What could make morality objective?

[popeye1945]

Morality, like all other creations of humanity, are biological extensions of humanity itself, expressions of the nature of humanity. It is thus made manifest in the world by humanities reaction to the indifference of nature to its survival. Through the identification with others, societies are formed and through compassion for like selves morality is born. It is sentiment/concept first, then made manifest in the world.

[Will Bouwman]

...most of the time I can't even distinguish your content from something a language model would write so yeah.

A ChatGPT subscription is also cheaper than your book. And way more readily available.

Thanks for mentioning it. I'm working on a revised version as we speak, soon to be readily available on Amazon.

That's one way of looking at it.

Obviously. It's the way of looking at it from the evolutionary paradigm.

So you appreciate there are alternative paradigms even outside computer science, splendid.

[Atla]

I'm not claiming that. I'm saying that when we talk about 'having a thought' or 'changing our mind', we're speaking metaphorically about electrochemical events - synaptic firing - and so on. Physical things.

Well you are correct in one sense, and incorrent in another sense imo.

In one sense, if we treat the known outside world as all physical, then yes, our minds are also totally physical. And one can actually greatly change one's own mind by doing umm "physical" things to it. Like consuming coffee and other drugs, or doing audio brainwave entrainment, or EMDR sessions etc.
But in another sense, "physical" is just a way of thinking about the direct "mental" reality.

Ultimately both "physical" and "mental" are nonsense categories invented for the same reality, maybe best described as direct experience. It is first-person-view direct experience and it has the structure uncovered by materialist science.

This model is strange. Who or what is the 'I' that 'knows' the thoughts, concepts, feelings, images, etc that supposedly constitute my mind? And what does 'viewed from the inside' mean?

I think you're trying to patch together or flesh out a mentalist model that just doesn't work. It's a story about our selves and experiences that's unproblematic as long as we don't take it literally.

The "I" is just a psychological structure, it's part of the mind. It can't actually know or own things. Things about the I are more like metaphorical, but the mind is real enough.
By 'viewed from the inside' I meant what a particular mind/neural net is like from the first-person perspective.

From what I can tell it's the only model that does actually work, although I wouldn't call it mentalist for the above reasons.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm not claiming that. I'm saying that when we talk about 'having a thought' or 'changing our mind', we're speaking metaphorically about electrochemical events - synaptic firing - and so on. Physical things.

Nope, you are ignorant as usual, and learning on your 'what is fact' which is illusory and nonsensical.

Within the human-based biological psychological FSK,
when we talk about 'having a thought' or 'changing our mind', we're are literally representing those matters by electrochemical events - synaptic firing - and so on in an active brain which is the brain.
If there is no active FSK-brain, i.e. the FSK-mind, there is no 'having a thought' nor 'changing our mind'.

This model is strange. Who or what is the 'I' that 'knows' the thoughts, concepts, feelings, images, etc., that supposedly constitute my mind? And what does 'viewed from the inside' mean?

I think you're trying to patch together or flesh out a mentalist model that just doesn't work. It's a story about our selves and experiences that's unproblematic as long as we don't take it literally.

Your model is more strange, illusory and non-sensical.

To you, what is fact is a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so or that is the case.
The description of an "I" me, or you is not the described-I, me or you.

Now, if you insist the factual described "I" me, or you is not constituted by the mind's and brain's neurons and synaptic event, then, that real factual described-I, me or you must be an illusory just-is or being so.

Btw, you still have not proven to me the existence of the real described-fact or the real-described factual "I" that is independent of the individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment, i.e. independent of any human-based FSK.

If there were no neuroscience, would there be no neurons and synaptic events? (With one bound, you could be free of your silly argument.)

Strawman again.
I did not assert "If there were no neuroscience, would there be no neurons and synaptic events?"
My point is from the TOP-DOWN approach, whatever emerged and is realized as existing and real is always conditioned to a specific FSK.

If there were no human-based science-biology FSK and human-based science-chemistry FSK, then there is no emergence, realization, conceptualization and cognition of the existence of real neurons and
if, no human-based neuroscience-FSK, then no realization and conceptualization of synaptic events.

