What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

A question for those who think the mind is a non-physical substance which contains non-physical things and events.

Is the mind a concept formed in the way concepts are supposed to be formed?

If so, where is the concept of the mind formed?

If not, what kind of thing is the mind, and is there any evidence for its existence?

[Skepdick]

A question for those who think the mind is a non-physical substance which contains non-physical things and events.

Is the mind a concept formed in the way concepts are supposed to be formed?

If so, where is the concept of the mind formed?

If not, what kind of thing is the mind, and is there any evidence for its existence?

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes: Don't confuse the description with the described.
Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes: Don't confuse what we say about things for what things are.

also Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes: Heeds both of his own warnings and gets confused by "physical" things.

Suppose we are wrong and everything turned out to be non-physical - how would anything we currently describe as "physical" be any diferent?

Keep chasing that tail - maybe one day you'll catch it.

[Iwannaplato]

Suppose we are wrong and everything turned out to be non-physical - how would anything we currently describe as "physical" be any diferent?

This is part of what I was getting at in an earlier post. We've been immersed in mind and/or only mind since always. Out of experiencing we've come to label some things physical - back in history we always retained room for mind stuff. And what are the qualities of the physical: well we use experiencing, certain parts of it, to build up an idea of what the physical is like. Then in more recent history we started finding that the physical was actually really weird - and we kept up trying to describe this as best we could with metaphors and models using thing from that more traditionally physical stuff, again with experiencing qualities.

If you are a physicalist, well it seems like the least assumptions to be a physicalist and other people have a burden. You have to go back to its roots to realize it is not the default. And it could easily be argued, as many idealist do that if you check physicalist arguments, they are fruit of the poison tree based.

[Skepdick]

Suppose we are wrong and everything turned out to be non-physical - how would anything we currently describe as "physical" be any diferent?

This is part of what I was getting at in an earlier post. We've been immersed in mind and/or only mind since always. Out of experiencing we've come to label some things physical - back in history we always retained room for mind stuff. And what are the qualities of the physical: well we use experiencing, certain parts of it, to build up an idea of what the physical is like. Then in more recent history we started finding that the physical was actually really weird - and we kept up trying to describe this as best we could with metaphors and models using thing from that more traditionally physical stuff, again with experiencing qualities.

If you are a physicalist, well it seems like the least assumptions to be a physicalist and other people have a burden. You have to go back to its roots to realize it is not the default. And it could easily be argued, as many idealist do that if you check physicalist arguments, they are fruit of the poison tree based.

The question "What are the qualities of the physical?" is misguided.

All adjectives express qualia e.g the quality of being "physical", so your question amounts to asking "What's the quality of a quality?"

In so far as intellectual combat goes I think "My adjectives and qualifications are better than your adjectives and qualifications" is a silly way to go about things...

If you want one obvious reason as to why Mathematics is the prefered language for scientists/physicists/engineers - it's because it only contains verbs and nouns. The language's built-in limitations prevent you from falling into the rabbit hole of adjectives, adverbs and qualifications.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A question for those who think the mind is a non-physical substance which contains non-physical things and events.

Is the mind a concept formed in the way concepts are supposed to be formed?

If so, where is the concept of the mind formed?

If not, what kind of thing is the mind, and is there any evidence for its existence?

I have already argued why you believe there is no "mind" is because your grounding of what is fact and reality is illusory, mystical, nonsensical, meaningless, etc.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

A question for those who think the mind is a non-physical substance which contains non-physical things and events.

As far as I am concerned, the above is a strawman!

What is fact, truth and knowledge is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.

Generally, what is mind, i.e.
"the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought," - Google Dict..

"(in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.:"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mind

The mind exists as a fact as conditioned by the following FSK and conditioned upon the brain [science-biology-FSK];
1. Psycho-biological -FSK
2. Psychology-FSK
3. Psychiatry-FSK
4. Other FSKs, social, etc.

As such, the above qualifications as to what is mind are critical and imperative.

It is silly to state as in your terms "the mind is a non-physical substance which contains non-physical things and events" without any qualifications at all.

Is the mind a concept formed in the way concepts are supposed to be formed?
If so, where is the concept of the mind formed?
If not, what kind of thing is the mind, and is there any evidence for its existence?

Note a concept is merely a thought, an abstracted idea, thus empty when deliberated merely by the intellect.

But a human-based FSK fact of what-is-mind is not purely a concept but rather that which is physical in combination with the concept emerging and realized via a specific human based FSK which is conditioned within all conditions tracing back to the Big Bang.

The human-based FSK mind exists as real within the 1. Psycho-biological -FSK, 2. Psychology-FSK, 3. Psychiatry-FSK, etc.
The FSK reality of a mind can be easily verified and justified via repeatable testing.

It is well-known the state-of-mind [FSK] of a person can be changed via various methods, brainwashing, self-development, brain-damage, drugs. etc.

[Peter Holmes]

But a human-based FSK fact of what-is-mind is not purely a concept but rather that which is physical in combination with the concept emerging and realized via a specific human based FSK which is conditioned within all conditions tracing back to the Big Bang.

The human-based FSK mind exists as real within the 1. Psycho-biological -FSK, 2. Psychology-FSK, 3. Psychiatry-FSK, etc.

What complete drivel.

The FSK reality of a mind can be easily verified and justified via repeatable testing.

Nonsense. There has never been a test that demonstrates the existence of a non-physical mind - or any other non-physical thing. The 'framework and system of knowledge reality of a mind' is meaningless blather.

I think it's time for a human-based-framework-and-system-of-knowledge scotch, followed by a little human-based-framework-and-system-of-knowledge lie down, which has been four billion years in the making.

[Skepdick]

Nonsense. There has never been a test for the existence of a non-physical mind - or any other non-physical thing. The 'framework and system of knowledge reality of a mind' is meaningless blather.

So what's the test for the physicality of a belief?

Are you going to tell us already, or are you going to bullshit us for another 500 pages?

[Iwannaplato]

The question "What are the qualities of the physical?" is misguided.

All adjectives express qualia e.g the quality of being "physical", so your question amounts to asking "What's the quality of a quality?"

That's what I was saying. And the problem is similar if you use criteria instead of qualities. You have to come back to mind/experience.

If you want one obvious reason as to why Mathematics is the prefered language for scientists/physicists/engineers - it's because it only contains verbs and nouns. The language's built-in limitations prevent you from falling into the rabbit hole of adjectives, adverbs and qualifications.

And this is why I don't think it makes sense to use substance at the ontological level (anymore). I think if you try to define the physical - as a physicalist or a dualist (re my posts to PH) you are going to end up talking verbs NOT substance. On the substance level that category keeps changing anyway, it's a hungry amoeba.

[Iwannaplato]

But a human-based FSK fact of what-is-mind is not purely a concept but rather that which is physical in combination with the concept emerging and realized via a specific human based FSK which is conditioned within all conditions tracing back to the Big Bang.

The human-based FSK mind exists as real within the 1. Psycho-biological -FSK, 2. Psychology-FSK, 3. Psychiatry-FSK, etc.

What complete drivel.

The FSK reality of a mind can be easily verified and justified via repeatable testing.

Nonsense. There has never been a test that demonstrates the existence of a non-physical mind - or any other non-physical thing. The 'framework and system of knowledge reality of a mind' is meaningless blather.

I think it's time for a human-based-framework-and-system-of-knowledge scotch, followed by a little human-based-framework-and-system-of-knowledge lie down, which has been four billion years in the making.

I think the question for VA is where is the mind? He has an entangled, not separate interdependent cocreating mind/quantum foam mind. It would not make sense to say it is in the skull.

I don't think this line destroys his postion (at all) but it needs some explaining and might entail conclusions he doesn't like. Even possessive adjectives before mind might be incorrect, depending on his solution. Like 'my mind' wouldn't really make sense, perhaps. You would have mind/tree cocreation, then mind/that lady on the bench - so a kind of series of quite different minds, rather than one mind with different experiences in the realist model.

[Skepdick]

I think the question for VA is where is the mind? He has an entangled, not separate interdependent cocreating mind/quantum foam mind. It would not make sense to say it is in the skull.

I don't think this line destroys his postion (at all) but it needs some explaining and might entail conclusions he doesn't like. Even possessive adjectives before mind might be incorrect, depending on his solution. Like 'my mind' wouldn't really make sense, perhaps. You would have mind/tree cocreation, then mind/that lady on the bench - so a kind of series of quite different minds, rather than one mind with different experiences in the realist model.

Answers to questions of "Where?" require a coordinate system such that locations can be specified.

What sort of coordinate system do you have in *cough* mind? head? when asking the question?

And then you have other sort of problems like... all coordinate systems require some sort of fixed point. A "true zero" relative to which all other locations can be specified.

Where's that which is asking "Where?" questions? Can it be anywhere other than here and now?

[Veritas Aequitas]

But a human-based FSK fact of what-is-mind is not purely a concept but rather that which is physical in combination with the concept emerging and realized via a specific human based FSK which is conditioned within all conditions tracing back to the Big Bang.

The human-based FSK mind exists as real within the
1. Psycho-biological -FSK,
2. Psychology-FSK,
3. Psychiatry-FSK, etc.

What complete drivel.

That exposed your ignorance and blatant denial.
I have already argued, your claims are illusory;

• I have already argued why you believe there is no "mind" is because your grounding of what is fact and reality is illusory, mystical, nonsensical, meaningless, etc.
  
  There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
  
  PH's What is Fact is Illusory
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
  
  PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

........................
Do you deny the following Framework and Systems exist?

• American Psychology Association
  https://www.apa.org/
  APA is the leading scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, with more than 146,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants, and students as its members.
  
  American Psychiatric Association
  https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm
  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) features the most current text updates based on scientific literature with contributions from more than 200 subject matter experts. The revised version includes a new diagnosis (prolonged grief disorder), clarifying modifications to the criteria sets for more than 70 disorders, addition of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, and updates to descriptive text for most disorders based on extensive review of the literature. In addition, DSM-5-TR includes a comprehensive review of the impact of racism and discrimination on the diagnosis and manifestations of mental disorders. The manual will help clinicians and researchers define and classify mental disorders, which can improve diagnoses, treatment, and research.

The existence of Schizophrenia is defined in the The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as real which facilitate its treatment

• Schizophrenia is a chronic brain disorder that affects less than one percent of the U.S. population. When schizophrenia is active, symptoms can include delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, trouble with thinking and lack of motivation. However, with treatment, most symptoms of schizophrenia will greatly improve and the likelihood of a recurrence can be diminished.
  https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-fam ... izophrenia

Schizophrenia is a fact, a states-of-affair and exists as real [as conditioned within the science-psychiatry-FSK] within the patient.
Do you deny Schizophrenia is real?

The FSK reality of a mind can be easily verified and justified via repeatable testing.

Nonsense. There has never been a test that demonstrates the existence of a non-physical mind - or any other non-physical thing. The 'framework and system of knowledge reality of a mind' is meaningless blather.

I think it's time for a human-based-framework-and-system-of-knowledge scotch, followed by a little human-based-framework-and-system-of-knowledge lie down, which has been four billion years in the making.

Your denial is making you very stupid and expose your ignorance.

A real psychology-FSK mind as a fact per the APA is expressed in the following sense;

mind
n.
6. the brain itself and its activities. In this view, the mind essentially is both the anatomical organ and what it does.

https://dictionary.apa.org/mind

The crudest test is a dead human corpse which still have a brain but do not have a mind [a psychological-FSK mind].

The various states of mind of a person alive can be tested in various conditions, e.g. putting someone in coma, using Anaesthetics, drugs, alcohol, hallucinogens, etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think the question for VA is where is the mind? He has an entangled, not separate interdependent cocreating mind/quantum foam mind. It would not make sense to say it is in the skull.

I don't think this line destroys his postion (at all) but it needs some explaining and might entail conclusions he doesn't like. Even possessive adjectives before mind might be incorrect, depending on his solution. Like 'my mind' wouldn't really make sense, perhaps. You would have mind/tree cocreation, then mind/that lady on the bench - so a kind of series of quite different minds, rather than one mind with different experiences in the realist model.

Answers to questions of "Where?" require a coordinate system such that locations can be specified.

What sort of coordinate system do you have in *cough* mind? head? when asking the question?

And then you have other sort of problems like... all coordinate systems require some sort of fixed point. A "true zero" relative to which all other locations can be specified.

Where's that which is asking "Where?" questions? Can it be anywhere other than here and now?

It is not a question of where.
The mind is an emergent, ultimately from a soup of particles [or waves], thus, there is no specific where.

My principle is,
All truths, facts and knowledge are conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
As such, that a mind exists as a fact must be conditioned upon a human-based FSK which must be credible and reliable which I have listed e.g. 3 above, i.e. the psycho-biological, the psychological, psychiatric FSKs.
We cannot assert 'a mind exists as real' without any qualification to a FSK.

The mind within the psychological-FSK [APA] is;

• mind
  n.
  6. the brain itself and its activities. In this view, the mind essentially is both the anatomical organ and what it does.
  https://dictionary.apa.org/mind

How objective it is depends on the credibility and reliability of the APA-FSK which within the psychological community is reasonable credible.

[Iwannaplato]

I think the question for VA is where is the mind? He has an entangled, not separate interdependent cocreating mind/quantum foam mind. It would not make sense to say it is in the skull.

I don't think this line destroys his postion (at all) but it needs some explaining and might entail conclusions he doesn't like. Even possessive adjectives before mind might be incorrect, depending on his solution. Like 'my mind' wouldn't really make sense, perhaps. You would have mind/tree cocreation, then mind/that lady on the bench - so a kind of series of quite different minds, rather than one mind with different experiences in the realist model.

Answers to questions of "Where?" require a coordinate system such that locations can be specified.

What sort of coordinate system do you have in *cough* mind? head? when asking the question?

And then you have other sort of problems like... all coordinate systems require some sort of fixed point. A "true zero" relative to which all other locations can be specified.

Where's that which is asking "Where?" questions? Can it be anywhere other than here and now?

Sure. But I'm responding to a guy who has has his own wheres and is confident with them. So, we can see if that confidence extends to other stuff he asserts with confidence. So the issue is not what sort of coordinate system I have. I do hope you get this some day. Or perhaps accidently read one of your own lines of criticism of someone's assertions or posts, think your post is someone else's and start asking yourself such questions. Further every time VA fills out his ideas with new ones, there's more to play with and think about, both for him and for me and then others. There is more to find. We're not all finished and perfect like you are.

It's interesting to see what people come up with in their positions. It's interesting to see if they then need to create new subpositions to justify former ones.

VA became an anti-realist to fill gaps and justify certain positions because he was pressed about those gaps or pressed about previous positions.

Or should we all just shut the fuck up so you can go to some other philosophy forum and tell them that the only way to fucking respond to any post is your way, where all positions can be neatly resolved and the whole enterprise is a waste of time because everyone has the wrong attitude.

You don't seem curious about anything. You seem incapable of learning anything from anyone here, or admitting it, from the process of interacting with anyone. No exploring at all on your part.

You have the keys to mock everyone here. There's nothing you need to learn, you did all that already. You even fucking said that to me.

I spent a couple of weeks wading through, and ignoring, your insults and managed to find, when you finally stopped mugging and aiming barbs that you had interesting ideas.

You probably think you're superior because you couldn't learn anything from me or anyone here. Been all this done all that. The superiority of not learning from others anymore. Enjoy it.

An armchair general of life, who's experienced a lot in his head and knows what everyone really means by their positions, come spill bile on philosophy in a philosophy forum. Experienced a lot in your head.

For all your intelligence, you've actually managed to not be interesting because of the way you interact. And even worse to not learn anymore.

You can ask them to write 'he didn't suffer fools gladly' on your tombstone but you're not dead yet. Or...

You're so stuck in your pattern that I find you repeatedly telling me things I just said, but you had to find some way to cleverly undermine anything that smacks of not reconciling and philosophy.

You seem utterly clueless about the irony of someone so dismissive and insulting and unable to learn anything new anymore waving the banner of reconciliation.

Anyway. Done with ya and yar broken record.

[Agent Smith]

What am I thinking of?

How should I know?! I'm not a telepath!

Good!

Just curious, what are you thinking of?

No, not an elephant!

Haha!

[Skepdick]

I think the question for VA is where is the mind? He has an entangled, not separate interdependent cocreating mind/quantum foam mind. It would not make sense to say it is in the skull.

I don't think this line destroys his postion (at all) but it needs some explaining and might entail conclusions he doesn't like. Even possessive adjectives before mind might be incorrect, depending on his solution. Like 'my mind' wouldn't really make sense, perhaps. You would have mind/tree cocreation, then mind/that lady on the bench - so a kind of series of quite different minds, rather than one mind with different experiences in the realist model.

Answers to questions of "Where?" require a coordinate system such that locations can be specified.

What sort of coordinate system do you have in *cough* mind? head? when asking the question?

