What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

All facts are mind-independent. If they weren't, they wouldn't be facts.

That's not how facts work.

Literally every fact either resides in; or was obtained via the use of a human mind. How else would any of us come to learn any facts?

The only mind-independent facts are unknown facts and I bet you don't know any unknown facts.

You just don't understand what a fact is.

Well, go ahead! Explain it to us!

[CIN]

Literally every fact either resides in; or was obtained via the use of a human mind. How else would any of us come to learn any facts?

Facts do not reside in minds. Thoughts about facts may reside in minds, but not facts themselves. Facts exist only outside minds.

'Learning a fact' is shorthand for 'learning that something is a fact', i.e. that such a fact exists outside minds.

[Skepdick]

Literally every fact either resides in; or was obtained via the use of a human mind. How else would any of us come to learn any facts?

Facts do not reside in minds. Thoughts about facts may reside in minds, but not facts themselves. Facts exist only outside minds.

'Learning a fact' is shorthand for 'learning that something is a fact', i.e. that such a fact exists outside minds.

Quick! Call a dotor! Somebody is suffering from a severe case of the reification falacy!

What or where is a "fact itself"; or "facts themselves"? Show me some facts without telling me about them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The point is whatever is reality including real humans, they cannot exist without the human factor.

It cannot be an human-independent-fact without the human factor.

Wtf? Nothing exists unless there are humans?

Do you think that quantum events didn't exist before humans observed and described them, and that they wouldn't exist if humans didn't observe and describe them?

A straight yes or no answer will suffice. Cards on the table.

As I had stated whatever is fact is conditioned upon a FSK.
As such, there is no absolute answer without a qualification or FSK.
To insist on an absolute unqualified answer would only expose you are very ignorant.

YES! Nothing exists unless there are humans in accordance to QM realism as below;

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
Link:

An experiment that disproves Einstein's idea of reality
Albert Einstein famously said, “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.”

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/science-an ... 75195.html
Quantum physicists in the city have conducted experiments proving that reality as we think of it may not exist — and in the process have not only conclusively disproved an Einsteinian idea of reality but have also paved the way for more secure informa...

Link

I had already explained and supported my point a '1000' times but your skull is too thick to even understand [not necessary agree with] it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no evidence for the existence of abstract or non-physical things.

Okay, so what and where is an event?

Why think an event is an abstract or non-physical thing?

What we call an event is something that happens. Why think of it as anything other than physical?

The myth of abstract or non-physical things runs deep. It's been distorting our reasoning for millennia.

Without the myth, moral realists and objectivists have nothing. No evidence, and no sound argument. Hence the sodding about - denying that facts are what we say they are. 'There are no facts, but...there are moral facts.'

It's pathetic.

Human feelings of pain, hunger, love and the like are non-physical.
There is no evidence they exist?

I agree 'abstraction' [see below] do not exist as real;

According to a longstanding tradition in philosophical psychology, abstraction is a distinctive mental process in which new ideas or conceptions are formed by considering the common features of several objects or ideas and ignoring the irrelevant features that distinguish those objects.
For example, if one is given a range of white things of varying shapes and sizes; one ignores or abstracts from the respects in which they differ, and thereby attains the abstract idea of whiteness.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/#:~:

But nevertheless abstraction is critical to facilitate communication and knowledge.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are no Mind [brain, human]-Independent Facts

All facts are mind-independent. If they weren't, they wouldn't be facts.

You just don't understand what a fact is.

Did you read this thread?

Paper: No Mind [brain, human]-Independent Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39502

All facts are conditioned upon its specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] or reality.
Scientific facts [knowledge and truth] are conditioned upon the scientific framework [FSK].
The scientific FSK is established and sustained by human scientists, thus fundamentally intersubjective, so, is objective.
Legal, political, economic, history, astronomy, etc. facts are conditioned upon their respective FSK.

No facts can stand alone by itself without its specific FSK which is grounded on the human factor.
It is not true that the Moon exists or Moon just is.
It has to be the 'Moon exists' or the 'Moon is' because the science-physics-astronomy FSK said so. The specific FSK cannot exists without humans.

Mind-brain-human-independent-facts may be relevant with common sense, Newtonian and Einsteinian physics;
but at a more realistic perspective, mind-brain-human-independent-facts as standalones are illusory and at best ASSUMPTIONS.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Literally every fact either resides in; or was obtained via the use of a human mind. How else would any of us come to learn any facts?

