What could make morality objective?

[tillingborn]

Does the word synonym mean anything to you?

Sure. Does the phrase "Perennial philosophy" mean anything to you?

Just enough to know it has nothing to do with what follows.

Because if...

Others are wrong.

and your philosophies are "synonymous", then let me fix it for you...

O̶t̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ We are wrong.

Oh dear, someone can't follow an argument. It's the second premise which is the problem. Now I know you believe you have the logical equivalent of a Swiss army knife and you can pull out some tool according to which you are never talking the obvious bollocks you obviously are. Then again, you might simply be talking bollocks for the sake of talking bollocks. Hard to tell, even harder to care. Anyway, the problem is that this:

Others are wrong.

refers to this:

Some say that perception is "immediate".
Others say it isn't.

So it doesn't matter whether some say perception while others say experience, awareness, consciousness or any other synonym, anyone who says any of those is mediated is wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Why avoid the questions?

I have already answered your question [as implied] with my replies.

If you are that slow-witted with the implications, then

Do you accept the theory of evolution?
Yes.
The theory of evolution is a scientific fact conditioned upon the scientific FSK which has lesser objectivity that say 'Water is H20'.

DO you accept that there is a time before the emergence of science?
Yes.
As explained in the thread below in response to your said question,
viewtopic.php?p=626238#p626238
'time' is not a real thing.
For more detail refer to my explanation above.

I asked,
Show me an atom that exists in-itself independent of the science-chemistry FSK and therefrom human conditions?
Don't be an intellectual coward to answer with a question.

[Peter Holmes]

I wonder if mountains exist outside the geology framework and system of knowledge. Perhaps they only emerged, entangled with the human conditions, into realisation, in order to become facts within the subjective consensus.

[Skepdick]

Just enough to know it has nothing to do with what follows.

And now it's patently obvious you lied about the synonymy between the different perspectives.

Oh dear, someone can't follow an argument.

Oh dear, somebody doesn't understand the difference betwen can't and won't.

It's the second premise which is the problem. Now I know you believe you have the logical equivalent of a Swiss army knife and you can pull out some tool according to which you are never talking the obvious bollocks you obviously are.

So my Swiss army knife bad. Your Swiss army knife good? Gotcha.

Dumb fuck.

Then again, you might simply be talking bollocks for the sake of talking bollocks. Hard to tell, even harder to care. Anyway, the problem is that this:

Others are wrong.

refers to this:

Some say that perception is "immediate".
Others say it isn't.

So it doesn't matter whether some say perception while others say experience, awareness, consciousness or any other synonym, anyone who says any of those is mediated is wrong.

The problem is that you are as dumb as every philosopher on this site. You continuously trip over the adjectives made up by perception/experience/awareness/consciousness in its attempts at self-assessment/self-evaluation.

I am immediate - says one perception/experience/awareness/consciousness about itself.
I am mediated - says another perception/experience/awareness/consciousness about itself.

You don't seem to understand the fundamental problem with self-evaluation. It's all connotation and zero denotation.

This color is red.
This color is blue.
This color is green.

Red/blue/green - it doesn't matter what it says about itself, it's still this irreducible phenomenon.

Self-evaluation (describing oneself using an adjective) doesn't change the nature of the thing evaluating itself. This means that all adjectives are denotationally equivalent.

Mediated perception/experience/awareness/consciousness is equivalent to unmediated perception/experience/awareness/consciousness BECAUSE the adjective is immaterial.

If one adjective is "wrong" then self-assessment is unreliable then all adjectives are "wrong".

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wonder if mountains exist outside the geology framework and system of knowledge. Perhaps they only emerged, entangled with the human conditions, into realisation, in order to become facts within the subjective consensus.

Strawman again and deceiving yourself with the above phraseology because at this point you don't have the competence to phrase it in that manner.

The approach is this;
Whatever emerged as reality, i.e. mountains or whatever, you cannot claim it is independent of the human conditions.
WHY?
At present it is quite impossible for you even to grasp and understand [not necessary agree] because you are too shackled by your dogmatic old paradigm.
It will take a lot for you to understand and I don't think you will ever will given the rigidity of your brain.

This is Not exactly, but here is the a clue.
Note this Hollow Mask Illusion which I had highlighted many times.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35493

In the illusion therein you will only see a convex-shaped-face.
Ask yourself why is that you only see a convex shaped face when you direct your cognitive functions to it and also knowing that it is actually hollow-concave?
This meant that the convex-shaped mask exists as it is ONLY when you 'look' at it.
It also meant that the hollow-shaped mask exists as it is when you don't 'look' at it.
WHY?

