What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

'This painting is beautiful.'

Okay, show us the property that we call beauty. What is beauty? If we listed the properties of this painting, would or could beauty be one of them? If not, what does it mean to say the painting is beautiful? And would it be false to say instead that it's not beautiful? Or that it's ugly? Could it be a fact that the painting is beautiful - or ugly? And would agreement on the use of signs sort that out?

And, by the way - what is the thing or property that is 'being a fact'?

It is because you are so ignorant in living in a tall dark silo that you believe there is no objectivity to 'beauty' other than its typical subjective elements.

My principle;
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK which is objective.
Objectivity of an FSK comes in degrees, say 0 to 100/100.

Therefore there are 'facts of beauty' as conditioned within a human-based beauty FSK.
For example, it is an objective fact that R'Bonney Gabriel is Miss Universe 2022 but that is conditioned upon the human_based-Miss_Universe-FSK.
Do you deny this fact?

'This painting [e.g. Mona Lisa] is beautiful' is an objective fact within certain human-based artistic-FSK. The Mona Lisa came out top in most ranking of 'most beautiful' painting.
However, we cannot take that as absolute but must always conditioned it to a specific human-based artistic-FSK.

Because the Mona Lisa is regarded as the most beautiful painting in an almost Universal state, there must be something [neural correlates] in the brains of those humans that trigger them to rate the Mona Lisa is regarded as the most beautiful painting.
These neural correlates are then the objective facts as qualified to the specific human-based neuro-artistic-FSK.

Beauty is often predominantly measured in terms of positive affective response to aesthetic stimuli, such as paintings, physically attractive faces and natural scenes, or even the activation of a subset of distinct brain regions, such as the orbitofrontal cortex, a frequent criticism of scientific reductionism levied by colleagues in the humanities (Brown & Dissanayake, 2009).

Within the field of neuroaesthetics, however, the aesthetic experience is not merely reduced to the perception and appreciation of beauty however the global affective and cognitive valuation of external stimuli, either for their artistic or other intrinsic qualities. Pearce et al. (2016) effectively distinguish between the cognitive neuroscience of art and aesthetics, arguing that an appropriate conceptualisation of neuroaesthetics must consider artistic stimuli not merely in aesthetic terms but through a broader context of modulating factors, such as expertise, perceived value, and complex emotional states.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -08651-9_4#:~

Note, there are loads of research on the neuroaesthetics basis of beauty from within a specific human-based neuroaesthetics FSK that enable "facts of beauty" to emerge.

Problem is you are so rigid and dogmatic that you are stuck with your linguistic-FSK-facts believing they are absolute and independent of human conditions; your sort of 'facts' [just-is, being-so] are actually noumenon, illusory, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical.

[Peter Holmes]

My principle;
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK which is objective.

False. A description is objective because it relies on facts, which are features of reality that are or were the case. Those facts have nothing to do with knowledge or description. To quote: 'knowledge and descriptions cannot produce facts'. (VA)

Objectivity of an FSK comes in degrees, say 0 to 100/100.

Codswallop. Fake and completely unevidenced scalar measurement.

Therefore there are 'facts of beauty' as conditioned within a human-based beauty FSK.
For example, it is an objective fact that R'Bonney Gabriel is Miss Universe 2022 but that is conditioned upon the human_based-Miss_Universe-FSK.
Do you deny this fact?

Yes. The fact that people may think a thing is beautiful/ugly does not make it a fact that it is beautiful/ugly. Same goes for moral goodness/evil.

'This painting [e.g. Mona Lisa] is beautiful' is an objective fact within certain human-based artistic-FSK. The Mona Lisa came out top in most ranking of 'most beautiful' painting.
However, we cannot take that as absolute but must always conditioned it to a specific human-based artistic-FSK.

Because the Mona Lisa is regarded as the most beautiful painting in an almost Universal state, there must be something [neural correlates] in the brains of those humans that trigger them to rate the Mona Lisa is regarded as the most beautiful painting.
These neural correlates are then the objective facts as qualified to the specific human-based neuro-artistic-FSK.

Beauty is often predominantly measured in terms of positive affective response to aesthetic stimuli, such as paintings, physically attractive faces and natural scenes, or even the activation of a subset of distinct brain regions, such as the orbitofrontal cortex, a frequent criticism of scientific reductionism levied by colleagues in the humanities (Brown & Dissanayake, 2009).

