothing for physics to study.

The view you are espousihg is as mystical as any religion: "ultimate reality is some ineffable thing that can never be fully known but is the, "cause," of what only appears to be real." It's just another version of Platonic realism.

I know that's not what you intend or probably think what you say means, but the denial of perceived reality as actual reality is always some form of mysticism. Why are people so afraid that a cow is actually exactly what it appears to be and is as real as real can possibly be?

Science, psychology and philosophy have all refuted naive realism, ...

Not science. The foundation of true science is the reality described by what you are calling naive realism. Only pseudosciences using the language of science but totally corrupted by mystic nonsense rejects the very reality that science studies, and only the gullible and ignorant fall for the those lies and mistake their credulity for sophistication. You are just another mystic trying to push your mystical notions into the only descipline that was making progress against all that superstitious nonsense.

[henry quirk]

I see you still haven't read the book.

[Peter Holmes]

I see you still haven't read the book.

Don't need to. Penfield's conclusion is false, or at least not shown to be true. A supposed non-physical cause can't have a physical effect, so the effect - here, electrochemical processes in the brain, after electrode stimulation, or epileptic discharge - can't be evidence for a non-physical cause. It really is as simple as that. The correct scientific conclusion is: at the moment, we don't understand this phenomenon. The claim that what we call the mind is a non-physical thing somehow 'in' a brain is patent nonsense. And Penfield should have known better.

Now, if it soothes your self-esteem, you can carry on plugging a book. Or you can address and try to refute my argument.

[Atla]

If, "ultimate reality is a place of no things," what exactly is it that physics studies, since it cannot be ultimate reality itself? It's absurd. Ultimate reality is the actual things that exist just as they are perceived, and all of science is nothing more than an explanation of what those actual entities and their nature are. If there were no actual entities, there would be nothing for physics to study.

The view you are espousihg is as mystical as any religion: "ultimate reality is some ineffable thing that can never be fully known but is the, "cause," of what only appears to be real." It's just another version of Platonic realism.

I know that's not what you intend or probably think what you say means, but the denial of perceived reality as actual reality is always some form of mysticism. Why are people so afraid that a cow is actually exactly what it appears to be and is as real as real can possibly be?

Science, psychology and philosophy have all refuted naive realism, ...

Not science. The foundation of true science is the reality described by what you are calling naive realism. Only pseudosciences using the language of science but totally corrupted by mystic nonsense rejects the very reality that science studies, and only the gullible and ignorant fall for the those lies and mistake their credulity for sophistication. You are just another mystic trying to push your mystical notions into the only descipline that was making progress against all that superstitious nonsense.

Science has thoroughly refuted naive realism by studying the human physiology especially neuroscience. This is established scientific fact.
You have to lie about science, pretend it away, replace it with your wishful thinking. And then you have to project your own shortcomings on others.

[henry quirk]

you can address and try to refute my argument.

Read the book.

'nuff said.

[Peter Holmes]

you can address and try to refute my argument.

Read the book.

'nuff said.

Coward. Nuff said.