What could make morality objective?

[Iwannaplato]

A question for so-called-anti-realists and idealists - and for VA, if you find it difficult to answer my question about quantum systems:

Do you think that quantum systems didn't exist before they were entangled with, emerged, realised, known about and incompletely described by humans, within the human-based quantum mechanics framework and system of knowledge? And do you think quantum systems wouldn't exist had all that stuff not occurred?

If not, then I suggest your philosophical/ontological position is untenable.

And there's always the occasionally mentioned Big Bang.

[Peter Holmes]

A question for so-called-anti-realists and idealists - and for VA, if you find it difficult to answer my question about quantum systems:

Do you think that quantum systems didn't exist before they were entangled with, emerged, realised, known about and incompletely described by humans, within the human-based quantum mechanics framework and system of knowledge? And do you think quantum systems wouldn't exist had all that stuff not occurred?

If not, then I suggest your philosophical/ontological position is untenable.

And there's always the occasionally mentioned Big Bang.

Of course. I'm wondering if just once VA will find the honesty and self-awareness to acknowledge what he knows damn well. Trouble is, there's no way out. To do so is to demolish his ridiculous house of cards. So it ain't gonna happen.

[Iwannaplato]

A question for so-called-anti-realists and idealists - and for VA, if you find it difficult to answer my question about quantum systems:

Do you think that quantum systems didn't exist before they were entangled with, emerged, realised, known about and incompletely described by humans, within the human-based quantum mechanics framework and system of knowledge? And do you think quantum systems wouldn't exist had all that stuff not occurred?

If not, then I suggest your philosophical/ontological position is untenable.

And there's always the occasionally mentioned Big Bang.

Of course. I'm wondering if just once VA will find the honesty and self-awareness to acknowledge what he knows damn well. Trouble is, there's no way out. To do so is to demolish his ridiculous house of cards. So it ain't gonna happen.

Well, he's shown images of what things are like when no one is looking and what it was like before the quantum foam fell out of superposition. That might take a few moments to sink in.

And frankly what about mirror neurons. We aren't looking at those? Only a few surgeons and then not those active in us or supposedly active in us. And entire morality based on things that don't exist since they're not being looked at.

And then the first organisms creating their nutrient and the rest of the primoridal soup and a little sunshine falling down on I suppose a little portion of what would become the earth. It's a kind of creationism, with tiny deity organisms.

No, it's more than creationism. God didn't make himself, at least in most conceptions of God. But these organisms made themselves and what they needed to survive. They are meta-deities.

[Peter Holmes]

And there's always the occasionally mentioned Big Bang.

Of course. I'm wondering if just once VA will find the honesty and self-awareness to acknowledge what he knows damn well. Trouble is, there's no way out. To do so is to demolish his ridiculous house of cards. So it ain't gonna happen.

Well, he's shown images of what things are like when no one is looking and what it was like before the quantum foam fell out of superposition. That might take a few moments to sink in.

And frankly what about mirror neurons. We aren't looking at those? Only a few surgeons and then not those active in us or supposedly active in us. And entire morality based on things that don't exist since they're not being looked at.

And then the first organisms creating their nutrient and the rest of the primoridal soup and a little sunshine falling down on I suppose a little portion of what would become the earth. It's a kind of creationism, with tiny deity organisms.

No, it's more than creationism. God didn't make himself, at least in most conceptions of God. But these organisms made themselves and what they needed to survive. They are meta-deities.

Yep. I think you're right about that. It's a strange kind of inverted theism, with omni-humans somehow magicking reality into existence.

And the irony to all this is that it's perfectly rational to think that humans ought not to kill humans - because such a moral belief or value is rationally explicable, for example on the ground of reciprocity. In my opinion - and, fortunately for me and mine, in most other people's.

[Skepdick]

Yep. I think you're right about that. It's a strange kind of inverted theism, with omni-humans somehow magicking reality into existence.

