What could make morality objective?

[popeye1945]

Thanks for the link. I'm more interested in how VA put it all together with his other ideas.
According to the Vedanta there's only consciousness, period. Not just what most modern humans call life. I have wondered if, in the end, VA decides to assert panpsychism. That would solve some of the problems of him telling us what the universe was like before humans arrived (or even bacteria).

But are you saying you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge? That's not just having consciousness.

If you read the article you will come to see, that consciousness is life, life is consciousness.

And as I said Vedantic beliefs are panpsychist. So it's not just life or what most Westerners call life thats conscious.
And two do you think bacteria have FSKs, a framework and system of knowledge. Some people might think consciousness and all sorts of cognitive abilities are the same thing. Some don't.
Do you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge?
Because that's what VA asserted and what I responded to.

None so blind as those who will not see!

[Iwannaplato]

None so blind as those who will not see!

Throw a link that doesn't actually directly relate to what I was focused on, as if it's a direct response to my post. Answer nothing - not the actually question - yourself. Then insult for no reason. Pathetic.

[popeye1945]

None so blind as those who will not see!

Throw a link that doesn't actually directly relate to what I was focused on, as if it's a direct response to my post. Answer nothing - not the actually question - yourself. Then insult for no reason. Pathetic.

Perhaps I am missing something here, if you're referring to the title thread. I think it's been answered probably a number of times, but the thread just goes on and on whether it has been answered or not. There is only one possible answer, and that is for subjective consciousness to make morality manifest in the outer world of subjective consciousness. As to my statement, I thought you were disagreeing with life is consciousness, consciousness is life. Western science is aware that the cells of a multicellular organism are in and of themselves conscious parts of the whole organism. I believe it is rather self-evident, and that is why the statement, none so blind as those who will not see. I am wondering if there is not some motivation for not wishing to see the obvious, does it conflict with some religious belief?

[Iwannaplato]

Perhaps I am missing something here, if you're referring to the title thread.

You responded to a post I made with a link to that thread. I asked you questions. You seem to be assuming that if I don't openly agree with that link and your statement or ask more questions, then you know what my position is. I'm a panpsychist. But I don't think bacteria have FSKs. So, I ask you questions, point out something about Vedanta. And get no real response. I rephrase the questions and points and I get told I am blind.

Western science is aware that the cells of a multicellular organism are in and of themselves conscious parts of the whole organism. I believe it is rather self-evident, and that is why the statement, none so blind as those who will not see. I am wondering if there is not some motivation for not wishing to see the obvious, does it conflict with some religious belief?

So, instead of answering questions: for example: it's obviously you believe bacteria are conscious, but do you believe they have a Framework and system of Knowledge?
you tell me I am blind.

Here's my first response to you: [note the bolded part - here I put the post you were responding to in context]

Thanks for the link. I'm more interested in how VA put it all together with his other ideas.
According to the Vedanta there's only consciousness, period. Not just what most modern humans call life. I have wondered if, in the end, VA decides to assert panpsychism. That would solve some of the problems of him telling us what the universe was like before humans arrived (or even bacteria).

But are you saying you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge? That's not just having consciousness

I end with a straight forward question. I suppose I could have made it clearer. I could have said, I don't think the link argues that bacteria have an FSK even though they have consciousness according to the VEdanta.

Then my second response:

And as I said Vedantic beliefs are panpsychist. So it's not just life or what most Westerners call life thats conscious.
And two do you think bacteria have FSKs, a framework and system of knowledge. Some people might think consciousness and all sorts of cognitive abilities are the same thing. Some don't.
Do you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge?

I expand a bit in preparation for the question I am repeating.

I can expand more. I am not sure that VA wants to accept Vedanta, so while it might support one part of his current beliefs - that bacteria are conscious - I don't think it supports that they have an FSK. Further I think it would be an ill-fit with other parts of his beliefs.

My beliefs are not the topic of these two posts. I know this seems to be regularly misinterpreted here. Most people take any post as planting the flag of what team one is on. Sometimes I certainly express my opinions, but a lot of the time I am trying to understand what other people believe and why. Or to see what happens if I ask certain questions: to explore.