Facts do not reside in minds. Thoughts about facts may reside in minds, but not facts themselves. Facts exist only outside minds.

'Learning a fact' is shorthand for 'learning that something is a fact', i.e. that such a fact exists outside minds.

Note this;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili

The point is before you learn of or describe any fact,
part of that fact already pre-existed in your brain [a priori] and self and that fact subsequently emerged with humans participation.
As such, facts ultimately do not exist outside the human minds.

Yes, it is undeniable that facts are 'apparently' independent of mind within common sense, Newtonian and Einsteinian physics but not in the ultimate sense of reality. Such apparently independent things are mere illusions. Note this thread;

Is Reality an Illusion? Donald Hoffman
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39218

Actually why people are stuck with 'facts are mind-independent' is due to a psychological issue arising from an existential crisis.
If you can loosen the relevant primal inhibitors within your brain, you would be able to accept the more realistic fact, that facts are ultimately mind-interdependent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The myth of abstract or non-physical things runs deep. It's been distorting our reasoning for millennia.

Without the myth, moral realists and objectivists have nothing. No evidence, and no sound argument. Hence the sodding about - denying that facts are what we say they are. 'There are no facts, but...there are moral facts.'

It's pathetic.

What is pathetic is the myth of mind-brain-human independent facts.

Why people are stuck with 'facts are mind-independent' is due to a psychological issue arising from an existential crisis.
If you can loosen the relevant primal inhibitors within your brain, you would be able to accept the more realistic fact, that facts are ultimately mind-interdependent.

It is from this acceptance of mind-independent facts or physical things that lead to the extreme of a mind-independent God that in many cases has brought terrible evil and violence upon humanity. Both mind-independent facts and therefrom God are illusory, i.e. mere thoughts in the mind/brain.

When we recognize there are only mind-interdependent facts and things, then there is a basis to wean off theism [and its associated evil] in time.
The recognition of mind-interdependent moral facts will act as a guide to expedite moral progress.

Note your dogmatic grasp to the illusory mind-dependent facts and things, in effect make you complicit to the evils from mind-independent theism.

[Peter Holmes]

The myth of abstract or non-physical things runs deep. It's been distorting our reasoning for millennia.

Without the myth, moral realists and objectivists have nothing. No evidence, and no sound argument. Hence the sodding about - denying that facts are what we say they are. 'There are no facts, but...there are moral facts.'

It's pathetic.

What is pathetic is the myth of mind-brain-human independent facts.

Why people are stuck with 'facts are mind-independent' is due to a psychological issue arising from an existential crisis.
If you can loosen the relevant primal inhibitors within your brain, you would be able to accept the more realistic fact, that facts are ultimately mind-interdependent.

It is from this acceptance of mind-independent facts or physical things that lead to the extreme of a mind-independent God that in many cases has brought terrible evil and violence upon humanity. Both mind-independent facts and therefrom God are illusory, i.e. mere thoughts in the mind/brain.

When we recognize there are only mind-interdependent facts and things, then there is a basis to wean off theism [and its associated evil] in time.
The recognition of mind-interdependent moral facts will act as a guide to expedite moral progress.

Note your dogmatic grasp to the illusory mind-dependent facts and things, in effect make you complicit to the evils from mind-independent theism.

There's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the mind and mental phenomena as abstract or non-physical things. But the myth of abstract things runs deep and continues to rot our reasoning.

So, since there's no separate mind, there's no mind-body or mind-matter distinction and supposed problem. And talk of mind-dependence and mind-independence is incoherent nonsense.

There are only brains, which are physical things, along with all the other physical things that compose what we call reality. So now your claim is that all physical things depend, in some mystical way, on human brains.

And that's rubbish.

[Skepdick]

There's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the mind and mental phenomena as abstract or non-physical things.

"Evidence" is an abstract/non-physical mental concept. (and. "concepts" are abstract/non-physical mental phenomena)

Try again? Now with less "stupid" in your self-expression.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's an example - recently quoted at another OP - of what passes for serious philosophical reasoning.

'In cognitive science and semantics, the symbol grounding problem concerns how it is that words (symbols in general) get their meanings, and hence is closely related to the problem of what meaning itself really is. The problem of meaning is in turn related to the problem of how it is that mental states are meaningful, hence to the problem of consciousness: what is the connection between certain physical systems and the contents of subjective experiences.'

