What could make morality objective?

[RCSaunders]

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 just how do you know about this ineffable stuff that is more than experienced reality if it cannot be experienced at all? Is it by some mystical revelation or the machinations of idealism? You call the belief that the reality one actually sees, hears, feels, smells, and tastes, naive, but believing in some totally unidentifiable thing which can never be described or detected sophisticated--but it just more mystic nonsense.

[RCSaunders]

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.

Please provide a reference (just one will do) to the actual scientific experiments or tests that proved perceived reality is not all of reality there is. You just keep repeating the same lie as though saying it enough times makes it so.

All of neurology is a physical science that studies the physical neurological system that can actually be seen directly or via instruments. Neurology has never discovered anything other than what can be totally described and explained in terms of that which can be directly perceived.

I'm afraid you have let those perversions of neurology which the pseudo-science of psychology has tried to put over by attempting to use neurology to legitimize its own distortions.

[Atla]

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.

Please provide a reference (just one will do) to the actual scientific experiments or tests that proved perceived reality is not all of reality there is. You just keep repeating the same lie as though saying it enough times makes it so.

All of neurology is a physical science that studies the physical neurological system that can actually be seen directly or via instruments. Neurology has never discovered anything other than what can be totally described and explained in terms of that which can be directly perceived.

I'm afraid you have let those perversions of neurology which the pseudo-science of psychology has tried to put over by attempting to use neurology to legitimize its own distortions.

Been living under a rock for the last 50 years, or simply lying to yourself and others?

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the materialist view of perception that postulates we do not perceive the external world as it really is, but know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

[Atla]

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 just how do you know about this ineffable stuff that is more the experienced reality if it cannot be experienced at all.? Is it by some mystical revelation or the machinations of idealism? You call the belief that the reality one actually sees, hears, feels, smells, and tastes, naive, but believing in some totally unidentifiable thing which can never be described or detected sophisticated--but it just more mystic nonsense.

Ultimately I don't. Which I mentioned twice later in the same comment, because even though this should be absolutely basic knowledge on philosophy boards, there will always be those who need to have it spelled out for them.

[RCSaunders]

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.

Please provide a reference (just one will do) to the actual scientific experiments or tests that proved perceived reality is not all of reality there is. You just keep repeating the same lie as though saying it enough times makes it so.

All of neurology is a physical science that studies the physical neurological system that can actually be seen directly or via instruments. Neurology has never discovered anything other than what can be totally described and explained in terms of that which can be directly perceived.

I'm afraid you have let those perversions of neurology which the pseudo-science of psychology has tried to put over by attempting to use neurology to legitimize its own distortions.

Been living under a rock for the last 50 years, or simply lying to yourself and others?

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the materialist view of perception that postulates we do not perceive the external world as it really is, but know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

You wrote:

Science has thoroughly refuted naive realism by studying the human physiology especially neuroscience.

I asked you to:

Please provide a reference (just one will do) to the actual scientific experiments or tests that proved perceived reality is not all of reality there is.

All you have provided is a reference to a philosophical hypothesis, all of which is old stuff I studied years ago. You provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever. There is no scientific and no neurological evidence for anything except physical existence.

[popeye1945]

Science with its technology can take readings in a form of registering instruments that can later be read indicating the existence of wave frequencies not available to biological senses. Indeed if there were no more mysteries in the form of the unknowns and things were always just as they appear, there would be no need of wonder, and thus no need for science.

[Atla]

Please provide a reference (just one will do) to the actual scientific experiments or tests that proved perceived reality is not all of reality there is. You just keep repeating the same lie as though saying it enough times makes it so.

All of neurology is a physical science that studies the physical neurological system that can actually be seen directly or via instruments. Neurology has never discovered anything other than what can be totally described and explained in terms of that which can be directly perceived.

I'm afraid you have let those perversions of neurology which the pseudo-science of psychology has tried to put over by attempting to use neurology to legitimize its own distortions.

Been living under a rock for the last 50 years, or simply lying to yourself and others?

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the materialist view of perception that postulates we do not perceive the external world as it really is, but know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

You wrote:

Science has thoroughly refuted naive realism by studying the human physiology especially neuroscience.

I asked you to:

Please provide a reference (just one will do) to the actual scientific experiments or tests that proved perceived reality is not all of reality there is.

All you have provided is a reference to a philosophical hypothesis, all of which is old stuff I studied years ago. You provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever. There is no scientific and no neurological evidence for anything except physical existence.

The fuck are you talking about? Who said anything about a non-physical existence?