For aliens [1000x or >] more cognizant than present humans [i.e. aliens-FSK], when interacting with humans, they will NOT cognize 'neurons' and 'synaptic events' like what humans realized from a human-based neuroscience FSK. Logically, whatever these 1000x-aliens realize and cognize, it has to be conditioned to their 1000x-alien-FSK.

Totally-sonar-bats will not cognize 'neurons' and 'synaptic events' like what humans realized from a human-based neuroscience FSK.

You are so ignorant that you assume you are a God, where your human-based FSK generate Absolute knowledge throughout the Universe as the universal absolute standard.

So, you are the SILLY and ignorant one?

Btw, you still have not proven to me the existence of the real described-fact or the real-described factual "I" that is independent of the individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment, i.e. independent of any human-based FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Assuming you are a normal average moral person, WHY is that you do not go about killing other humans, committing mass murder and genocides?
It is because you already have the neural moral algorithm of what is good universally in your brain such that naturally, spontaneously and voluntarily basis you are adhering to what is good, i.e. not committing those evil acts.

Since the average person already has such a state of maintaining what is good, there is the potential IN THE FUTURE [not now] to develop this moral state in ALL or the majority of human, so that what is good is maintain naturally.

What will bring this state about? Over 2000 years ago Socrates argued that people who behave immorally do so out of ignorance. There have been some changes in moral standards, including some I would call improvements, but it is not clear that persuasion alters neural moral algorithms. Are we therefore waiting for evolution to eradicate people with the wrong neural moral algorithm because, for some reason, mating strategies employed by people with a tendency to commit mass murder and genocide stop working? Or will it take medical intervention and a bit of eugenics?

Your above appear that you are bankrupt or run-out of knowledge and ideas?

Just compare any hope [by those enslaves and others] of the "abolishment of slavery" 10,000, 5000, 2500, 500, 100, years ago to the present where all sovereign nations has laws that criminalize chattel slavery and for other all forms of slavery.

Surely there must be some corresponding changes in the impulses within the majority of humanity, and these impulses are reducible to neural algorithms related to morality.

The point is ALL humans are programmed via evolution with a [Johnny come lately] POTENTIAL moral function that has been slowly unfolding, thus inactive in the majority and active in a minority.
In contrast the early-birds like the 'to know' human-intelligence which had unfold since 100,000 years to AI [ChatGPT, etc.] at present.

At the present state, natural selections for humans is impossible. Medical interventions or eugenics would contra the inherent moral functions.

Note, I stated "IN THE FUTURE [not now]" the unfoldment of the inherent moral potential can be activated like the 'inhibiting slavery potential' [that took >10,000 years of unfoldment] via more expeditious methods, i.e. effective self-development methods that are foolproof and do not contra the moral objectives.

Note the current potential quantum jump in human-knowledge via AI [ChatGPT, etc.] at its potential in the near future, which do not involve immoral elements. Thus we can rely on advanced AI and other facilities to enable quantum jumps in moral progress and the maintenance of 'good' within humanity.

[Peter Holmes]

If there were no human-based science-biology FSK and human-based science-chemistry FSK, then there is no emergence, realization, conceptualization and cognition of the existence of real neurons and if, no human-based neuroscience-FSK, then no realization and conceptualization of synaptic events.

So what? The neurons and synaptic events exist. They're features of reality that are the case, They're - wait for it - facts of reality. Facts which neuroscientists have discovered and described.

Ask yourself why you're so desperate to deny the credibility and reliability of natural science. Why does it matter that the facts scientists discover take time to emerge and be realised, conceptualised and cognised? Why does that mean that they aren't what we call facts?

If you accept that neurons and synaptic events exist is reality, then your are (at least) a methodological naturalist or realist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If there were no human-based science-biology FSK and human-based science-chemistry FSK, then there is no emergence, realization, conceptualization and cognition of the existence of real neurons and if, no human-based neuroscience-FSK, then no realization and conceptualization of synaptic events.

So what? The neurons and synaptic events exist. They're features of reality that are the case, They're - wait for it - facts of reality. Facts which neuroscientists have discovered and described.