1 How do symbols get their meanings? Mmm. Well, there's a puzzle. It can't be that words and other signs mean what we use them to mean. That's too simple and obvious. There must be some deep problem. Ah...

2 What is meaning? This is 'the problem of what meaning itself really is'. Mmm. It can't be that the word 'meaning' and its cognates mean what we use them to mean in different contexts. That's too simple and obvious. The word 'meaning' must be the name of some kind of thing that we can describe. There must be some deep problem. Ah...

3 How is it that mental states are meaningful? Mmm. After all, it's obvious that there are mental states - that the term 'mental state' is the name of some thing of some kind. No need to question that. No need to ask if the question 'how is it that mental states are meaningful?' is coherent. It's obvious that meaningfulness is or must be a property of mental states. There must be some deep (symbol-grounding?) problem. Ah...

4 What is consciousness? Well, there's a puzzle and a problem. It can't be that the word 'consciousness' and its cognates mean what we use them to mean. That's too simple and obvious. It must be that 'consciousness' is the name of some abstract or non-physical thing, which must therefore relate in some problematic way to physicality. It's just a fact that there's a mind-body or mind-matter problem.

And so this nonsense goes on - in the fetid air down the rabbit hole where metaphysicians furkle - and has gone on ever since we suckered ourselves with the delusion that what we say about things is the way things are - in other words, for millennia.

[Skepdick]

Here's an example - recently quoted at another OP - of what passes for serious philosophical reasoning.

'In cognitive science and semantics, the symbol grounding problem concerns how it is that words (symbols in general) get their meanings, and hence is closely related to the problem of what meaning itself really is. The problem of meaning is in turn related to the problem of how it is that mental states are meaningful, hence to the problem of consciousness: what is the connection between certain physical systems and the contents of subjective experiences.'

1 How do symbols get their meanings? Mmm. Well, there's a puzzle. It can't be that words and other signs mean what we use them to mean. That's too simple and obvious. There must be some deep problem. Ah...

...
And so this nonsense goes on - in the fetid air down the rabbit hole where metaphysicians furkle - and has gone on ever since we suckered ourselves with the delusion that what we say about things is the way things are - in other words, for millennia.

Sure! I agree with this 100%. Pull yourself out of the rabbit hole! It can be that we use words to mean what we use them to mean.

Please explain what you mean when you use the word "use".

[Veritas Aequitas]

The myth of abstract or non-physical things runs deep. It's been distorting our reasoning for millennia.

Without the myth, moral realists and objectivists have nothing. No evidence, and no sound argument. Hence the sodding about - denying that facts are what we say they are. 'There are no facts, but...there are moral facts.'

It's pathetic.

What is pathetic is the myth of mind-brain-human independent facts.

Why people are stuck with 'facts are mind-independent' is due to a psychological issue arising from an existential crisis.
If you can loosen the relevant primal inhibitors within your brain, you would be able to accept the more realistic fact, that facts are ultimately mind-interdependent.

It is from this acceptance of mind-independent facts or physical things that lead to the extreme of a mind-independent God that in many cases has brought terrible evil and violence upon humanity. Both mind-independent facts and therefrom God are illusory, i.e. mere thoughts in the mind/brain.

When we recognize there are only mind-interdependent facts and things, then there is a basis to wean off theism [and its associated evil] in time.
The recognition of mind-interdependent moral facts will act as a guide to expedite moral progress.

Note your dogmatic grasp to the illusory mind-dependent facts and things, in effect make you complicit to the evils from mind-independent theism.

There's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the mind and mental phenomena as abstract or non-physical things. But the myth of abstract things runs deep and continues to rot our reasoning.

So, since there's no separate mind, there's no mind-body or mind-matter distinction and supposed problem. And talk of mind-dependence and mind-independence is incoherent nonsense.

There are only brains, which are physical things, along with all the other physical things that compose what we call reality. So now your claim is that all physical things depend, in some mystical way, on human brains.

And that's rubbish.

Somehow you are ignorant there are two main use of the term mind-independent.

1. A Mind that is independent from the Body
I agree there is NO mind as a separate entity that is independent of the physical self as in Mind-Body Dualism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism
This mind as a separate entity as in Descartes' body-mind dualism is to leverage for a belief in the existence of a soul that survives physical death and capable of going to heaven or hell with eternally.