Are you sure they are magicking reality into existence? Are you sure they aren't magicking existence into reality?

[Skepdick]

And the irony to all this is that it's perfectly rational to think that humans ought not to kill humans - because such a moral belief or value is rationally explicable, for example on the ground of reciprocity.

Reciprocity doesn't work unless hypocrisy is objectively wrong.

Otherwise it's perfectly rational to have a rule where it's wrong for you to murder but it's not wrong for you to be murdered.

In any case - you are only paying lip service to recirprocity. You want to question but you don't want to be questioned.

[Iwannaplato]

Yep. I think you're right about that. It's a strange kind of inverted theism, with omni-humans somehow magicking reality into existence.

And the irony to all this is that it's perfectly rational to think that humans ought not to kill humans - because such a moral belief or value is rationally explicable, for example on the ground of reciprocity. In my opinion - and, fortunately for me and mine, in most other people's.

I do think, however, that VA's approach is actually productive in a positive way. I think he googles his way to philosophers and other professionals or research online that support his views or seem to, or attack your views or seem to. Unfortunately, or I would argue fortunately, the lack of fit these articles and ideas have mean that he has to do a lot of rear guard actions and try to fix the new problems created by the positions he takes on. And then we others in the forum get to see: hm, does this actually fit with other things he is saying. Sometimes the article he quotes, if one reads the whole thing which I suspect he sometimes does not, goes against what he is saying. But often one must then also, like he has to, juggle this bricolage of positions and mull over their compatibility.

I find it interesting. And let's face it for a kind of moral realist, he's not run of the mill. He's a kind of moral realist but an ontological antirealist (not just an epistemological antirealist, a position Skepdick puts forward occasionally). Though VA does seem to forget what this entails on occasion and shows us things not perceived. He bases his morality on what he calls oughtnesses in the brain.

The bricolage aspects of this make for different positions (sets of positions) to mull over.

Compare the productivity from that with a discussion with a traditional Abrahamist moral realist. VA gets us juggling a wider variety of balls.

I'm not trying to sweep other facets of his communication under the rug, but I think this aspect is present also.

[Peter Holmes]

Yep. I think you're right about that. It's a strange kind of inverted theism, with omni-humans somehow magicking reality into existence.

And the irony to all this is that it's perfectly rational to think that humans ought not to kill humans - because such a moral belief or value is rationally explicable, for example on the ground of reciprocity. In my opinion - and, fortunately for me and mine, in most other people's.

I do think, however, that VA's approach is actually productive in a positive way. I think he googles his way to philosophers and other professionals or research online that support his views or seem to, or attack your views or seem to. Unfortunately, or I would argue fortunately, the lack of fit these articles and ideas have mean that he has to do a lot of rear guard actions and try to fix the new problems created by the positions he takes on. And then we others in the forum get to see: hm, does this actually fit with other things he is saying. Sometimes the article he quotes, if one reads the whole thing which I suspect he sometimes does not, goes against what he is saying. But often one must then also, like he has to, juggle this bricolage of positions and mull over their compatibility.

I find it interesting. And let's face it for a kind of moral realist, he's not run of the mill. He's a kind of moral realist but an ontological antirealist (not just an epistemological antirealist, a position Skepdick puts forward occasionally). Though VA does seem to forget what this entails on occasion and shows us things not perceived. He bases his morality on what he calls oughtnesses in the brain.

The bricolage aspects of this make for different positions (sets of positions) to mull over.

Compare the productivity from that with a discussion with a traditional Abrahamist moral realist. VA gets us juggling a wider variety of balls.

I'm not trying to sweep other facets of his communication under the rug, but I think this aspect is present also.

Okay. I like 'bricolage of positions', though I'd guess he'd resent the idea that his is a bric-a-brac or tourist-tat shop of junk. Which it is. Though I love em. Always the chance of a real find, like a reading recommendation that FDP likes, or a neglected straight razor in a dive on Symi, that honed and shaves beautifully. (Too much souma.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

A question for so-called-anti-realists and idealists:

Do you think quantum systems didn't exist before humans perceived, knew about and incompletely described them - and that they wouldn't exist had they not been perceived, known about and incompletely described?