The above illusion has similar principles to why reality is appearing to you as you are cognizing it [there is no independent objective reality or fact out there]; and as with why QM is claiming 'the moon do not exists when no humans are 'looking' at it.

Note;
Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0

Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

You are too stuck with 'common sense' and I don't believe you will ever understand what Professor Jim Al-Khalili understood.

Also why you cannot comprehend this aspect of the truth or reality is a fundamentally psychological issue not a fundamental epistemological nor ontological issue.

[Sculptor]

I believe you missed the essence of my point.

Why avoid the questions?

I have already answered your question [as implied] with my replies.

If you are that slow-witted with the implications, then

Do you accept the theory of evolution?
Yes.
The theory of evolution is a scientific fact conditioned upon the scientific FSK which has lesser objectivity that say 'Water is H20'.

This is false.
No one working in evolution ever heard of an FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

Why avoid the questions?

I have already answered your question [as implied] with my replies.

If you are that slow-witted with the implications, then

Do you accept the theory of evolution?
Yes.
The theory of evolution is a scientific fact conditioned upon the scientific FSK which has lesser objectivity that say 'Water is H20'.

This is false.
No one working in evolution ever heard of an FSK.

Agreed. Theorising about science is what philosophers do. Scientists just get on with doing science: asking questions, observing and investigating, recording data and suggesting explanations.

The idea that what they're questioning, observing, investigating and trying to explain exists simply because of what they do is laughable.

[tillingborn]

Oh dear, someone can't follow an argument.

Oh dear, somebody doesn't understand the difference betwen can't and won't.

Ah well, back to throwing rocks at each other then.

Dumb fuck.

That didn't take long.

If one adjective is "wrong" then self-assessment is unreliable then all adjectives are "wrong".

Dumb fuck.

[Peter Holmes]

I wonder if mountains exist outside the geology framework and system of knowledge. Perhaps they only emerged, entangled with the human conditions, into realisation, in order to become facts within the subjective consensus.

Strawman again and deceiving yourself with the above phraseology because at this point you don't have the competence to phrase it in that manner.

The approach is this;
Whatever emerged as reality, i.e. mountains or whatever, you cannot claim it is independent of the human conditions.
WHY?
At present it is quite impossible for you even to grasp and understand [not necessary agree] because you are too shackled by your dogmatic old paradigm.
It will take a lot for you to understand and I don't think you will ever will given the rigidity of your brain.

This is Not exactly, but here is the a clue.
Note this Hollow Mask Illusion which I had highlighted many times.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35493

In the illusion therein you will only see a convex-shaped-face.
Ask yourself why is that you only see a convex shaped face when you direct your cognitive functions to it and also knowing that it is actually hollow-concave?
This meant that the convex-shaped mask exists as it is ONLY when you 'look' at it.
It also meant that the hollow-shaped mask exists as it is when you don't 'look' at it.
WHY?

The above illusion has similar principles to why reality is appearing to you as you are cognizing it [there is no independent objective reality or fact out there]; and as with why QM is claiming 'the moon do not exists when no humans are 'looking' at it.

Note;
Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0

Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

You are too stuck with 'common sense' and I don't believe you will ever understand what Professor Jim Al-Khalili understood.

Also why you cannot comprehend this aspect of the truth or reality is a fundamentally psychological issue not a fundamental epistemological nor ontological issue.

Your talk of emergence, realisation and entanglement is so much mystical blather. And your being suckered by what could be called a neo-Kantian delusion is, indeed, a psychological issue. You want there to be moral facts, so you've constructed a spurious theory that supposedly explains why there are moral facts.

Premise: Humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in a human way.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is what humans perceive, know and describe.

Can you see why this is a non sequitur?

Can you see that reality must also be what hamsters and cockroaches perceive and know?

Can you see that, if humans, as it were, 'create' reality, then they also create themselves, as do hamsters and cockroaches?

Can you see that, if there is no reality-in-itself, it makes no sense to say what reality is?

Meanwhile, since this discussion is supposed to be about morality, please answer the (repeated) following.

Why should we avoid evil and promote good? And is it a fact that we ought to do so?

[Skepdick]

Ah well, back to throwing rocks at each other then.

No need for rocks. Just facts about self-referencing and self-interpreting systems.

Dumb fuck.

It doesn't work as well when you are throwing it as a rock instead of using it as a fact like I am.

[Sculptor]

I have already answered your question [as implied] with my replies.

If you are that slow-witted with the implications, then

Do you accept the theory of evolution?
Yes.
The theory of evolution is a scientific fact conditioned upon the scientific FSK which has lesser objectivity that say 'Water is H20'.