Ask yourself why you're so desperate to deny the credibility and reliability of natural science. Why does it matter that the facts scientists discover take time to emerge and be realised, conceptualised and cognised? Why does that mean that they aren't what we call facts?

Oooh.. me deny the credibility and reliability of nature science???

Note this!

Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

I had been defending the above with 'tooth and nails' for eons here.

You forget neuroscientists are human beings and what are synaptic events are only valid within a human_based-science-neuroscience-FSK?
(Neurons and Synaptic events cannot be valid within a political, historical, astronomical, economical FSK.)
As such, it follow whatever the human-based neuro-scientific facts, they are conditioned upon human conditions [human nature] and human minds [modern definition].

There is no way, you can assert scientific facts which are objective are independent of the human conditions without any qualification to a human-based-FSK.

Now, if scientific facts are objective as emerging from a human-based scientific FSK [the most credible and reliable as the standard],
then a human-based moral FSK enabling objective moral facts is possible and its objectivity will depend on how near credible and reliable it is to the standard of the scientific FSK.
Therefore, morality is objective [degrees subject to the above].

[Atla]

There is no way, you can assert scientific facts which are objective are independent of the human conditions without any qualification to a human-based-FSK.

Now, if scientific facts are objective as emerging from a human-based scientific FSK [the most credible and reliable as the standard],
then a human-based moral FSK enabling objective moral facts is possible and its objectivity will depend on how near credible and reliable it is to the standard of the scientific FSK.
Therefore, morality is objective [degrees subject to the above].

As you know, you're just saying that human thinking is inseparable from human thinking. That's a tautology, not an argument, and it's deliberately rendering the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity meaningless.

As you know, that's not what the issue of objectivity vs subjectivity is about at all.

Your objectivist morality talk helps spread the evil of Islam, which is another objectivist morality. Stop empowering them.
Instead, humanity should come to its senses, and get rid of all objective morality nonsense already. Humanity should agree on a good subjective morality, for example: "maximum sustainable welfare of humanity and the biosphere, with minimum sacrifices". After that, we can treat this subjective morality as if it was sort of objective. And yes we also need to keep enhancing the natural moral parts of our brain/mind.

Of course I don't think at all that humanity will be smart enough to do this.

[Iwannaplato]

As you know, you're just saying that human thinking is inseparable from human thinking. That's a tautology, not an argument, and it's deliberately rendering the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity meaningless.

So far, so good.

But here....

Your objectivist morality talk helps spread the evil of Islam, which is another objectivist morality.

Shouldn't - not in the moral sense but the consistancy sense - this really read: Your objectivist morality talk helps spread Islam which I don't like.

Stop empowering them.
Instead, humanity should come to its senses

,And this would be: Instead, I'd like it if humanity came to it's senses.

and get rid of all objective morality nonsense already. Humanity should agree on a good subjective morality,

I'd like humanity to.....

[Atla]

As you know, you're just saying that human thinking is inseparable from human thinking. That's a tautology, not an argument, and it's deliberately rendering the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity meaningless.

So far, so good.

But here....

Your objectivist morality talk helps spread the evil of Islam, which is another objectivist morality.

Shouldn't - not in the moral sense but the consistancy sense - this really read: Your objectivist morality talk helps spread Islam which I don't like.

Stop empowering them.
Instead, humanity should come to its senses

,And this would be: Instead, I'd like it if humanity came to it's senses.

and get rid of all objective morality nonsense already. Humanity should agree on a good subjective morality,

I'd like humanity to.....

Yes that's what I meant. A part of me still doesn't want the world to be destroyed, I wouldn't like that, and imo the further spreading of Islam would almost certainly destroy it.

[Peter Holmes]

...what are synaptic events are only valid within a human based-science-neuroscience-FSK...

This is patent nonsense. Synaptic events are features of reality that occur and can be known about and described. How we know about and describe them has no bearing on that fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...what are synaptic events are only valid within a human based-science-neuroscience-FSK...

This is patent nonsense. Synaptic events are features of reality that occur and can be known about and described. How we know about and describe them has no bearing on that fact.