If not, then I suggest your philosophical/ontological position is untenable.

All facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a human-based-FSK.
The facts of quantum systems are conditioned upon a human-based-QM-FSK.
Therefore, if there are no humans, there is no human-based-QM-FSK to enable QM systems to be realized, then perceived, known and described.

That doesn't answer the question. Do you think quantum systems didn't exist before humans perceived, knew about and described them - and that they wouldn't exist had they not been perceived, known about and described?

No need to rehearse your fsk argument. Please answer the question honestly.

Philosophical Realists are trapped in a the Spider Monkey Syndrome, i.e. unable to shift paradigms or toggle between them where necessary.
https://mikepalma.wordpress.com/2010/09 ... y-or-myth/


Since you are infected with the above Spider Monkey Syndrome, there is no way for you to understand [not necessary agree] to the truths and reality I had explained to you.

You don't even understand the principles of QM, i.e. which is based on uncertainties, probabilities, suppositions, wave function collapse.

Quantum Systems, i.e. the QM FSK is created by humans.
Thus my answer above, no humans, no quantum system.

The question you should ask is,
Do the things QM refers to exist before humans exists?
According to the principles of QM, those QM things exist only when they are observed [measured] within human conditions upon the wave function collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
Therefore no humans, no things, i.e. no human based QM-FSK things.

It would be more refined for you to question,
did the the Big Bang occur before humans existed?
that is because it is the Big Bang that preceded whatever your QM system and things?

The Big Bang [a scientific theory] is an empirical possibility if there were humans to observe it.
But the Big Bang is conditioned upon the human based science-physics-Cosmological FSK. How else?
As such the Big Bang is grounded upon the human conditions.

Since all of reality is grounded on the Big Bang,
then, all of reality is grounded on the human conditions.

Skepdick also provided a good answer to your question,
but due to being trapped by an evolutionary default to primal thinking, you are blinded to the truth.

Skepdick: What do questions containing the word "before" even mean if we take humans out of the picture? What or where is "the past"? Where does it exist, except in memories?

The point here is your question is grounded on time, i.e. before and after [if humans are extinct].
'Time' is a human invention, not something that exists independent of the human conditions.
Thus, ultimately whatever the answer, it is not independent of the human conditions that you are expecting as being entrapped by the evolutionary default of realism.

As a realist [philosophical] you are entrapped with the sense of externalness, i.e. mind-independence or human-conditions-independence.
Thus whatever there is, just is or being so MUST be independent from the human conditions and can only be known, perceived and described independently by humans.

Because it is an evolutionary default [instincts] even the smartest people like Einstein will insist there must be something existing out there independent of the human conditions.

This was where Kant warned;

• Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions of realism}.
  After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

You are relying on an evolutionary default of realism that lead to an illusion when taken as ultimate.
Your version of 'what is fact' is delusional, thus, your version of 'what is moral fact' is also delusional.

A critical point is;
When you adopt realism [philosophical], i.e. independent external things, then you are expose and are very vulnerable in leaving yours and humanity's well-being to the mercy of what is out there. Humans are not in control of their well-being.

But with anti-realism [i.e. Kantian and its like] then reality all-there-is is entangled with the human conditions, thus enabling humans to be in control [in this case, morality] at least to some degrees in optimizing their well-being and that of humanity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay. I like 'bricolage of positions', though I'd guess he'd resent the idea that his is a bric-a-brac or tourist-tat shop of junk. Which it is. Though I love em. Always the chance of a real find, like a reading recommendation that FDP likes, or a neglected straight razor in a dive on Symi, that honed and shaves beautifully. (Too much souma.)

It is my wish and hope that you will NEVER agree with my views.
It is your continual disagreements [dogmatic] and ignorance [plus one of Sculptor's insult] that has leveraged and triggered me to expand my database of Morality and Ethics up to now with >1600 files in 95 Folders in my Morality & Ethics Folder. [that is beside a separate Kantian Ethics in another folder]

If you were to agree with me, then, there is nothing to discuss, thus, there will be no more incentives and drives to trigger me to expand my database of Morality and Ethics.

It is my wish and hope that you will NEVER agree with my views and evolution is on my side. It is never easy [due to the threat of cold turkey] for one to be trapped in an evolutionary default, e.g. philosophical realism to switch paradigm as what is going on with the current majority, even high IQ Einstein!

[Peter Holmes]

So, 'reality is entangled with the human conditions'. But 'humans are the co-creators of reality'. And no humans = no quantum reality = no reality at all = no humans.

Which is it: entanglement or co-creation? Or is it both?

With whom or what do humans co-create reality? And how does it happen? We need to know!

Do humans co-create reality and only then get all entangled with this creation? Or are we already entangled with it before this co-creation occurs? But then, how can we co-create a thing with which we're already entangled? Or is there no 'before', because it's all 'now'?

The mystical atmosphere down this rabbit hole is so turbid that it's hard to see the metaphors coming, or catch and nail them down.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, 'reality is entangled with the human conditions'. But 'humans are the co-creators of reality'. And no humans = no quantum reality = no reality at all = no humans.

Which is it: entanglement or co-creation? Or is it both?

With whom or what do humans co-create reality? And how does it happen? We need to know!

Do humans co-create reality and only then get all entangled with this creation? Or are we already entangled with it before this co-creation occurs? But then, how can we co-create a thing with which we're already entangled? Or is there no 'before', because it's all 'now'?

The mystical atmosphere down this rabbit hole is so turbid that it's hard to see the metaphors coming, or catch and nail them down.

As I had mentioned somewhere you need to differentiate the TOP-DOWN and BOTTOM-UP approach as referred to in Hawking's Final Theory and elsewhere.
Hawking: My 'Brief History of Time' was Wrong.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39961

Hawking's initial Brief History of Time' was based on the BOTTOM-UP approach which he admitted was wrong and he changed his views to the TOP-DOWN approach which is more realistic.

Your current approach, re realism [philosophical] is based on the BOTTOM-UP approach which is actually mystical and woo woo.
In your BOTTOM-UP approach, you assumed as with those of your like, there is something-X down there independent of the human conditions, i.e. whatever is perceived, known and described, to match that something -X at the BOTTOM.
Your something-X as fact is a feature of reality, which is just-is, being-so and that which is the case.
You cannot tell me what exactly that something-X is just-what? and being-what?

On the other hand, I rely on the TOP-DOWN approach.
What is at the TOP in this case are whatever the things that are based on empirical evidences as verified and justified via a credible and reliable human-based FSK.
Whatever the thing is, I will take it as real as far as the evidence can support it as verified and justified within a credible and reliable human-based FSK.

You have this screwed up view that things are limited to what is perceived, known and described, but is totally ignorant that you are entangled with it, then it emerged and is realized before it is perceived, known and described.

Here is an example, which hopefully you can grasp it.
When a baby is born how it is that it is able to direct its attention to the mother nipple even before it perceived, know and describe it.
It is the same with many other animals which are born so small, e.g. the joey [kangaroo] which climbed to its mother's pouch where is nipple is, without perceiving, knowing or being informed by description of those facts you claimed pre-exists.
In this case, the organisms or humans are pre-entangled with whatever the reality [relative not absolute].

Whatever the subsequent reality to an organism, it is conditioned by a a priori conditions and nurturing factors. In this case, the organism is in a way a co-creator of its reality.

There is no absolute, fixed or standard reality that is awaiting an organism to discover.
Whatever the reality to a living thing it is relative to the specific FSK within or adopted by the organism.

To understand as to what is realized, the most realistic is to adopt the TOP-DOWN approach, i.e. starting from experience, then to empirical evidence, verified and justified via a credible FSK.

It is delusional in your case of adopting an assumed absolute, fixed and standard reality out there awaiting to be discovered, then perceived, known and described.
You are so ignorant that you are the one who is chasing something mystical and woo woo, and when asked to justify it, you cannot prove it at all, other than to say it is just-is, being-so and that is the case.

If you asked me, say the apple on the table exists, I will take it in my hands, feel it, smell it and ask you to do the same and in addition eat it to be more certain.
If you are still skeptical it is exists as real, then we can refer to a scientific lab to test it within the scientific-FSK conditions to confirm it is a real apple comprising apple qualities, molecules and atoms of what a real apple is supposed to make up of, etc.
Where is the mystery and woo in this TOP-DOWN approach?

Your BOTTOM-UP merely assumed there is a real apple based on words that mean what is an apple that is just-is, being-so and that is the case. This word based confirmation is mystical and woo.

[FlashDangerpants]

my database of Morality and Ethics up to now with >1600 files in 95 Folders in my Morality & Ethics Folder. [that is beside a separate Kantian Ethics in another folder]

That's really quite sad.

[FlashDangerpants]

Yep. I think you're right about that. It's a strange kind of inverted theism, with omni-humans somehow magicking reality into existence.

And the irony to all this is that it's perfectly rational to think that humans ought not to kill humans - because such a moral belief or value is rationally explicable, for example on the ground of reciprocity. In my opinion - and, fortunately for me and mine, in most other people's.

I do think, however, that VA's approach is actually productive in a positive way. I think he googles his way to philosophers and other professionals or research online that support his views or seem to, or attack your views or seem to. Unfortunately, or I would argue fortunately, the lack of fit these articles and ideas have mean that he has to do a lot of rear guard actions and try to fix the new problems created by the positions he takes on. And then we others in the forum get to see: hm, does this actually fit with other things he is saying. Sometimes the article he quotes, if one reads the whole thing which I suspect he sometimes does not, goes against what he is saying. But often one must then also, like he has to, juggle this bricolage of positions and mull over their compatibility.

I find it interesting. And let's face it for a kind of moral realist, he's not run of the mill. He's a kind of moral realist but an ontological antirealist (not just an epistemological antirealist, a position Skepdick puts forward occasionally). Though VA does seem to forget what this entails on occasion and shows us things not perceived. He bases his morality on what he calls oughtnesses in the brain.

The bricolage aspects of this make for different positions (sets of positions) to mull over.

Compare the productivity from that with a discussion with a traditional Abrahamist moral realist. VA gets us juggling a wider variety of balls.

I'm not trying to sweep other facets of his communication under the rug, but I think this aspect is present also.

Okay. I like 'bricolage of positions', though I'd guess he'd resent the idea that his is a bric-a-brac or tourist-tat shop of junk. Which it is. Though I love em. Always the chance of a real find, like a reading recommendation that FDP likes, or a neglected straight razor in a dive on Symi, that honed and shaves beautifully. (Too much souma.)

Incidentally it turns out the essay I was reading there is the one that he (after reading it "at least 20 times") thinks argues that Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality

We knew already that no such argument is made, but the next sentence in the book explicitly shows that the argument is not what VA reported in that thread. His error cannot be explained by any accidental misreading that could happen to anybody if they go too fast or something, he is either profoundly unable to comprehend or else is maliciously choosing to misrepresent. So it wouldn't even matter if he were to actually read those 1600 files he has pointlessly sorted into 95 folders, he cannot read a philosophical argument at all because he lacks the ability to analyse arguments.

[Iwannaplato]

my database of Morality and Ethics up to now with >1600 files in 95 Folders in my Morality & Ethics Folder. [that is beside a separate Kantian Ethics in another folder]

That's really quite sad.

You say that because you only have 1400 files.