Within the field of neuroaesthetics, however, the aesthetic experience is not merely reduced to the perception and appreciation of beauty however the global affective and cognitive valuation of external stimuli, either for their artistic or other intrinsic qualities. Pearce et al. (2016) effectively distinguish between the cognitive neuroscience of art and aesthetics, arguing that an appropriate conceptualisation of neuroaesthetics must consider artistic stimuli not merely in aesthetic terms but through a broader context of modulating factors, such as expertise, perceived value, and complex emotional states.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -08651-9_4#:~

Note, there are loads of research on the neuroaesthetics basis of beauty from within a specific human-based neuroaesthetics FSK that enable "facts of beauty" to emerge.

Problem is you are so rigid and dogmatic that you are stuck with your linguistic-FSK-facts believing they are absolute and independent of human conditions; your sort of 'facts' [just-is, being-so] are actually noumenon, illusory, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical.

Same mistake, over and over again. 'Here's why people think X is the case; therefore (it's a fact that) X is the case'.

Try very hard to understand why this is a fallacy. You could try the 'deep reflective thinking' that you recommend for others. Who knows? The penny may drop at last.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My principle;
All facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK which is objective.

False. A description is objective because it relies on facts, which are features of reality that are or were the case. Those facts have nothing to do with knowledge or description. To quote: 'knowledge and descriptions cannot produce facts'. (VA)

Objectivity of an FSK comes in degrees, say 0 to 100/100.

Codswallop. Fake and completely unevidenced scalar measurement.

STRAWMAN!!
You deliberately ignore my points [repeated my times] of the prior process within a FSK that concern entanglement, emergence and realization before a human-based fact is known and described.

Therefore there are 'facts of beauty' as conditioned within a human-based beauty FSK.
For example, it is an objective fact that R'Bonney Gabriel is Miss Universe 2022 but that is conditioned upon the human_based-Miss_Universe-FSK.
Do you deny this fact?

Yes. The fact that people may think a thing is beautiful/ugly does not make it a fact that it is beautiful/ugly. Same goes for moral goodness/evil.

It is not a fact based on your illusory definition of 'what is fact'.

According to my human-based-FSK fact, it is an objective fact that R'Bonney Gabriel is Miss Universe 2022 as qualified to the human_based-Miss_Universe-FSK.
You deny this?

That is no different from, that it is an objective -political fact that Biden is the 46th President of the USA, which must be qualified to the US-political-FSK grounded on the US Constitution.
Most Trump supporters do not accept the above as a fact according to their beliefs and FSK.

'This painting [e.g. Mona Lisa] is beautiful' is an objective fact within certain human-based artistic-FSK. The Mona Lisa came out top in most ranking of 'most beautiful' painting.
However, we cannot take that as absolute but must always conditioned it to a specific human-based artistic-FSK.

Because the Mona Lisa is regarded as the most beautiful painting in an almost Universal state, there must be something [neural correlates] in the brains of those humans that trigger them to rate the Mona Lisa is regarded as the most beautiful painting.
These neural correlates are then the objective facts as qualified to the specific human-based neuro-artistic-FSK.

Beauty is often predominantly measured in terms of positive affective response to aesthetic stimuli, such as paintings, physically attractive faces and natural scenes, or even the activation of a subset of distinct brain regions, such as the orbitofrontal cortex, a frequent criticism of scientific reductionism levied by colleagues in the humanities (Brown & Dissanayake, 2009).

Within the field of neuroaesthetics, however, the aesthetic experience is not merely reduced to the perception and appreciation of beauty however the global affective and cognitive valuation of external stimuli, either for their artistic or other intrinsic qualities. Pearce et al. (2016) effectively distinguish between the cognitive neuroscience of art and aesthetics, arguing that an appropriate conceptualisation of neuroaesthetics must consider artistic stimuli not merely in aesthetic terms but through a broader context of modulating factors, such as expertise, perceived value, and complex emotional states.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -08651-9_4#:~

Note, there are loads of research on the neuroaesthetics basis of beauty from within a specific human-based neuroaesthetics FSK that enable "facts of beauty" to emerge.