[RCSaunders]

Been living under a rock for the last 50 years, or simply lying to yourself and others?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

You wrote:

Science has thoroughly refuted naive realism by studying the human physiology especially neuroscience.

I asked you to:

Please provide a reference (just one will do) to the actual scientific experiments or tests that proved perceived reality is not all of reality there is.

All you have provided is a reference to a philosophical hypothesis, all of which is old stuff I studied years ago. You provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever. There is no scientific and no neurological evidence for anything except physical existence.

The fuck are you talking about? Who said anything about a non-physical existence?

If it's physical you can perceive it. If you can't perceive it (or detect it by means of what can be directly perceived it would not be physical. That's all I mean.

I have no argument with you. Believe whatever you like. Describe it in any way you like and I'll describe it in any way I like and we can agree to disagree and anyone else can decide which description makes sense to them. How's that?

[RCSaunders]

Science with its technology can take readings in a form of registering instruments that can later be read indicating the existence of wave frequencies not available to biological senses.

Really? Who reads the resulting data? That's like saying a, "telescope," or. "microscope," makes the existence of objects so distant or so small they are not avialable to the biological senses known. Well they aren't available directly, but without direct perception, they would not be available to consciousness at all, not even by instruments and machines. It is not possible to discover anything that exists without using physical means which can ultimately be directly perceived, else no one could ever be conscious of it in any way whatsoever.

Indeed if there were no more mysteries in the form of the unknowns and things were always just as they appear, there would be no need of wonder, and thus no need for science.

I suspect there is enough no yet known or fully understood about reality as it is directly perceived to keep the sciences occupied for as long as there are human beings to seek knowledge without resorting to the invention of some mystical unknowable existence beyond human ability to ever know or identify it. Even if there were such a thing, it could not possibly matter if it could never be known.

[Peter Holmes]

Just a thought. Would we say that reality is what a hamster perceives it to be? If not, why say that reality is what a human perceives it to be?

And, pari passu: would we say that a hamster doesn't perceive reality? If not, why say that a human doesn't perceive reality?

We can and do describe reality in many different ways. And a descriptive truth-claim is always contextual. But that doesn't mean there is something else beyond our reach - reality-as-it-really is, or total-reality - of which there could therefore be complete perception and knowledge. Those are lingering fantasies that can torture us even after we dismiss them. Rather like gods.

[Atla]

You wrote:



I asked you to:

Please provide a reference (just one will do) to the actual scientific experiments or tests that proved perceived reality is not all of reality there is.

All you have provided is a reference to a philosophical hypothesis, all of which is old stuff I studied years ago. You provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever. There is no scientific and no neurological evidence for anything except physical existence.

The fuck are you talking about? Who said anything about a non-physical existence?

If it's physical you can perceive it. If you can't perceive it (or detect it by means of what can be directly perceived it would not be physical. That's all I mean.

I have no argument with you. Believe whatever you like. Describe it in any way you like and I'll describe it in any way I like and we can agree to disagree and anyone else can decide which description makes sense to them. How's that?

How's what? It's a fact that now even materialism considers indirect realism to be the case. You don't even know what that means, you're talking about who knows what. What does it matter if other science-denying fools agree with you on naive ralism? Wait you don't even know what naive realism means, do you.

[RCSaunders]

It's a fact that now even materialism considers indirect realism to be the case.

Lot's of people believe lots of things that are not true. Physicalism (or materialism) is just another form of superstitious nonsense put over as, "scientific," but it is entirely baseless.

I don't care if you or anyone else believes it and I'm not interested in changing your mind. I know it's not true. I certainly don't care if you think I'm wrong.

Not Everything Is Physical

Physicalist Superstition

[Peter Holmes]

It's a fact that now even materialism considers indirect realism to be the case.

Lot's of people believe lots of things that are not true. Physicalism (or materialism) is just another form of superstitious nonsense put over as, "scientific," but it is entirely baseless.

I don't care if you or anyone else believes it and I'm not interested in changing your mind. I know it's not true. I certainly don't care if you think I'm wrong.

Not Everything Is Physical

Physicalist Superstition

Now I'm puzzled and intrigued. If physicalism/materialism/naturalism is just the claim that only physical (etc) things exist, why is that a baseless superstition? Do you think any non-physical things exist? Any examples, and evidence for their existence?

[RCSaunders]

It's a fact that now even materialism considers indirect realism to be the case.

Lot's of people believe lots of things that are not true. Physicalism (or materialism) is just another form of superstitious nonsense put over as, "scientific," but it is entirely baseless.

I don't care if you or anyone else believes it and I'm not interested in changing your mind. I know it's not true. I certainly don't care if you think I'm wrong.