I asked VA some questions about his beliefs. Then you responded as if you were answering those questions. Well, I then asked you some questions.

If you don't want to answer about whether bacteria have an FSK, fine.
But don't call me blind because you assume that 1) I should be convinced by a link you've provided. Though more importantly 2) that my questions have nothing to do with what I am doing here, because the only possible issue is whether someone is on your team as far as consciousness in all life or not.

And if you read that article in the link, you will find it also argues there is the transmigration of souls. Should I assume that it convinced you that happens, since I am blind if I don't agree with the article's other assertions?

Do you believe as the author does that it has been demonstrated that the brain is not the seat of human consciousness? and that anyone who is not convinced is blind?

Do you believe that we have two bodies, one subtle and the other gross, in the vedanta's conception of these things? And if one in not convinced of this by the article one is blind?

[Veritas Aequitas]

For information:
I have been into advaita vedanta since very young for a long time and since long ago had graduated from it towards more of a non-theistic Buddhism's oriented philosophy which is a 180 degree paradigm shift.

Bacteria do not have FSK* exactly but rather a fundamental FSR [Framework and System of Realization of reality].
*FSK is a convenient term and relevant for higher evolved entities; FSK implied an embedded FSR.

[popeye1945]

Perhaps I am missing something here, if you're referring to the title thread.

You responded to a post I made with a link to that thread. I asked you questions. You seem to be assuming that if I don't openly agree with that link and your statement or ask more questions, then you know what my position is. I'm a panpsychist. But I don't think bacteria have FSKs. So, I ask you questions, point out something about Vedanta. And get no real response. I rephrase the questions and points and I get told I am blind.

Western science is aware that the cells of a multicellular organism are in and of themselves conscious parts of the whole organism. I believe it is rather self-evident, and that is why the statement, none so blind as those who will not see. I am wondering if there is not some motivation for not wishing to see the obvious, does it conflict with some religious belief?

So, instead of answering questions: for example: it's obviously you believe bacteria are conscious, but do you believe they have a Framework and system of Knowledge?
you tell me I am blind.

Here's my first response to you: [note the bolded part - here I put the post you were responding to in context]

Thanks for the link. I'm more interested in how VA put it all together with his other ideas.
According to the Vedanta there's only consciousness, period. Not just what most modern humans call life. I have wondered if, in the end, VA decides to assert panpsychism. That would solve some of the problems of him telling us what the universe was like before humans arrived (or even bacteria).

But are you saying you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge? That's not just having consciousness

I end with a straight forward question. I suppose I could have made it clearer. I could have said, I don't think the link argues that bacteria have an FSK even though they have consciousness according to the Vedanta.

Then my second response:

And as I said Vedantic beliefs are panpsychist. So it's not just life or what most Westerners call life thats conscious.
And two do you think bacteria have FSKs, a framework and system of knowledge. Some people might think consciousness and all sorts of cognitive abilities are the same thing. Some don't.
Do you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge?

I expand a bit in preparation for the question I am repeating.

I can expand more. I am not sure that VA wants to accept Vedanta, so while it might support one part of his current beliefs - that bacteria are conscious - I don't think it supports that they have an FSK. Further I think it would be an ill-fit with other parts of his beliefs.

My beliefs are not the topic of these two posts. I know this seems to be regularly misinterpreted here. Most people take any post as planting the flag of what team one is on. Sometimes I certainly express my opinions, but a lot of the time I am trying to understand what other people believe and why. Or to see what happens if I ask certain questions: to explore.

I asked VA some questions about his beliefs. Then you responded as if you were answering those questions. Well, I then asked you some questions.

If you don't want to answer about whether bacteria have an FSK, fine.
But don't call me blind because you assume that 1) I should be convinced by a link you've provided. Though more importantly 2) that my questions have nothing to do with what I am doing here, because the only possible issue is whether someone is on your team as far as consciousness in all life or not.

And if you read that article in the link, you will find it also argues there is the transmigration of souls. Should I assume that it convinced you that happens, since I am blind if I don't agree with the article's other assertions?

Do you believe as the author does that it has been demonstrated that the brain is not the seat of human consciousness? and that anyone who is not convinced is blind?