Problem is you are so rigid and dogmatic that you are stuck with your linguistic-FSK-facts believing they are absolute and independent of human conditions; your sort of 'facts' [just-is, being-so] are actually noumenon, illusory, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical.

Same mistake, over and over again. 'Here's why people think X is the case; therefore (it's a fact that) X is the case'.

Try very hard to understand why this is a fallacy. You could try the 'deep reflective thinking' that you recommend for others. Who knows? The penny may drop at last.

Your imaginary 'just is' 'being so' and 'X is the case' again without qualification and no FSK!
Your thinking is delusional in this case.

Why 'it is the case' is because it is qualified to the specific human-based neuroaesthetics FSK.
Whatever is a fact must be qualified to a specific human-based-FSK, not because, you, your father, mother or your pet monkey insist it is.

[Peter Holmes]

VA, try again with the following argument.

I/we/all of us think that X is the case; therefore, (within a framework and system of knowledge, it's a fact that) X is the case.

I assume you understand why this is a fallacy. But please say if you don't think it is, and explain why.

[Skepdick]

VA, try again with the following argument.

I/we/all of us think that X is the case; therefore, (within a framework and system of knowledge, it's a fact that) X is the case.

I assume you understand why this is a fallacy. But please say if you don't think it is, and explain why.

So if we all think that VA's mode of reasoning is a fallacy, therefore (within the framework and system of right and wrong reasoning) that doesn't mean it's a fallacy?

What makes VA's mode of reasoning a "fallacy"?
Who defined what a "fallacy" is?
Who determined that what VA is doing fits the definition of "fallacy"?

Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes strikes again. Now he's peddling standards for right and wrong reasoning.

bUt MoRalITy isN't ObjECtiVe

[Peter Holmes]

VA, please try again with the following argument.

I/we/all of us think that X is the case; therefore, (within a framework and system of knowledge, it's a fact that) X is the case.

I assume you understand why this is a fallacy. But please say if you don't think it is, and explain why.

Btw, it's fine to use words and other signs in non-standard ways. And it's fine not to follow the rules of classical deductive logic, which set out what counts as validity and soundness. There's no compulsion. A heroic non servam is always an option, though it makes communication difficult, if not impossible.

[Skepdick]

VA, please try again with the following argument.

I/we/all of us think that X is the case; therefore, (within a framework and system of knowledge, it's a fact that) X is the case.

I assume you understand why this is a fallacy. But please say if you don't think it is, and explain why.

Btw, it's fine to use words and other signs in non-standard ways. And it's fine not to follow the rules of classical deductive logic, which set out what counts as validity and soundness. There's no compulsion. A heroic non servam is always an option, though it makes communication difficult, if not impossible.

Great!

Let X be the rules of classical deductive logic; or the rules of chess; or the rules of grammar.

In the words of Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes even if we all think that the rules of classical deductive logic are the case that doesn't mean that the rules of classical deductive logic are the case. So what makes the rules of classical deductive logic "the case"?

In the words of Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes even if we all think that the rules of chess are the case that doesn't mean that the rules of chess are the case. So what makes the rules of chess "the case"?

In the words of Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes even if we all think that the rules of grammar are the case that doesn't mean that the rules of grammar are the case. So what makes the rules of grammar "the case"?

What a fucking blithering idiot.

[Peter Holmes]

VA, please try again with the following argument.

I/we/all of us think that X is the case; therefore, (within a framework and system of knowledge, it's a fact that) X is the case.

I assume you understand why this is a fallacy. But please say if you don't think it is, and explain why.

Btw, it's fine to use words and other signs in non-standard ways. And it's fine not to follow the rules of classical deductive logic, which set out what counts as validity and soundness. There's no compulsion. A heroic non servam is always an option, though it makes communication difficult, if not impossible.

[Skepdick]

VA, please try again with the following argument.

I/we/all of us think that X is the case; therefore, (within a framework and system of knowledge, it's a fact that) X is the case.

I assume you understand why this is a fallacy. But please say if you don't think it is, and explain why.

Btw, it's fine to use words and other signs in non-standard ways. And it's fine not to follow the rules of classical deductive logic, which set out what counts as validity and soundness. There's no compulsion. A heroic non servam is always an option, though it makes communication difficult, if not impossible.

Great!

Let X be the rules of classical deductive logic; or the rules of chess; or the rules of grammar.