Not Everything Is Physical

Physicalist Superstition

Now I'm puzzled and intrigued. If physicalism/materialism/naturalism is just the claim that only physical (etc) things exist, why is that a baseless superstition? Do you think any non-physical things exist? Any examples, and evidence for their existence?

The problem is partly semantic. The word, "exist," is so often used in place of, "real," and, "real," is usually confused with, "exist physically." So:

By exist I mean anything that actually is, without regard to the nature of that which exists, or the context in which it exists.

By physical I mean anything that can be directly perceived (seen, heard, felt, tasted, smelled, or perceived by interoception) and has attributes that can be known indirectly from evidence that can be perceived (all the physical sciences) and has those physical attributes thus discovered (mass, size, energy, temperature, charge, momentum, etc.).

By real I mean anything that exists in any mode or context (from the physical to the fictional, and from ontological to the epistemological), so long as its actual mode of existense is specified, and it truly has that nature. For example apples exist physically because they have physical attributes that can be perceived or studied scientifically, but botany certainly exists as a discipline but has no physical attributes though it is itself a physical science. The knowledge that is botany has no physical attributes that can be perceived or scientifically studied. Botany does not exist at all except epistemologically.

Everything that exists epistemologically: language, logic, mathematics, all science, geography, history, literature, does not exist at all physically (as defined above) but all exist, even every fictional character, place, and event in literature exist epistemologically, but not physically, and fictions do not exist, ''really," unless the fact they exist as fictions is specified. Independent of human consciousness, however, there are no epistemological existents, but to deny they exist, because they are not physical, is just nonsense.

The consciousness which makes epistemological existence possible is not physical. It has no physical attributes that can be perceived or detected and studied by any physical means. I know a thorough-going physicalist will claim they are studying consciousness when examining the neurological system. I've studied all such claims (because I seriously believed there might be a physical explanation of the nature of consciousness), but of course was disappointed in that search, because all the physical sciences can study is that which has physical attributes, and consciousness has none: no color to see, sound to hear, no substance to feel, and no flavor or scent to taste or smell and of course it has no mass, size, energy, temperature, charge, or momentum.

When a neurologists studies the brain and neurological system, only the physical, chemical, electrical events can be detected, studied, or described. There is no physical means to study consciousness itself, the actual conscious experience of seeing colors, hearing sounds, feeling substance, tasting flavors or smelling odors. When a neurologist describes the physical events (such as those that occur in the optic nerve and "visual centers" of the brain, all that can be detected are physical events, but actual "seeing," cannot be detected. Those events are no doubt related to vision, but certainly are not vision itself. To just say vision somehow happens (or emerges) as a result of those physical events is hardly science and for anyone who wants knowledge, not guesses and hypotheses, such assertions are not satisfactory.

If nothing else, I know I am conscious with absolute certainty. I do not know with certainty that anyone else is, but I think it is unreasonable to think they are not. The only consciousness I can know, however is my own, because there is no way to be conscious of anyone else's consciousness. (That's why it's pointless to argue with anyone who denies consciousness. Perhaps they really aren't, or at least limited in that capacity.) And of course anyone claiming they are studying consciousness, like the entire pseudo-science of psychology, is a lying.

My consciousness, however, is nothing unnatural and would not be possible without the physical because it is an attribute only possible to living physical organisms, a perfectly natural attribute that life makes possible. Consciousness is not a thing, or substance, or entity. It is an integral attribute or property of some organisms. It is something an organism does (not has), it is the action of being aware, apprehending what the neurological system makes available to the organism to perceive.

There is nothing mystical or supernatural about consciousness. To deny it, because one wishes to evade any hint of superstition, however, is itself an unfounded superstition that reality somehow excludes in some mysterious inexplicable way any possible attributes except those that can be directly perceived of discovered by the physical sciences. It is a flat out denial of one's own undeniable consciousness.

But, Peter, I'm not trying to convince you, only explaining why I cannot accept either the physicalist's or supernaturalist's premises, which I regard as a false dichotomy.

[Atla]

It's a fact that now even materialism considers indirect realism to be the case.

Lot's of people believe lots of things that are not true. Physicalism (or materialism) is just another form of superstitious nonsense put over as, "scientific," but it is entirely baseless.

I don't care if you or anyone else believes it and I'm not interested in changing your mind. I know it's not true. I certainly don't care if you think I'm wrong.

Not Everything Is Physical

Physicalist Superstition

That's why you post links trying to change people's mind, there's also a wall of text above in response to the other guy. But again your comment seems to have nothing to do with naive vs indirect realism. Doesn't matter if we call what exists material or not.