What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

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.

Wtfru talking about? Humans appeared maybe 150-200,000 years ago - I don't know the current thinking. So how are 13 billion years of history 'conditioned upon humans'? This is mind-bogglingly stupid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Wtfru talking about? Humans appeared maybe 150-200,000 years ago - I don't know the current thinking. So how are 13 billion years of history 'conditioned upon humans'? This is mind-bogglingly stupid.

You are the stupid one.
You are mind-bogglingly ignorant given the our current state of knowledge of reality.

How did humans appeared around 150-200,000 years ago if the Big Bang did not happen 13 billion years ago?

Note I wrote;
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-a. is conditioned upon 1. itself in a spiral.

You need to find ways to release yourself from your dogmatic bondage chain that make you delusional so you can think wider, deeper and more realistically.

[Peter Holmes]

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.

Wtfru talking about? Humans appeared maybe 150-200,000 years ago - I don't know the current thinking. So how are 13 billion years of history 'conditioned upon humans'? This is mind-bogglingly stupid.

You are the stupid one.
You are mind-bogglingly ignorant given the our current state of knowledge of reality.

How did humans appeared around 150-200,000 years ago if the Big Bang did not happen 13 billion years ago?

Note I wrote;
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-a. is conditioned upon 1. itself in a spiral.

You need to find ways to release yourself from your dogmatic bondage chain that make you delusional so you can think wider, deeper and more realistically.

Oh. Are you invoking something like physical determinism? Is that what 'conditioning' means here?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wtfru talking about? Humans appeared maybe 150-200,000 years ago - I don't know the current thinking. So how are 13 billion years of history 'conditioned upon humans'? This is mind-bogglingly stupid.

You are the stupid one.
You are mind-bogglingly ignorant given the our current state of knowledge of reality.

How did humans appeared around 150-200,000 years ago if the Big Bang did not happen 13 billion years ago?

Note I wrote;
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-a. is conditioned upon 1. itself in a spiral.

You need to find ways to release yourself from your dogmatic bondage chain that make you delusional so you can think wider, deeper and more realistically.

Oh. Are you invoking something like physical determinism? Is that what 'conditioning' means here?

I don't agree with absolute determinism.

In this case, I am relying upon biological determinism [conditioned upon a human-based science-biology FSK] and causal [scientific-physical] determinism.

[Agent Smith]

You must read the Pax Mundi page on Wikipedia.

[Peter Holmes]

I don't agree with absolute determinism.

In this case, I am relying upon biological determinism [conditioned upon a human-based science-biology FSK] and causal [scientific-physical] determinism.

Biological determinism is a 'subset' of physical determinism. And physical determinism is a realist position. So, as usual, your (in my opinion rational) commitment to natural science (physical causation) demolishes your fake anti-realism.

[Skepdick]

Biological determinism is a 'subset' of physical determinism. And physical determinism is a realist position. So, as usual, your (in my opinion rational) commitment to natural science (physical causation) demolishes your fake anti-realism.

Any talk of subsets and relations between philosophical positions appeals to a taxonomy - a human construct.

Sounds like you are agreeing with VA on the "FSK", so from where I am looking it seems like your realism that got demolished.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't agree with absolute determinism.

In this case, I am relying upon biological determinism [conditioned upon a human-based science-biology FSK] and causal [scientific-physical] determinism.

Biological determinism is a 'subset' of physical determinism. And physical determinism is a realist position. So, as usual, your (in my opinion rational) commitment to natural science (physical causation) demolishes your fake anti-realism.

Where did you get the idea that physical determinism of science is an absolute philosophical realist's position?

Note this;

[Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[8]
In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.
Today it [philosophical realism] is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Science operated by scientists [humans] cannot hijack God's view which is independent of the human mind.
I have already argued natural science is conditioned upon a human-based scientific FSK.
Because it is human-based, it follows, its conclusion can never be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

It is the scientists not Science per-se who claim a philosophical realist position, e.g. Newton and Einstein who are philosophical realists but they are only in a way [not ultimately] correct within their human based FSK.
Ultimately [note this] philosophical realism as claim by scientists are not realistic nor tenable as exposed by QM.

[Peter Holmes]

I don't agree with absolute determinism.