Generally people do not use the term 'mind-independent' for 1 but they will refer to mind-body dualism to argue there is a mind [soul] that is independent and separate from the body.
So in the case of mind-body dualism the appropriate term an independent mind, NOT mind-independent which is below.

2. Mind-Independent as in Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
If you have read my previous posting and explanation of my use of 'mind-independent' your above is a strawman.
I had explained my use of 'mind-independent' is a short form for [brain, body, human, person, self] independent.

This mean an object or thing exist absolutely independent of the subject.
At the extreme, it meant 'moon exist without any human intervention'.
In this case, the mental aspect of human is critical, thus the use of the term mind that leverage all mental activities.
It also mean the existence of Dinosaurs were mind-independent.

My use of "mind-independent" has nothing to do with Mind-Body Dualism.

Do you agree with the use of mind-independent in the above sense?

If you don't agree, you would be the only person is a philosophy forum who do not agree the use of 'mind-independent' with reference to philosophical realism.

Can you confirm your stance above re use of the term "mind-independent" else we will be talking pass each other all the time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the mind and mental phenomena as abstract or non-physical things. But the myth of abstract things runs deep and continues to rot our reasoning.

So, since there's no separate mind, there's no mind-body or mind-matter distinction and supposed problem. And talk of mind-dependence and mind-independence is incoherent nonsense.

There are only brains, which are physical things, along with all the other physical things that compose what we call reality. So now your claim is that all physical things depend, in some mystical way, on human brains.

And that's rubbish.

If there is no mind as a collection of brain functions and processes,
then along the same thinking, to be more precise there is no brains as well.
What the 'brain' precisely [to be exact] is, is a collection of neurons and various matters.
then,
there are no neurons and other 'brain' matters;
They are merely a cluster of molecules;
There are no true molecules but a cluster of atoms;
There are no true atoms but a bunch of electrons and protons;
There are no true electrons and protons, there are only a collection of particles or wave;
but particles or waves depend on human participation and observations [Wave Collapse Function].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

As such, if you recognize there are brains, then you have a accept there is mind that is in complementary with the brain and all other physical thing.

Note;
1. The whole of reality comprised of particles or wave depending on human participation and observations [Wave Collapse Function]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

2. Human participation and observations means the activity of the mind [of the brain].

3. Therefore the whole of reality is interdependent with the mind, i.e. mind-interdependent.

[Peter Holmes]

There's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the mind and mental phenomena as abstract or non-physical things. But the myth of abstract things runs deep and continues to rot our reasoning.

So, since there's no separate mind, there's no mind-body or mind-matter distinction and supposed problem. And talk of mind-dependence and mind-independence is incoherent nonsense.

There are only brains, which are physical things, along with all the other physical things that compose what we call reality. So now your claim is that all physical things depend, in some mystical way, on human brains.

And that's rubbish.

If there is no mind as a collection of brain functions and processes,
then along the same thinking, to be more precise there is no brains as well.
What the 'brain' precisely [to be exact] is, is a collection of neurons and various matters.
then,
there are no neurons and other 'brain' matters;
They are merely a cluster of molecules;
There are no true molecules but a cluster of atoms;
There are no true atoms but a bunch of electrons and protons;
There are no true electrons and protons, there are only a collection of particles or wave;
but particles or waves depend on human participation and observations [Wave Collapse Function].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

As such, if you recognize there are brains, then you have a accept there is mind that is in complementary with the brain and all other physical thing.

Note;
1. The whole of reality comprised of particles or wave depending on human participation and observations [Wave Collapse Function]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

2. Human participation and observations means the activity of the mind [of the brain].

3. Therefore the whole of reality is interdependent with the mind, i.e. mind-interdependent.

There's nothing non-physical in your reduction from the brain down to quantum events. But you smuggle in 'the mind' in 2 and 3, perhaps hoping that no one will notice. Nul point.

To repeat, there is no evidence for the existence of the mind or any other abstract or non-physical thing. So there's no mind-dependence, mind-independence or mind-interdependence. You're stuck with a substance dualism for which there's absolutely no empirical evidence. It's embarrassingly unscientific.

And it follows that you're actually claiming that every physical thing in the universe depends on one kind of physical thing: the human brain. It's laughable.

And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality.