What could make morality objective?

[Agent Smith]

We could do plenty more!

I'm tired!

C'mon, just 2 more steps! Just 2!!

Do you ... know ... what ... impossible means?!

Hahaha! You're funny! Just 2 steps!! Wait a minute ... Eureka!!

Yeah! Eu .. re ... ka ... yawn ... zzzz.

I just ... oh!

[Skepdick]

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

Then give me a non-specific where.

My ass is a soup of particles/waves.
My head is a soup of particles/waves.

Is there a mind in your ass?

[Will Bouwman]

The reason there's nothing to learn from philosophers is because philosophy is vacuous.

Philosophy is just story telling. If Skepdick finds that vacuous, who cares? Anyone interested in how philosophy can be useful could do well to listen to someone who actually knows what they are talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

[Skepdick]

The reason there's nothing to learn from philosophers is because philosophy is vacuous.

Philosophy is just story telling. If Skepdick finds that vacuous, who cares? Anyone interested in how philosophy can be useful could do well to listen to someone who actually knows what they are talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

Exactly my point.

Feynman is scientist (N.B not a philosopher) who knows what he's talking about

Multi-paradigm thought is the default amongst Computer Scientists in 2023. Catch up.

[henry quirk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

Hey, long time, no see...thanks for the link.

[Will Bouwman]

Multi-paradigm thought is the default amongst Computer Scientists in 2023. Catch up.

Human beings are multi-paradigm creatures. I can't think of a single field of study that doesn't reflect that, so it is no surprise that computer science is typical.

[Will Bouwman]

Hey, long time, no see...

Good to see you too.

[Skepdick]

Multi-paradigm thought is the default amongst Computer Scientists in 2023. Catch up.

Human beings are multi-paradigm creatures. I can't think of a single field of study that doesn't reflect that, so it is no surprise that computer science is typical.

So "typical" in your field you think philosophy (not philosophies) can be useful...

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, here's VA on the Big Bang:

'Of course I do not mean the Big Bang was created by humans.

The point is the Big Bang is a theory that emerged from a human-based science-physics-cosmological framework and system of reality [FSR] and system [FSK].
There is no way one can realize the Bib Bang without the above human-based FSR and FSK.
As such, the Big Bang cannot be absolute independent of human beings participation.'

Notice the confusion of the event itself with our knowledge or understanding of the event: 'the Big Bang cannot be absolute [sic] independent of human beings [sic] participation'.

VA's silly claim is that, because we can know about or understand the Big Bang only by means of a human 'framework and system of knowledge' - the event itself was/is not 'absolute[ly] independent of human beings...'

And why fabricate and maintain this idiocy? - Simply to justify the claim that there are moral facts, so that morality is objective. Exactly how this works remains a mystery - which VA's invention of a 'credible morality framework and system of knowledge' does nothing to illuminate.

Put it like this.

If there are no facts, then there are no moral facts - and moral objectivism is doa. Or -

If what we call facts - and therefore objectivity - are not what we say they are, then the expressions 'moral fact' and 'moral objectivity' need explanation to avoid equivocation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The reason there's nothing to learn from philosophers is because philosophy is vacuous.

Philosophy is just story telling. If Skepdick finds that vacuous, who cares? Anyone interested in how philosophy can be useful could do well to listen to someone who actually knows what they are talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

I quoted Feyman [in another video] with reference that whatever the knowledge, it must be qualified to a Framework, i.e. a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].

viewtopic.php?p=621471#p621471
Listen here re Richard Feyman at 1:40 re Framework of Knowledge;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8&t=96s

However Feyman's view is restricted merely to external reality not the whole of reality [all there is]. Feyman is a Philosophical Realist like Einstein.

The issue with 'philosophy' is to ensure we define what is philosophy-proper rather than imply the bastardized academic philosophy or x, y, z, philosophies.

Philosophy-proper is that inherent neural based function that drives whatever is progressively good towards the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom that of humanity.

That is why philosophy-proper is an overriding meta function [the Philosophy of whatever-X, even of philosophies] to ensure all realization and knowledge of reality is in alignment with good order towards the well being of the individuals and therefrom that of humanity.