In this case, I am relying upon biological determinism [conditioned upon a human-based science-biology FSK] and causal [scientific-physical] determinism.

Biological determinism is a 'subset' of physical determinism. And physical determinism is a realist position. So, as usual, your (in my opinion rational) commitment to natural science (physical causation) demolishes your fake anti-realism.

Where did you get the idea that physical determinism of science is an absolute philosophical realist's position?

Note this;

[Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[8]
In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.
Today it [philosophical realism] is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Science operated by scientists [humans] cannot hijack God's view which is independent of the human mind.
I have already argued natural science is conditioned upon a human-based scientific FSK.
Because it is human-based, it follows, its conclusion can never be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

It is the scientists not Science per-se who claim a philosophical realist position, e.g. Newton and Einstein who are philosophical realists but they are only in a way [not ultimately] correct within their human based FSK.
Ultimately [note this] philosophical realism as claim by scientists are not realistic nor tenable as exposed by QM.

Quantum mechanics does not undermine methodological naturalism, because its tentative conclusions are about the nature of reality. If the observer effect is a fact, then that's an observed fact about reality. Who observes the observer effect?

It remains a peculiar and self-defeating strategy to assert moral objectivity via the rejection of objectivity. If there are no facts, then there are no moral facts. The end.

[Skepdick]

It remains a peculiar and self-defeating strategy to assert moral objectivity via the rejection of objectivity. If there are no facts, then there are no moral facts. The end.

Idiot. Nobody is rejecting objectivity.

What's being rejected is your particular misconception of what objectivity is and how it's supposed to work.
What's being rejected is your particular misconception of what facts are and how they are supposed to work.

If ther are facts about logic (a social construct) then there are facts about morality (another social construct).

Here's a logical fact: Contradictions is a logical failings.
Here's a moral fact: Murder is a moral failing.

Of course, there's nothing to force you to adhere to the laws of logic; or murder laws. Because free will.

The end.

[Peter Holmes]

To call a description of what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity misconceived is to claim to have a correct understanding of their nature. I look forward to seeing them described correctly.

Just one clarification. Facts about logic, or any other discourse or discipline, such as morality, are different from factual assertions made within that discourse or discipline.

For example, there are facts about astrology - a social construct - but that doesn't mean there are any astrological facts.

So, that there are facts about morality doesn't mean that there are moral facts.

[Skepdick]

To call a description of what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity misconceived is to claim to have a correct understanding of their nature. I look forward to seeing them described correctly.

That's not true.

But if it were true, then you are necessarily claiming that your own account/description of objectivity and facts is incorrect.

Of course, your account/description is incorrect. But not for the reasons you've given (above).

Just one clarification. Facts about logic, or any other discourse or discipline, such as morality, are different from factual assertions made within that discourse or discipline.

This distinction is immaterial. We are talking about both kinds of facts: those within and those about the discipline.

Facts ABOUT logic are facts ABOUT social constructs.
Facts ABOUT morality are facts ABOUT social constructs.

Facts within logic are facts emergent within a social construct.
Facts within morality are facts emergent within a social construct.

For example, there are facts about astrology - a social construct - but that doesn't mean there are any astrological facts.

So, that there are facts about morality doesn't mean that there are moral facts.

Facts ABOUT reality are not real facts?



Signature Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes

[Veritas Aequitas]

Biological determinism is a 'subset' of physical determinism. And physical determinism is a realist position. So, as usual, your (in my opinion rational) commitment to natural science (physical causation) demolishes your fake anti-realism.

Where did you get the idea that physical determinism of science is an absolute philosophical realist's position?

Note this;

[Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[8]
In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.
Today it [philosophical realism] is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Science operated by scientists [humans] cannot hijack God's view which is independent of the human mind.
I have already argued natural science is conditioned upon a human-based scientific FSK.
Because it is human-based, it follows, its conclusion can never be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

It is the scientists not Science per-se who claim a philosophical realist position, e.g. Newton and Einstein who are philosophical realists but they are only in a way [not ultimately] correct within their human based FSK.
Ultimately [note this] philosophical realism as claim by scientists are not realistic nor tenable as exposed by QM.

Quantum mechanics does not undermine methodological naturalism, because its tentative conclusions are about the nature of reality. If the observer effect is a fact, then that's an observed fact about reality. Who observes the observer effect?