This is false.
No one working in evolution ever heard of an FSK.

Agreed. Theorising about science is what philosophers do. Scientists just get on with doing science: asking questions, observing and investigating, recording data and suggesting explanations.

The idea that what they're questioning, observing, investigating and trying to explain exists simply because of what they do is laughable.

That is not what I said, and not what I meant.
Many scientists - yes even the best ones, are in fact great philosophers too, and think deeply about wht they are saying, the validity, the consequences and the philosophical implications.
This is true of Darwin, Feynman, Einstein, Aristotle, Newton, ...etc.

What I meant, I meant literally. None of them has ever heard of a FSK, Whatever the F that is.

[Peter Holmes]

This is false.
No one working in evolution ever heard of an FSK.

Agreed. Theorising about science is what philosophers do. Scientists just get on with doing science: asking questions, observing and investigating, recording data and suggesting explanations.

The idea that what they're questioning, observing, investigating and trying to explain exists simply because of what they do is laughable.

That is not what I said, and not what I meant.
Many scientists - yes even the best ones, are in fact great philosophers too, and think deeply about wht they are saying, the validity, the consequences and the philosophical implications.
This is true of Darwin, Feynman, Einstein, Aristotle, Newton, ...etc.

What I meant, I meant literally. None of them has ever heard of a FSK, Whatever the F that is.

Apologies. Of course you're right about those giants. I was referring to the ordinary scientists engaged in ordinary scientific work. But even the giants thought they were investigating a reality that exists independent from 'the human conditions'.

[tillingborn]

Ah well, back to throwing rocks at each other then.

No need for rocks.

Given that you won't follow an argument even if you could, I won't waste my time explaining why you are the dumb fuck.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why avoid the questions?

I have already answered your question [as implied] with my replies.

If you are that slow-witted with the implications, then

Do you accept the theory of evolution?
Yes.
The theory of evolution is a scientific fact conditioned upon the scientific FSK which has lesser objectivity that say 'Water is H20'.

This is false.
No one working in evolution ever heard of an FSK.

No one? How come you are so ignorant on this?

Evolution is a scientific theory in biological sciences, which explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and present.
Evolution accounts for the conspicuous patterns of similarities and differences among living things over time and across habitats through the action of biological processes such as mutation, natural selection, symbiosis and genetic drift.
Evolution has been subjected to scientific testing for over a century and has been again and again confirmed from different fields.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4705322/#:

It is a default and implied, the Theory of Evolution is only valid within the science-biology Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] which includes the scientific method and all other requirements & conditions.

Obviously the Theory of Evolution is NOT valid within a theological framework and system [FSK] or a legal, economics, and any non-scientific FSK.

Now, what say you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wonder if mountains exist outside the geology framework and system of knowledge. Perhaps they only emerged, entangled with the human conditions, into realisation, in order to become facts within the subjective consensus.

Strawman again and deceiving yourself with the above phraseology because at this point you don't have the competence to phrase it in that manner.

The approach is this;
Whatever emerged as reality, i.e. mountains or whatever, you cannot claim it is independent of the human conditions.
WHY?
At present it is quite impossible for you even to grasp and understand [not necessary agree] because you are too shackled by your dogmatic old paradigm.
It will take a lot for you to understand and I don't think you will ever will given the rigidity of your brain.

This is Not exactly, but here is the a clue.
Note this Hollow Mask Illusion which I had highlighted many times.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35493

In the illusion therein you will only see a convex-shaped-face.
Ask yourself why is that you only see a convex shaped face when you direct your cognitive functions to it and also knowing that it is actually hollow-concave?
This meant that the convex-shaped mask exists as it is ONLY when you 'look' at it.
It also meant that the hollow-shaped mask exists as it is when you don't 'look' at it.
WHY?

The above illusion has similar principles to why reality is appearing to you as you are cognizing it [there is no independent objective reality or fact out there]; and as with why QM is claiming 'the moon do not exists when no humans are 'looking' at it.

Note;
Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0

Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

You are too stuck with 'common sense' and I don't believe you will ever understand what Professor Jim Al-Khalili understood.

Also why you cannot comprehend this aspect of the truth or reality is a fundamentally psychological issue not a fundamental epistemological nor ontological issue.

Your talk of emergence, realisation and entanglement is so much mystical blather. And your being suckered by what could be called a neo-Kantian delusion is, indeed, a psychological issue. You want there to be moral facts, so you've constructed a spurious theory that supposedly explains why there are moral facts.

You are a coward in not addressing the above very ordinary terms in an intellectual manner.