In the words of Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes even if we all think that the rules of classical deductive logic are the case that doesn't mean that the rules of classical deductive logic are the case. So what makes the rules of classical deductive logic "the case"?

In the words of Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes even if we all think that the rules of chess are the case that doesn't mean that the rules of chess are the case. So what makes the rules of chess "the case"?

In the words of Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes even if we all think that the rules of grammar are the case that doesn't mean that the rules of grammar are the case. So what makes the rules of grammar "the case"?

What a fucking blithering idiot.

P.S I'm taking monetary bets on Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes dodging the questions.

[Peter Holmes]

VA, please try again with the following argument.

I/we/all of us think that X is the case; therefore, (within a framework and system of knowledge, it's a fact that) X is the case.

I assume you understand why this is a fallacy. But please say if you don't think it is, and explain why.

[Skepdick]

VA, please try again with the following argument.

I/we/all of us think that X is the case; therefore, (within a framework and system of knowledge, it's a fact that) X is the case.

I assume you understand why this is a fallacy. But please say if you don't think it is, and explain why.

VA, please try again with the following argument.

I/we/all of us think that X is the case; therefore, (within a framework and system of knowledge, it's a fact that) X is the case.

I assume you understand why this is a fallacy. But please say if you don't think it is, and explain why.

Btw, it's fine to use words and other signs in non-standard ways. And it's fine not to follow the rules of classical deductive logic, which set out what counts as validity and soundness. There's no compulsion. A heroic non servam is always an option, though it makes communication difficult, if not impossible.

Great!

Let X be the rules of classical deductive logic; or the rules of chess; or the rules of grammar.

In the words of Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes even if we all think that the rules of classical deductive logic are the case that doesn't mean that the rules of classical deductive logic are the case. So what makes the rules of classical deductive logic "the case"?

In the words of Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes even if we all think that the rules of chess are the case that doesn't mean that the rules of chess are the case. So what makes the rules of chess "the case"?

In the words of Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes even if we all think that the rules of grammar are the case that doesn't mean that the rules of grammar are the case. So what makes the rules of grammar "the case"?

What a fucking blithering idiot.

P.S I'm taking monetary bets on Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes dodging the questions.

[Peter Holmes]

VA, please try again with the following argument.

I/we/all of us think that X is the case; therefore, (within a framework and system of knowledge, it's a fact that) X is the case.

I assume you understand why this is a fallacy. But please say if you don't think it is, and explain why.

[Skepdick]

VA, please try again with the following argument.

I/we/all of us think that X is the case; therefore, (within a framework and system of knowledge, it's a fact that) X is the case.

I assume you understand why this is a fallacy. But please say if you don't think it is, and explain why.

VA, please try again with the following argument.

I/we/all of us think that X is the case; therefore, (within a framework and system of knowledge, it's a fact that) X is the case.

I assume you understand why this is a fallacy. But please say if you don't think it is, and explain why.

Btw, it's fine to use words and other signs in non-standard ways. And it's fine not to follow the rules of classical deductive logic, which set out what counts as validity and soundness. There's no compulsion. A heroic non servam is always an option, though it makes communication difficult, if not impossible.

Great!

Let X be the rules of classical deductive logic; or the rules of chess; or the rules of grammar.

In the words of Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes even if we all think that the rules of classical deductive logic are the case that doesn't mean that the rules of classical deductive logic are the case. So what makes the rules of classical deductive logic "the case"?

In the words of Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes even if we all think that the rules of chess are the case that doesn't mean that the rules of chess are the case. So what makes the rules of chess "the case"?

In the words of Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes even if we all think that the rules of grammar are the case that doesn't mean that the rules of grammar are the case. So what makes the rules of grammar "the case"?

What a fucking blithering idiot.

P.S I'm taking monetary bets on Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes dodging the questions.

Locus Solum: From the rules of logic to the logic of rules

[Peter Holmes]

Would anyone like to have a civilised conversation about the following argument?

I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case.

I think this a non sequitur fallacy. But does anyone think it isn't?

[Skepdick]

Would anyone like to have a civilised conversation about the following argument?

I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case.

I think this a non sequitur fallacy. But does anyone think it isn't?

Yep. You think it isn't.

For X in [ "the rules of classical deductive logic", ; "the rules of chess", "the rules of grammar" ]