What could make morality objective?

[CHNOPS]

remembering 1st person thirst-quenching is not 1st person thirst-quenching

That is right.

What I am saying is "remembering thirst-quenching is 1st person experience, and thirst-quenching is 1st person experience too".


See the difference?

Is English your first language?

You are not pointing out a difference. You are pointing out a similarity!

You are taking two different things (experiencing thirst-quenching; remembering experiencing thirst-quenching): and you are equating them both as "1st person experience".

You are ERASING the difference and willingly ignoring the fact that the memory fails to quench thirst in order to manufacture a false equivalence!

I dont know English language no. But others can understand me. Is not a problem of comunication.

Is just that you dont get it rationality.

We all know intuitively what 1st person experience is.



That experience is a 1st person experience of seeing your hands.

Now, if you have another 1st person experience like this:



You can say that both experience are 1st person experiences.


Why not?


Well, the same with another experience of you remembering thirst-quenching. It will be 1st person experience too.


Think slow.

[Skepdick]

That is right.

What I am saying is "remembering thirst-quenching is 1st person experience, and thirst-quenching is 1st person experience too".


See the difference?

Is English your first language?

You are not pointing out a difference. You are pointing out a similarity!

You are taking two different things (experiencing thirst-quenching; remembering experiencing thirst-quenching): and you are equating them both as "1st person experience".

You are ERASING the difference and willingly ignoring the fact that the memory fails to quench thirst in order to manufacture a false equivalence!

I dont know English language no. But others can understand me. Is not a problem of comunication.

Is just that you dont get it rationality.

We all know intuitively what 1st person experience is.



That experience is a 1st person experience of seeing your hands.

Now, if you have another 1st person experience like this:



You can say that both experience are 1st person experiences.


Why not?


Well, the same with another experience of you remembering thirst-quenching. It will be 1st person experience too.


Think slow.

OK... next time you are thirsty grab a photo of some water and pretend it's the 1st person experience of drinking it.

Dumb fucking philosopher.

[CHNOPS]

OK... next time you are thirsty grab a photo of some water and pretend it's the 1st person experience of drinking it.

Dumb fucking philosopher.

Why? that's nonsense.

The 1st person experience of grabing a photo of some water is not the same 1st person experience of drinking water. It is another 1st person experience.

But they are both 1st person experiences...


The 1st person experience of remembering doing something is different to the 1st person experience of doing that thing.

And both are always 1st person experience.

Dumb. (just Dumb).

[Skepdick]

OK... next time you are thirsty grab a photo of some water and pretend it's the 1st person experience of drinking it.

Dumb fucking philosopher.

Why? that's nonsense.

The 1st person experience of grabing a photo of some water is not the same 1st person experience of drinking water. It is another 1st person experience.

But they are both 1st person experiences...

The 1st person experience of remembering doing something is different to the 1st person experience of doing that thing.

And both are always 1st person experience.

Dumb. (just Dumb).

I will agree with you just as soon as you stop drinking water and start drinking your memories of water.

If both are "1st person experiences" then whatever difference between the two appears to be both unsubstantial and irelevant to you. Otherwise you'd actually focus on those differences as a primary concern.

Instead you are focusing on discarding distinctions for the purpose of putting different experiences in the same box. Which is why you are a dumb (reductionist) philosopher.

Your mind in a nutshell: https://youtu.be/baY3SaIhfl0

[CHNOPS]

OK... next time you are thirsty grab a photo of some water and pretend it's the 1st person experience of drinking it.

Dumb fucking philosopher.

Why? that's nonsense.

The 1st person experience of grabing a photo of some water is not the same 1st person experience of drinking water. It is another 1st person experience.

But they are both 1st person experiences...

The 1st person experience of remembering doing something is different to the 1st person experience of doing that thing.

And both are always 1st person experience.

Dumb. (just Dumb).

I will agree with you just as soon as you stop drinking water and start drinking your memories of water.

If both are "1st person experiences" then whatever difference between the two appears to be both unsubstantial and irelevant to you. Otherwise you'd actually focus on those differences as a primary concern.

Instead you are focusing on discarding distinctions for the purpose of putting different experiences in the same box. Which is why you are a dumb (reductionist) philosopher.

Your mind in a nutshell: https://youtu.be/baY3SaIhfl0

Is an apple a fruit? yes.

