What could make morality objective?

[Sculptor]

What sort of sorted critical thinking and logic is that??

All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.

In your dreams yes.

There were no fact-in-itself as atoms-in-themselves.

There were no crispy candy bars.

There is now facts of atoms as conditioned upon the science-chemistry-FSK.

Yes, but they are SUBJECT to human cognition.

Atoms do not exist by themselves absolutely.

Yes they do.
If I put a bullet through your head, what we like to call atoms of your carcass still persist, regardless of your perception of them.
That our model for "atoms" is an accurate one is a matter of speculation.
But far greater is the matter of morals which is SUBJECT to far more modelling and speculation since they do not even refer to material components of the universe. At least wat we call "atoms" have substance.
This cannot be said of morals.

The existence of atoms must be predicated explicitly or implicitly to the science-chemistry FSK.

No.
Atoms first then your imaginary "science-chemistryFSK" follows.
Your science-chemistry FSK only describes atoms.

Show me an atom that exists in-itself independent of the science-chemistry FSK and therefrom human conditions.

Do you accept the theory of evolution?
DO you accept that there is a time before the emergence of science?

Your answer to these should answer your question, if you have the wit to understand.

Hint: all the atoms in your hand which you are using to type bullshit, except the Strontium90 in your bones existed before humanity.

[Skepdick]

Do you accept the theory of evolution?
DO you accept that there is a time before the emergence of science?

Your answer to these should answer your question, if you have the wit to understand.

Hint: all the atoms in your hand which you are using to type bullshit, except the Strontium90 in your bones existed before humanity.

ROFL. He appeals to "theory" and "time".

Which theory of time are you appealing to?
Which theory of theorising are you appealing to?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-theory

Hint: all the atoms in your hand which you are using to type bullshit, except the Strontium90 in your bones existed before humanity.

Shame, You can tell you grew up around a time when atoms were considered fundamental.

The world moved on. Atoms don't exist except as theoretical constructs. Die in the servitude of intellectual progress already.

[Skepdick]

Gosh. What a wanker you are.

It's really not clear to me what it is that pisses you off the most.

Is it the fact that I am an asshole; or is it the fact that I am right?

[Sculptor]

Do you accept the theory of evolution?
DO you accept that there is a time before the emergence of science?

Your answer to these should answer your question, if you have the wit to understand.

Hint: all the atoms in your hand which you are using to type bullshit, except the Strontium90 in your bones existed before humanity.

ROFL. He appeals to "theory" and "time".

Which theory of time are you appealing to?
Which theory of theorising are you appealing to?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-theory

Hint: all the atoms in your hand which you are using to type bullshit, except the Strontium90 in your bones existed before humanity.

Shame, You can tell you grew up around a time when atoms were considered fundamental.

The world moved on. Atoms don't exist except as theoretical constructs. Die in the servitude of intellectual progress already.

Once again too scared to answer a simple question.

[Sculptor]

Gosh. What a wanker you are.

It's really not clear to me what it is that pisses you off the most.

Is it the fact that I am an asshole; or is it the fact that I am right?

Sorry can't answer that question because time does not exist.

[Skepdick]

Once again too scared to answer a simple question.

Oooh, "too scared" did these silly psychological tricks of trying to challenge people's insecurities ever work for you?

Fucking retard.

[Skepdick]

Sorry can't answer that question because time does not exist.

You and Peter Holmes will get right along in the stupid corner.

Of course time exists. It exists because we are talking about it, but it's not physical or anything like that.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's a contradiction.

1 There are facts for which there's empirical evidence, such as the existence of mirror neurons in brains. (True.)
2 There are no facts outside the ways we know about and describe them. For example, outside neuroscience, there are no mirror neurons in human brains. (False and ridiculous.)

And here's a non sequitur.

Premise: A fact exists only inside a descriptive context, such as neuroscience. (False - see the above.)
Conclusion: Therefore, any kind of description can describe a fact. (False. There are no astrological facts.)

And this is why VA's argument for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - is trash. Morality is a 'framework and system of knowledge', like neuroscience, only if it describes facts for the existence of which there's empirical evidence. And it doesn't, because there are no such moral facts.

The end.

[Sculptor]

Sorry can't answer that question because time does not exist.

You and Peter Holmes will get right along in the stupid corner.

Of course time exists. It exists because we are talking about it, but it's not physical or anything like that.