You are very ignorant of science which must be operated within a human-based scientific FSK.

I have already argued natural science is conditioned upon a human-based scientific FSK.
Because the scientific FSK is human-based, it follows, its conclusion can never be absolutely independent of the human conditions. [thus anti-realism]

There is no way, a human based scientific FSK can guarantee you there is an independent
object nature of reality.
Prove to me this is possible.

In general the human based scientific FSK merely ASSUMED there is an independent objective reality out; this is especially so for scientists who are realist-inclined but not scientist who are anti-realists.

If the observer effect is a fact, then that's an observed fact about reality. Who observes the observer effect?

Yes, the observer-effect is a fact that confirm a new fact emerges every time an observation [measurement] is made upon a thing.
This new fact is entangled with the observers, i.e. cannot be absolute independent of the measurement of observation.
Note for every t+1 there is a new states of affairs, i.e. reality as all-there-is in which all humans are part and parcel of.
There are no observed fact of reality [human-based scientific facts] that are independent of the observers within a human-based FSK.

• In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

That is where I argued humans are the co-creator of the reality they are in.

Because this fact is acted upon a human-based scientific FSK, it follows that the new fact cannot be independent of the human conditions.

"Who observes the observer-effect", if you want to, you can observe and video the whole process of scientists taking measurements in arriving at their human-based facts, within Einstein Theory of Relativity and QM.

It remains a peculiar and self-defeating strategy to assert moral objectivity via the rejection of objectivity. If there are no facts, then there are no moral facts. The end.

Note I have argued very strongly;
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Yours is the illusory sense.
Where is your counter to the above.

The objectivity I am rejecting is your philosophical-realism grounded illusory objectivity.

I have offered the realistic sense of objectivity, i.e.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
Scientific facts emerges from a human-based FSK,
therefore it logically that a human-based moral FSK is possible.

Btw, I have provided in depth arguments to justify the above, but you just ignore them out of you dogmatic clasp to illusory facts, illusory reality, illusory knowledge which are meaningless and nonsensical.
I bet you will continue to bank on this illusory view of reality to blabber your points.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To call a description of what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity misconceived is to claim to have a correct understanding of their nature. I look forward to seeing them described correctly.

Just one clarification. Facts about logic, or any other discourse or discipline, such as morality, are different from factual assertions made within that discourse or discipline.

For example, there are facts about astrology - a social construct - but that doesn't mean there are any astrological facts.

So, that there are facts about morality doesn't mean that there are moral facts.

Again you are SO ignorant and argue with ignorance.

Yes there are facts about astrology, i.e. about the subject of astrology.
However the truths and knowledge of astrology is practiced with a human-based astrology FSK.

The word astrology comes from the early Latin word astrologia,[17] which derives from the Greek ἀστρολογία—from ἄστρον astron ("star") and -λογία -logia, ("study of"—"account of the stars"). The word entered the English language via Latin and medieval French, and its use overlapped considerably with that of astronomy (derived from the Latin astronomia).
By the 17th century, astronomy became established as the scientific term, with astrology referring to divinations and schemes for predicting human affairs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

There is no doubt there were reliable astrological facts regarding the position of stars and planet until they are made more reliable within the astronomy FSK.

With current state of astrology, the human based astrology FSK in contrast to the scientific FSK as a standard [100/100]; thus whatever the astrological facts [divinations] is way off in terms of reliability and credibility, say 5/100.


Note I have quoted this a "million" times.

A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

The above and ALL facts are conditioned upon their respective human-based FSK.

Yes, there are facts about the subject and practices of morality [fact and part of human nature].
As with the above examples, a human-based moral FSK is inevitable.
I have argued because the factual inputs into my proposed-human-based moral FSK is mostly from human-based scientific-fact, the moral FSK will have near credibility and reliability to the scientific FSK as a standard.

[Peter Holmes]

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Oh, look. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

And, my, my. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

And, hey, just to say. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of...KNOWLEDGE...'

So, let's see. The claim that what we call a fact exists within a framework and system of KNOWLEDGE is false. Because. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

What else can we say? I know, let's find a definition of what, generally speaking, constitutes a fact.