Do you believe that we have two bodies, one subtle and the other gross, in the vedanta's conception of these things? And if one in not convinced of this by the article one is blind?

Oh! The

Perhaps I am missing something here, if you're referring to the title thread.

You responded to a post I made with a link to that thread. I asked you questions. You seem to be assuming that if I don't openly agree with that link and your statement or ask more questions, then you know what my position is. I'm a panpsychist. But I don't think bacteria have FSKs. So, I ask you questions, point out something about Vedanta. And get no real response. I rephrase the questions and points and I get told I am blind.

Western science is aware that the cells of a multicellular organism are in and of themselves conscious parts of the whole organism. I believe it is rather self-evident, and that is why the statement, none so blind as those who will not see. I am wondering if there is not some motivation for not wishing to see the obvious, does it conflict with some religious belief?

So, instead of answering questions: for example: it's obviously you believe bacteria are conscious, but do you believe they have a Framework and system of Knowledge?
you tell me I am blind.

Here's my first response to you: [note the bolded part - here I put the post you were responding to in context]

Thanks for the link. I'm more interested in how VA put it all together with his other ideas.
According to the Vedanta there's only consciousness, period. Not just what most modern humans call life. I have wondered if, in the end, VA decides to assert panpsychism. That would solve some of the problems of him telling us what the universe was like before humans arrived (or even bacteria).

But are you saying you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge? That's not just having consciousness

I end with a straight forward question. I suppose I could have made it clearer. I could have said, I don't think the link argues that bacteria have an FSK even though they have consciousness according to the Vedanta.

Then my second response:

And as I said Vedantic beliefs are panpsychist. So it's not just life or what most Westerners call life thats conscious.
And two do you think bacteria have FSKs, a framework and system of knowledge. Some people might think consciousness and all sorts of cognitive abilities are the same thing. Some don't.
Do you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge?

I expand a bit in preparation for the question I am repeating.

I can expand more. I am not sure that VA wants to accept Vedanta, so while it might support one part of his current beliefs - that bacteria are conscious - I don't think it supports that they have an FSK. Further I think it would be an ill-fit with other parts of his beliefs.

My beliefs are not the topic of these two posts. I know this seems to be regularly misinterpreted here. Most people take any post as planting the flag of what team one is on. Sometimes I certainly express my opinions, but a lot of the time I am trying to understand what other people believe and why. Or to see what happens if I ask certain questions: to explore.

I asked VA some questions about his beliefs. Then you responded as if you were answering those questions. Well, I then asked you some questions.

If you don't want to answer about whether bacteria have an FSK, fine.
But don't call me blind because you assume that 1) I should be convinced by a link you've provided. Though more importantly 2) that my questions have nothing to do with what I am doing here, because the only possible issue is whether someone is on your team as far as consciousness in all life or not.

And if you read that article in the link, you will find it also argues there is the transmigration of souls. Should I assume that it convinced you that happens, since I am blind if I don't agree with the article's other assertions?

Do you believe as the author does that it has been demonstrated that the brain is not the seat of human consciousness? and that anyone who is not convinced is blind?

Do you believe that we have two bodies, one subtle and the other gross, in the Vedanta's conception of these things? And if one is not convinced of this by the article one is blind?

FSK, sorry forgot this was the FSK thread. Sorry for interrupting.

[Peter Holmes]

VA: 'Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK, of which, the scientific FSK is the most reliable, credible and objective.'

Part of this means the following: 'Reality is conditioned upon a specific human-based framework and system of reality-framework and system of knowledge'.

Beneath the portentous emptiness, this is false. What we call reality - the universe - existed before we turned up, would have existed had we not turned up, and will exist when we're gone. And all the evidence from the most reliable, credible and objective kind of knowledge - natural science - shows that this is the case.

VA has constructed a ridiculous, supposedly anti-realist argument, on the basis of which he promotes the existence of moral facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA: 'Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK, of which, the scientific FSK is the most reliable, credible and objective.'

Part of this means the following: 'Reality is conditioned upon a specific human-based framework and system of reality-framework and system of knowledge'.