And then you have other sort of problems like... all coordinate systems require some sort of fixed point. A "true zero" relative to which all other locations can be specified.

Where's that which is asking "Where?" questions? Can it be anywhere other than here and now?

Sure. But I'm responding to a guy who has has his own wheres and is confident with them. So, we can see if that confidence extends to other stuff he asserts with confidence. So the issue is not what sort of coordinate system I have. I do hope you get this some day. Or perhaps accidently read one of your own lines of criticism of someone's assertions or posts, think your post is someone else's and start asking yourself such questions. Further every time VA fills out his ideas with new ones, there's more to play with and think about, both for him and for me and then others. There is more to find. We're not all finished and perfect like you are.

It's interesting to see what people come up with in their positions. It's interesting to see if they then need to create new subpositions to justify former ones.

VA became an anti-realist to fill gaps and justify certain positions because he was pressed about those gaps or pressed about previous positions.

Or should we all just shut the fuck up so you can go to some other philosophy forum and tell them that the only way to fucking respond to any post is your way, where all positions can be neatly resolved and the whole enterprise is a waste of time because everyone has the wrong attitude.

You don't seem curious about anything. You seem incapable of learning anything from anyone here, or admitting it, from the process of interacting with anyone. No exploring at all on your part.

You have the keys to mock everyone here. There's nothing you need to learn, you did all that already. You even fucking said that to me.

I spent a couple of weeks wading through, and ignoring, your insults and managed to find, when you finally stopped mugging and aiming barbs that you had interesting ideas.

You probably think you're superior because you couldn't learn anything from me or anyone here. Been all this done all that. The superiority of not learning from others anymore. Enjoy it.

An armchair general of life, who's experienced a lot in his head and knows what everyone really means by their positions, come spill bile on philosophy in a philosophy forum. Experienced a lot in your head.

For all your intelligence, you've actually managed to not be interesting because of the way you interact. And even worse to not learn anymore.

You can ask them to write 'he didn't suffer fools gladly' on your tombstone but you're not dead yet. Or...

You're so stuck in your pattern that I find you repeatedly telling me things I just said, but you had to find some way to cleverly undermine anything that smacks of not reconciling and philosophy.

You seem utterly clueless about the irony of someone so dismissive and insulting and unable to learn anything new anymore waving the banner of reconciliation.

Anyway. Done with ya and yar broken record.

That's precisely the sort of rant I'd expect from somebody clueless.

You've confused my inability to learn from philosophers for my general attitude towards learning and curiosity.

The reason there's nothing to learn from philosophers is because philosophy is vacuous. It's all going in circles about the exact same shit. Over and over. For 3000+ years. The words change - the content doesn't. It's so lame and formulaic that ChatGPT can do what most people on this forum are doing.

Realism. Anti-realism. Middle-groundism.
Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis.

Dialectical *yawn*

The irony of calling me a broken record and pursuing novelty while doing philosophy is...irony squared.

Maybe you just aren't very good with pattern-recognition? We have a science for that... That is if you are actually interested in learning, but I think you know that I know you only care about the lip service and self-amusement, not actual learning. Another self-proclaimed virtue to paint yoursels superior or some such. If you actually cared about learning you'd be doign science, not philosophy.

Or if you strongly insisted upon doing philosophy maybe you could even ask an important question. Like "What is learning, actually and how does it work?"; or.. "Is learning the sort of skill that's exclusive to humans?"; or "Can we teach learning to machines?"

And somebody working on computer science/machine learning/artificial intelligence (me) might even explain to you what we know about learning and how it works.

But you don't really care about any actual learning, do you? You just want to sound smart and impress your friends.

Make no mistake - I am here to mock philosophers because the entire enterprise is a fucking joke. I reject Philosophy like atheists reject God; and like anti-realists reject Reality.

That is to say. I am not against Reality - I am against Realists.
I am not against God - I am against Theists.
I am not against Philosophy - I am against Philosophers.

Why do I hate Philosophers? For many reasons, but communication style is one of them.

There's a communication stule whose intention is to keeping the dialogue going ad infinitum.
There's a communication stule whose intention is to arrive at mutual understanding.

In Computer Science terminology Philosophy amounts to demonic non-determinism and Science/Pragmatism amounts to Angelic non-determinism.

550 pages later. Which mode of communication do you think Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is interested in?