What could make morality objective?

[Flannel Jesus]

So it turns out this whole time, va has been confusing "humans can't know anything independent of the human condition" with "nothing exists independent of the human condition".

[Peter Holmes]

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?

Wriggling on a hook of your own making.

Whatever 'realizing' the Big Bang means, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Big Bang occurred. Which you know damn well.

You've needlessly painted yourself into a corner. But with one bound, you could be free.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So it turns out this whole time, va has been confusing
"humans can't know anything independent of the human condition"
with
"nothing exists independent of the human condition".

That is a strawman.

I wrote:
I had stated, in one perspective, i.e. common sense, conventional, biology, yes, humans evolved 13 billion years after the so-called Big Bang.
In this sense, humans do know things independent of the human conditions [humans or human nature].
This is on the assumption that space and time are real and independent of the human condtions.

However, in the ultimate perspective;
-space and time do not exists are real and independent of the human conditions.
-the point is the Big Bang is a theory [realization] 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, in the ultimate sense the Big Bang cannot be absolutely independent of human beings' participation; this refute the "ism" of philosophical realism.

If you insist philosophical realism i.e. mind-independent existence of reality as absolute, then prove it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

Wriggling on a hook of your own making.

Whatever 'realizing' the Big Bang means, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Big Bang occurred. Which you know damn well.

You've needlessly painted yourself into a corner. But with one bound, you could be free.

All you can insist is "you know damn well" WHO ARE YOU to insist on such a claim?
You are merely babbling without presenting any rational argument.

You insisted "the fact that the Big Bang occurred"
who said so and on what grounds? your father, mother??

• I have already argued 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

Explain to me,
who said so and on what grounds?

[Flannel Jesus]

So it turns out this whole time, va has been confusing
"humans can't know anything independent of the human condition"
with
"nothing exists independent of the human condition".

That is a strawman.

"Strawman" isn't synonymous with "any time one person is incorrect about the beliefs of position of another person".

And in fact, if I have misunderstood your position here, I've understood it in the OPPOSITE direction of a strawman. A strawman is for the purpose of making your position weaker and easier to argue against. What I've said above, if it's not an accurate representation of what you're now saying, serves the exact opposite purpose of that. I've misunderstood your position in a way that makes it more agreeable.

You can just say "that's not what I'm saying" or "that's not what I think".

[Skepdick]

"Strawman" isn't synonymous with "any time one person is incorrect about the beliefs of position of another person".

And in fact, if I have misunderstood your position here, I've understood it in the OPPOSITE direction of a strawman. A strawman is for the purpose of making your position weaker and easier to argue against. What I've said above, if it's not an accurate representation of what you're now saying, serves the exact opposite purpose of that. I've misunderstood your position in a way that makes it more agreeable.

You can just say "that's not what I'm saying" or "that's not what I think".

Strawmanning or steelmanning - either way you are misinterpreting what's being said.

[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.

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

In the context of philosophy as story telling, yes. Using the example in the Feynman clip of spacetime as a philosophy, it is useful if your objective is to explain the orbit of mercury. Scientifically spacetime is a 4 dimensional field you can change the numbers of. Philosophically, it's some stuff that is warped by matter. It is typical of science that it starts with a story, the writing of which is philosophy as I mean it. Once the maths is shown to work then for practical purposes the story telling is useless, except, as Feynman points out, if you need to change something in the mathematics, because different stories will give you different ideas of what that might be.

[Will Bouwman]

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.

Haven't you had enough of people telling you what is good for you?

[Skepdick]

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...

In the context of philosophy as story telling, yes. Using the example in the Feynman clip of spacetime as a philosophy, it is useful if your objective is to explain the orbit of mercury. Scientifically spacetime is a 4 dimensional field you can change the numbers of. Philosophically, it's some stuff that is warped by matter. It is typical of science that it starts with a story, the writing of which is philosophy as I mean it. Once the maths is shown to work then for practical purposes the story telling is useless, except, as Feynman points out, if you need to change something in the mathematics, because different stories will give you different ideas of what that might be.

As you point out spacetime isn't a philosophy - it's a 4 dimensional field.

Mathematics is sufficient for understanding what fields are and how different fields behave.
And if you want to understand algebraic data types in general (e.g what happen if you combine two fields?) - Computer Science can help you.

If you want to change something in the Mathematics - change something in the Mathematics.

Not sure where philosophy fits in.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Haven't you had enough of people telling you what is good for you?

It is problematic when 'what is good' is merely subjective, i.e. based on individual[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment.

Should I be indifferent to what is good merely because there are diverse views on it?

I have always insisted on objectivity which is based and conditioned upon a credible and reliable framework and system of Reality [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK]; a FSK is based on intersubjectivity [not one subject] thus it is objective.
At present, the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective which is a standard where all other FSKs are to be evaluated upon.

When we conditioned 'what is good' upon a credible FSK, then it is objective to be critiqued and improve upon or be rejected if useless.

Now, if anyone were to tell me what is good, then I would review [applying philosophy-proper] that 'good' within the relevant FSK to optimize any utilities.

[Will Bouwman]

Computer Science can help you.

No doubt. On that topic, since

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

what differentiates the paradigms?
Thanks to Alexis Jacobi (Hi Gus) for this:

An interview with Geoffrey Hinton -- who worked for years on AI.

I'm sure paradigms within computer science can be strictly mathematical, logic and reasoning as Hinton puts it, and there are what he calls neural nets. To me those are two different stories about how intelligence works.

[Will Bouwman]

It is problematic when 'what is good' is merely subjective, i.e. based on individual[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment.

Is it any less problematic when others decide what is good for you?

Should I be indifferent to what is good merely because there are diverse views on it?

I think you should be respectful of what other people decide is good for themselves, and as long as it doesn't conflict with someone else's decision about what is good for them, leave them to it.

[Belinda]

I think aspiration is the only definitive attribute of good. What I mean is that when good is defined solely by codified morality then it ceases to be good , therefore good is not good unless it includes hope for better.

Codified morality is necessary for cooperative behaviour but it's not sufficient for hope, happiness, care, truth, beauty, or freedom.

[Peter Holmes]

Should I be indifferent to what is good merely because there are diverse views on it?

OMG. Is this the crack that's lets in the light?

[FlashDangerpants]

Should I be indifferent to what is good merely because there are diverse views on it?

OMG. Is this the crack that's lets in the light?

That's a very suspect deployment of the word 'indifferent' there. I think he means 'indifferent to' in the same sense as 'unmotivated by' which would be in line with more than one of his reported sources, although I could be wrong as he usually hasn't read his reported sources.