Show me an atom that exists in-itself independent of the science-chemistry FSK and therefrom human conditions.

Do you accept the theory of evolution?
DO you accept that there is a time before the emergence of science?

Your answer to these should answer your question, if you have the wit to understand.

[Skepdick]

Sorry can't answer that question because time does not exist.

You and Peter Holmes will get right along in the stupid corner.

Of course time exists. It exists because we are talking about it, but it's not physical or anything like that.

Show me an atom that exists in-itself independent of the science-chemistry FSK and therefrom human conditions.

Do you accept the theory of evolution?
DO you accept that there is a time before the emergence of science?

Your answer to these should answer your question, if you have the wit to understand.

Idiot

I have absolutely no idea what it means to "accept" a theory. I know how to USE theories. Theories are like hats. You can put them on. You can take them off. As and when you need them.

Theories are just conceptual tools. Ways to view and interpret the world. Theories are just mental instruments. The more tools in my toolbox - the better!

There's never been a time before "science". Humans have always learned empirically by observation, trial and error - even before the Eureka moment of Archimedes. We may have improved our processes and mental tools, but we did that via trial and error! We just developed more and more rigour over time and simply stopped using what doesn't work.

If you really want to get technical we evolved our thinking via selecting in what works and selecting out what doesn't. And we did that before we knew about the theory of evolution!

[Sculptor]

You and Peter Holmes will get right along in the stupid corner.

Of course time exists. It exists because we are talking about it, but it's not physical or anything like that.

Show me an atom that exists in-itself independent of the science-chemistry FSK and therefrom human conditions.

Do you accept the theory of evolution?
DO you accept that there is a time before the emergence of science?

Your answer to these should answer your question, if you have the wit to understand.

Idiot

I have absolutely no idea what it means to "accept" a theory. I know how to USE theories. Theories are like hats. You can put them on. You can take them off. As and when you need them.

Theories are just conceptual tools. Ways to view and interpret the world. Theories are just mental instruments. The more tools in my toolbox - the better!

There's never been a time before "science". Humans have always learned empirically by observation, trial and error - even before the Eureka moment of Archimedes. We may have improved our processes and mental tools, but we did that via trial and error! We just developed more and more rigour over time and simply stopped using what doesn't work.

If you really want to get technical we evolved our thinking via selecting in what works and selecting out what doesn't. And we did that before we knew about the theory of evolution!

I feel sorry for you.
Why do you bother posting at all?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In your dreams yes.

There were no crispy candy bars.

Yes, but they are SUBJECT to human cognition.

Yes they do.
If I put a bullet through your head, what we like to call atoms of your carcass still persist, regardless of your perception of them.
That our model for "atoms" is an accurate one is a matter of speculation.
But far greater is the matter of morals which is SUBJECT to far more modelling and speculation since they do not even refer to material components of the universe. At least wat we call "atoms" have substance.
This cannot be said of morals.

No.
Atoms first then your imaginary "science-chemistry FSK" follows.
Your science-chemistry FSK only describes atoms.

Show me an atom that exists in-itself independent of the science-chemistry FSK and therefrom human conditions.

Do you accept the theory of evolution?
DO you accept that there is a time before the emergence of science?

Your answer to these should answer your question, if you have the wit to understand.

Hint: all the atoms in your hand which you are using to type bullshit, except the Strontium90 in your bones existed before humanity.

I believe you missed the essence of my point.

I repeat again,
Show me an atom that exists in-itself independent of the science-chemistry FSK and therefrom human conditions.

I can agree,
"all the atoms in your hand which you are using to type ...., ... your bones existed before humanity."

But note 'before' is a time-based concept.

You stated above 'time do not exist' - i.e. in the ultimate sense.
Many Quantum Physicists agree, as proven, time do not exists as real in the ultimate sense.

Time Does Not Exist. Let me explain with a graph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpyXVkqkQgg

So 'time' is 'not-real' in the ultimate sense.

As such
"all the atoms in your hand which you are using to type ...., ... your bones existed before [time = not real] humanity."

'Time' is a useful concept within common sense and conventional sense but it is not something that is real in the ultimate sense.

So, your statement [based on unreal concepts] above is not realistic in the ultimate sense.
An atom and time cannot exist in-themselves independent of the science-chemistry FSK [time = Physics FSK] and therefrom human conditions.

What is most realistic is what I stated, i.e.
An atom and time exist are real only as conditioned upon the science-chemistry /Physics FSK [collective of humans] and entangled with the human conditions.

I doubt you would have the wit to understand [not necessary agree with] the above.

I agree pseudo-moral rightness and wrongness [i.e. subjective opinions and beliefs] cannot be conditional moral facts.
My moral-proper elements of morality are represented by physical atoms, DNA, genes and quarks. They are moral facts, thus morality is objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's a contradiction.

1 There are facts for which there's empirical evidence, such as the existence of mirror neurons in brains. (True.)
2 There are no facts outside the ways we know about and describe them. For example, outside neuroscience, there are no mirror neurons in human brains. (False and ridiculous.)

And here's a non sequitur.

Premise: A fact exists only inside a descriptive context, such as neuroscience. (False - see the above.)
Conclusion: Therefore, any kind of description can describe a fact. (False. There are no astrological facts.)

And this is why VA's argument for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - is trash. Morality is a 'framework and system of knowledge', like neuroscience, only if it describes facts for the existence of which there's empirical evidence. And it doesn't, because there are no such moral facts.

The end.

Strawman again, this is the "10-millionth" time.

I have never asserted the following premise 2.
"2 There are no facts outside the ways we know about and describe them."

Note I wrote in a prior post and similarly in many posts [addressed directly to you] in this thread; viewtopic.php?p=626127#p626127

There is no absolute atom-in-itself nor fact-in-itself, thus whatever is reality is conditioned upon human conditions.
Note it is NOT confined to what is known or described but the whole complex process of the realization of that reality where the human conditions are entangled therein.

Thus 'what is a fact' is the realization that is conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The realization [not knowing nor describing of] of the physical moral facts [not rightness or wrongness] are conditioned upon a specific moral FSK [upon a collective independent of any individual], thus objective.
Therefore morality is objective.
viewtopic.php?p=626127#p626127

Hopefully you get it,
What is FSK-fact is NOT from "Knowing' and "describing' it.

What is FSK-fact is NOT from "Knowing' and "describing' it.

What is FSK-fact is NOT from "Knowing' and "describing' it.

Note Enactivism re Cognitive Science;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enactivism#:

• Enactivism is a position in cognitive science that argues that cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment.[1]
  It claims that the environment of an organism is brought about, or enacted, by the active exercise of that organism's sensorimotor processes.
  
  "The key point, then, is that the species brings forth and specifies its own domain of problems ...this domain does not exist "out there" in an environment that acts as a landing pad for organisms that somehow drop or parachute into the world. Instead, living beings and their environments stand in relation to each other through mutual specification or codetermination" (p. 198).[2]
  
  "Organisms do not passively receive information from their environments, which they then translate into internal representations. Natural cognitive systems...participate in the generation of meaning ...engaging in transformational and not merely informational interactions: they enact a world."[3]
  These authors suggest that the increasing emphasis upon enactive terminology presages a new era in thinking about cognitive science.[3]

Also note Embodied Cognition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition

• Embodied cognition is the theory that many features of cognition, whether human or otherwise, are shaped by aspects of an organism's entire body. Sensory and motor systems are seen as fundamentally integrated with cognitive processing. The cognitive features include high-level mental constructs (such as concepts and categories) and performance on various cognitive tasks (such as reasoning or judgment). The bodily aspects involve the motor system, the perceptual system, the bodily interactions with the environment (situatedness), and the assumptions about the world built into the organism's functional structure.
  
  The embodied mind thesis challenges other theories, such as cognitivism, computationalism, and Cartesian dualism.[1][2] It is closely related to the extended mind thesis, situated cognition, and enactivism.
  The modern version depends on insights drawn from up to date research in psychology, linguistics, cognitive science, dynamical systems, artificial intelligence, robotics, animal cognition, plant cognition, and neurobiology.

Note this thread every time you faced the same situation in any attempt to strawman my position re realization, knowing and describing what are FSK-Conditioned Facts.
Objective Moral Facts are Enacted FSK-Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39630

[Skepdick]

I feel sorry for you.

I don't really give a shit about your feelings.

Why do you bother posting at all?

Because you and your philosopher friends keep posting bullshit.

[Agent Smith]

What could make dharma objective?

Perhaps we could begin if dharma isn't objective ...