See:
Emergence:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /emergence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence [philosophical]

Realization: become fully aware of (something) as a fact; understand clearly.

Entanglement: entangle: to wrap or twist together : INTERWEAVE

How are the above mystical?
In addition the principles of entanglement in Physics is the basis of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Do you think Professor Jim Al-Khalili statements are mystical?
Professor Jim Al-Khalili understood, realized "It truly defies common sense".
You cannot sense the importance of this statement?
You cannot because you are stuck within the realm of common sense.

You have to give more justification on why the above is mystical.

Do you understand my point re the Hollow Mask Illusion?

Fundamentally the issue is psychological, that you are ignorant of the above is because you are psychologically resistant and incapable of viewing new perspectives and learning new knowledge.
It is just like the Necker Cube where you can only see one cube but not the other.

Premise: Humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in a human way.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is what humans perceive, know and describe.

Can you see why this is a non sequitur?

Strawman again.
The above is not my argument.

What I claimed is,
Whatever is reality is always grounded to the human conditions.

There are 3 phases;
1. There is the entanglement, emergence, realisation
2. There is the knowing and perception of reality
3. Then there is the description of reality.

I have stated above many times but you kept ignoring the above 3 phases without a valid counter.

Your argument is a strawman,
Reality cannot be perceived, known and described until phase 1 above is realized upon entanglement and emergence which are very complex processes.

Can you see that reality must also be what hamsters and cockroaches perceive and know?

I have mentioned, if we bring reality to a basic common denominator as energy, what coalesce as reality to hamsters, cockroaches, bats, are relative to their specific FSR [Framework and System of Reality] and no way will they realized the same reality as humans.
Even within humans, not everyone will realize the same reality, i.e. it is likely we have >8 billion different realities like their different finger prints.

Can you see that, if humans, as it were, 'create' reality, then they also create themselves, as do hamsters and cockroaches?

Yes, humans is some ways 'create' themselves.

What is a 'human' actually?
It is merely a bundle of activities;
Theory advanced by David Hume to the effect that the mind is merely a bundle of perceptions without deeper unity or cohesion, related only by resemblance, succession, and causation. -Encyclopedia Britannica

As such, humans are also a Coalescence of generic energy or fundamental particles and emerge as individual[s] via the environment and humanity.
In the course of time, the individual realize the specific reality in his continual entanglement, emergence and realization of an ever changing reality.

Within each human, there is a hierarchy of selves, i.e. from proto-consciousness to self-consciousness.
Your physical body was created by your parents within reality, subsequently it is 'you' who created 'yourself' where you contribute to create what-is-reality while you are alive.

As such, whatever is reality to humans, it is always grounded to the human conditions.

Can you see that, if there is no reality-in-itself, it makes no sense to say what reality is?

Can you see [reason], your above is merely a reasoning for a reality-in-itself, i.e. a thought in your head.
No matter how you think, you [all humans] cannot be independent of the reality as all-there-is in which you [all humans] is intricately [entangled] part and parcel of.

Meanwhile, since this discussion is supposed to be about morality, please answer the (repeated) following.

Why should we avoid evil and promote good? And is it a fact that we ought to do so?

If you do a survey of all matters, subjects and discussion of what morality entails, you will note it is centered on the concern with evil.
Evil is defined as anything that is net-negative to the well-being of an individual, group therefrom to humanity.
What is most evil is the killing of humans by humans, genocides, murder, rapes, slavery, torture with great sufferings, while other evil acts has lesser degree of evilness, e.g. stealing, lying with no fatalities.

Given the great concern humanity had given to the above evil acts, there is an implication of a natural ought or should.
This natural ought is exemplified by enforced oughts via tribal rules and political criminal laws to curb these evil acts with corresponding punishments to its degree of evilness to the extreme of capital punishments.

While tribal rules and political enforcement work, they are not effective in eliminating evil acts by humans.

To be effective, humanity must enable the inherent moral function [the natural ought-ness or ought-not-ness] to unfold so that humans are indifferent to commit evil acts naturally rather than being forced to comply.

Whatever is a fact is conditioned by a specific FSK [collective thus, objective].
Objective moral facts are conditioned by a specific moral FSK.
Natural ought-ness or ought-not-ness when conditioned upon a specific moral FSK is a moral fact.

I have discussed the natural ought-not-ness inherent in the brain of all humans [inferred via induction] and mirror neurons related to empathy->morality as evidence of moral facts that are conditioned upon a moral FSK.

Your inability to comprehend the above is due a related specific psychological deficiency in you.

Now, what say you?