As such, to put philosophy in any negative footing is ignorant what philosophy-proper is.

[Iwannaplato]

Elsewhere, here's VA on the Big Bang:

'Of course I do not mean the Big Bang was created by humans.

The point is the Big Bang is a theory that emerged from a human-based science-physics-cosmological framework and system of reality [FSR] and system [FSK].
There is no way one can realize the Bib Bang without the above human-based FSR and FSK.
As such, the Big Bang cannot be absolute independent of human beings participation.'

Notice the confusion of the event itself with our knowledge or understanding of the event: 'the Big Bang cannot be absolute [sic] independent of human beings [sic] participation'.

I think it's important to also compare his treatment of the Big Bang and abiogenesis with his treatment of the Moon.

The Moon does not exist when we do not look at it. Following that logic the Big Bang has never existed.

Abiogenesis, a theory he refers to as if it supports his positions, entails the following stages in time:
Stage 1: only inorganic matter (no organisms, no organic chemicals, thus no perceivers) ----> Stage 2: some organic compounds like nucleic acids (organic chemicals, no organisms, no perceivers -------> Stage 3: first life forms (perceivers, at least potentially, present).

His beliefs do not allow stages 1 and 2 above to be real. Abiogenesis theories, there are a number, always include those stages. It is opposed to his ontology. He is opposed to its ontology, which is realist. There cannot be a version of abiogenesis that fits with his version of antirealism.

So, when convenient things exist without perceivers. When convenient, they don't.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, here's VA on the Big Bang:

'Of course I do not mean the Big Bang was created by humans.

The point is the Big Bang is a theory that emerged from a human-based science-physics-cosmological framework and system of reality [FSR] and system [FSK].
There is no way one can realize the Bib Bang without the above human-based FSR and FSK.
As such, the Big Bang cannot be absolute independent of human beings participation.'

Notice the confusion of the event itself with our knowledge or understanding of the event: 'the Big Bang cannot be absolute [sic] independent of human beings [sic] participation'.

VA's silly claim is that, because we can know about or understand the Big Bang only by means of a human 'framework and system of knowledge' - the event itself was/is not 'absolute[ly] independent of human beings...'

And why fabricate and maintain this idiocy? - Simply to justify the claim that there are moral facts, so that morality is objective. Exactly how this works remains a mystery - which VA's invention of a 'credible morality framework and system of knowledge' does nothing to illuminate.

Put it like this.

If there are no facts, then there are no moral facts - and moral objectivism is doa. Or -

If what we call facts - and therefore objectivity - are not what we say they are, then the expressions 'moral fact' and 'moral objectivity' need explanation to avoid equivocation.

I have already posted this many times,

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

I had stated, in one perspective, i.e. common sense, conventional, biology, yes, humans evolved 13 billion years after the so-called Big Bang.

However, in the ultimate perspective;
the point is the Big Bang is a theory that emerged from a human-based science-physics-cosmological framework and system of reality [FSR] and system [FSK].
There is no way one can realize the Big Bang without the above human-based FSR and FSK.
As such, the Big Bang cannot be absolutely independent of human beings' participation.

If you disagree, prove [demonstrate or whatever] to me the Big Bang can be realized via a human-based FSK without any connection to human beings?

[Flannel Jesus]

Oh, well if he's already argued then case closed. VA wins. Flawless victory. Finish him.

[Iwannaplato]

If you disagree, prove [demonstrate or whatever] to me the Big Bang can be realized via a human-based FSK without any connection to human beings?

Not getting his problem. The Moon does not exist when we don't look at it. We cannot have looked at the big bang or the early stages of abiogenesis.

See my post here....
viewtopic.php?p=639435#p639435

If the Big Bang is dependent on minds, then so is the Moon, and both either exist(ed) when not looked at, or both do/did not. Which means BB never existed.

[FlashDangerpants]

VA has many times written that the "science-FSK" is the "standard bearer" of objective knowledge and stuff.
His current description of scientific knowledge, what it means and how it is arrived at, does not support that at all.