Is an orange a fruit? yes.

So, both are "fruit".

And they are not the same. They only have in common that they are "fruit" but there are differents kind of fruits.


Drinking water is a 1st person experience.

Remembering drinking water is a 1st person experience.

So, both are "1st person experience".

And they are not the same. The only have in common that they are "1st person experience" but there are differents kind of 1st person experiences.


Too dumb to not understand this. And that is ok, you can learn if you want, but you must first to know that you are not smart.

[Peter Holmes]

Just an observation.

Things we say are the same by one criterion we can always say are different by another criterion. The rules of a logic - such as classical identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle - deal with language, not the reality we talk about using language. The clue is in the words: logic and contradiction - 'speaking against'.

[Agent Smith]

Morality is objective but the problem is that there's an overlap of some crucial parameters that leads to, well, confusion.

[Peter Holmes]

Morality is objective but the problem is that there's an overlap of some crucial parameters that leads to, well, confusion.

Please provide one example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact - a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion - and not merely the expression of a moral opinion.

Spoiler: there's no such thing as a moral fact, so morality isn't and can't be objective.

[Agent Smith]

Morality is objective but the problem is that there's an overlap of some crucial parameters that leads to, well, confusion.

Please provide one example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact - a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion - and not merely the expression of a moral opinion.

Spoiler: there's no such thing as a moral fact, so morality isn't and can't be objective.

Good response!

[CHNOPS]

Morality is objective but the problem is that there's an overlap of some crucial parameters that leads to, well, confusion.

Please provide one example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact - a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion - and not merely the expression of a moral opinion.

Spoiler: there's no such thing as a moral fact, so morality isn't and can't be objective.

Every knowledge is a believe. You believe something about the origin of the universe (axioms) and we make conclusions from that point to make knowledge (theorems).

You seems to believe that there is no origin of the universe, or something like that, so for you, there is no direction in this evolution of the universe.

That's ok. You can believe it.

But others, like me, dont, and then we define our "moral" based on that believe that there is a direction in this evolution.

I believe that we are all going to an eternal state of matter, of existence. So, in this "human realm", something like "life" is important, because is a human manifestation of a matter that stay more time with a particular structure.

If we go to a eternal state of matter, then life is more closed to that state than death.

So, we can define our moral, our Good and Wrong definitions, based on this.

We can say that "living is Good, death is Wrong".


The same with other point of views that this "eternal state of matter" has, like "hot/cold", "fast/slow", "unity/separation", etc, etc.


You dont need to believe this. But you can learn it.

[Skepdick]

Morality is objective but the problem is that there's an overlap of some crucial parameters that leads to, well, confusion.

Please provide one example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact - a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion - and not merely the expression of a moral opinion.

Spoiler: there's no such thing as a moral fact, so morality isn't and can't be objective.

Ooooh! We are going to play burden-tennis, are we?!? Well, the ball is right back at your court then...

Please provide one example of a fact, and show why it's a fact - a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion - and not merely the expression of a opinion.

Spoiler: "Factuality" and "independence of opinion" are subjective human assertions. Exactly like "objectivity".

Spoiler 2: Anything which has a measurable/consequential effect on reality is objective. Opinions are not exempt from being objective, except via special pleading. So when the subjective/objective distinction is collapsed it's subjectivity that which disappears, not objectivity!

[Skepdick]

Every knowledge is a believe. You believe something about the origin of the universe (axioms) and we make conclusions from that point to make knowledge (theorems).

That's not always the case. And in fact, it's almost never the case with empiricism.

People start with the theorems first and seek axioms to explain them. Sometimes they find axioms. Some times they keep finding more and better asioms. Sometimes they don't.

Let but two example suffice.

1. It has always been a theorem that apples fall from trees. The axioms only came about when people started asking "Why?". And in fact we have two sets of axioms which address the question - Newton's and Einstein's.
2. The universe exists is a theorem. We don't have the axioms which answer "Why?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics

[Agent Smith]

De gustibus non est disputandum?

[Skepdick]

De gustibus non est disputandum?

That's wrong. In matters of taste is precisely where all disputes arise.

And since all ostensive definitions are a matter of taste... everything is a shitshow.

According to your taste this color is red. According to my taste - it isn't.

[Agent Smith]

I hope to be proven wrong.