How can they be known and described if Synaptic events are not conditioned, emerged and realized within the human-based science-neuroscience FSK?

As I had stated above,
you cannot claim 'synaptic events' exist as real because your father or mother said so, or
a political, historical, astronomical, economical FSK said.
That 'synaptic events' exist as real must be qualified to the human-based science-neuroscience FSK. [notice you deceptively ignore this point].

In addition, the human-based science-neuroscience FSK is conditioned upon
1. 200K years of human evolution, 4 billion years of organic evolution and 13 billion years of physical expansion of Big Bang Forces,
where 1. is conditioned upon 1. itself in a spiral.

There is no way you can ever claim there are synaptic events as features of reality that exist in-themselves or by-themselves without any qualifications to a human-based FSK.

How we know about and describe them has no bearing on that fact.

You are just assuming, pleading and blabbering without any valid argument at all.

As I had argued, you are begging the question, you assumed the unconditional fact-in-itself pre-existed even before you know that fact. This is your BOTTOM-UP approach where you have to mirror this supposed 'bottom' thing with what is known and described.

As I had argued, we know whatever is the human-based-FSK-fact as realized from human_experiences* and from a TOP-DOWN basis which verify and justify that human-based-FSK fact with a human-based-FSK.

*And note,
this human_experiences* is conditioned upon a 13 billion years of human-based-history-FSK which we cannot ignored.

That human independent fact you are chasing is an illusion, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical.
Note these;

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[/list]

[Peter Holmes]

...what are synaptic events are only valid within a human based-science-neuroscience-FSK...

This is patent nonsense. Synaptic events are features of reality that occur and can be known about and described. How we know about and describe them has no bearing on that fact.

How can they be known and described if Synaptic events are not conditioned, emerged and realized within the human-based science-neuroscience FSK?

Ffs. It's the description that's 'conditioned' etc - not the events themselves. You mistake the description for the described, and then say the described isn't 'valid' outside the description.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is patent nonsense. Synaptic events are features of reality that occur and can be known about and described. How we know about and describe them has no bearing on that fact.

How can they be known and described if Synaptic events are not conditioned, emerged and realized within the human-based science-neuroscience FSK?

Ffs. It's the description that's 'conditioned' etc - not the events themselves. You mistake the description for the described, and then say the described isn't 'valid' outside the description.

Nah, strawman again.
How many times must I repeat, I understand fully, "the description is NOT the described."
I even raised this thread [similar] as a reminder to you;

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925

Note the 13 billion years of history that is conditioned upon humans prior to their realization of human-based-facts [the-described] which is subsequently perceived, known and described.

• As I had stated above,
  you cannot claim 'synaptic events' exist as real because your father or mother said so, or
  a political, historical, astronomical, economical FSK said.
  That 'synaptic events' exist as real must be qualified to the human-based science-neuroscience FSK. [notice you deceptively ignore this point].
  
  In addition, the human-based science-neuroscience FSK is conditioned upon
  1. 200K years of human evolution, 4 billion years of organic evolution and 13 billion years of physical expansion of Big Bang Forces,
  where 1. is conditioned upon 1. itself in a spiral.
  
  There is no way you can ever claim there are synaptic events as features of reality that exist in-themselves or by-themselves without any qualifications to a human-based FSK.

[Atla]

As I had stated above,
you cannot claim 'synaptic events' exist as real because your father or mother said so, or
a political, historical, astronomical, economical FSK said.
That 'synaptic events' exist as real must be qualified to the human-based science-neuroscience FSK. [notice you deceptively ignore this point].

In addition, the human-based science-neuroscience FSK is conditioned upon
1. 200K years of human evolution, 4 billion years of organic evolution and 13 billion years of physical expansion of Big Bang Forces,
where 1. is conditioned upon 1. itself in a spiral.

There is no way you can ever claim there are synaptic events as features of reality that exist in-themselves or by-themselves without any qualifications to a human-based FSK.

You never went outside the description, your 13 billion years old spirally FSK thing is still just a funny extension to the initial describing.
So you continue to totally mistake the description for the described. In objectivist philosophy they are two different things, even if the described is sort of unknowable, can only be posited to exist.