Beneath the portentous emptiness, this is false. What we call reality - the universe - existed before we turned up, would have existed had we not turned up, and will exist when we're gone. And all the evidence from the most reliable, credible and objective kind of knowledge - natural science - shows that this is the case.

VA has constructed a ridiculous, supposedly anti-realist argument, on the basis of which he promotes the existence of moral facts.

Now you are creeping into it by your mentioned of 'natural science'.
But you are ignorant 'natural science' has be conditioned upon a human-based scientific FSK.
Because it is human-based, deductively it follows, it cannot be mind-independent nor independent of body, brain and minds.

What we call reality - the universe - existed before we turned up, would have existed had we not turned up, and will exist when we're gone.

Prove to me your supposed mind-independent reality which is really real and absolutely independent of human bodies, brains and mind?

The most you can do is to blabber about it, i.e. it is just-is, being-so, that-is-the-case, a state of affairs without any predication at all.
This is like the theists who insist God exists as a mind-independent reality that is just-is, being-so, that-is-the-case.

Show your proofs?

[Peter Holmes]

Prove to me your supposed mind-independent reality which is really real and absolutely independent of human bodies, brains and mind?

Prove to me that reality - the universe - depends on human bodies. What's the scientific, empirical evidence for that claim? For example, what evidence is there that the gravitational accretion that formed planet earth depended in any way at all on human beings. This is bonkers.

[Skepdick]

Prove to me that reality - the universe - depends on human bodies. What's the scientific, empirical evidence for that claim? For example, what evidence is there that the gravitational accretion that formed planet earth depended in any way at all on human beings. This is bonkers.

The theory that gravitational accretion formed planet earth is a theory constructed by humans to explan the possible history of a present-day phenomenon.

Therefore it depends on human beings.

Q.E.D

[Peter Holmes]

Premise: Humans produced the theory of gravitational accretion.
Conclusion: Therefore, gravitational accretion depends on humans.

Ffs.

[Iwannaplato]

FSK, sorry forgot this was the FSK thread. Sorry for interrupting.

Is this sarcasm? It's misplaced and, you're starting to seem evasive.
FSKs are central to most if not all VA arguments and it was part of his argument here...
Maybe that wasn't sarcasm on your part. I don't know.
Do you think like VA does that there is a bacterial FSK? and that this supports his position that morality is objective?

[CIN]

Prove to me that reality - the universe - depends on human bodies. What's the scientific, empirical evidence for that claim? For example, what evidence is there that the gravitational accretion that formed planet earth depended in any way at all on human beings. This is bonkers.

The theory that gravitational accretion formed planet earth is a theory constructed by humans to explan the possible history of a present-day phenomenon.

Therefore it depends on human beings.

Q.E.D

What you've proved here is that the theory depends on human beings, not that the gravitational accretion does. Do you understand that? If you don't, go and take a course on logic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Prove to me that reality - the universe - depends on human bodies. What's the scientific, empirical evidence for that claim? For example, what evidence is there that the gravitational accretion that formed planet earth depended in any way at all on human beings. This is bonkers.

The theory that gravitational accretion formed planet earth is a theory constructed by humans to explain the possible history of a present-day phenomenon.
Therefore it depends on human beings.
Q.E.D

Strawman as usual.
I just addressed the same issue here;

Just in case you missed what I wrote above;
I have NEVER claimed things are "mind-dependent"*

I didn't miss it, I addressed it. "Not mind-independent" means "mind-dependent". So when you say "Space, time and clocks are not mind-independent", you are saying they are mind-dependent, i.e. if minds ceased to exist, they would cease to exist too.
In fact, in another thread, you went so far to say that trees do not exist when noone is looking at them ( which means that we create them by observation. )

Your thinking is too rigid, dogmatic and ideological.

The general term used in reference to philosophical realism is 'mind-independent' as generally agreed upon as a convenience. Btw, loads of books and articles had been written on the subject of Philosophic-realism versus ANTI-philosophical-realism that entailed sophisticated details and contexts.

To simply rely on a word for its meaning, especially in philosophy is too short-sighted. As such, contexts and details are necessary to convey what the point really meant.

From the anti-philosophical perspective, reality is conditioned upon System Theory, i.e. all are connected.
Note, 'independent' can be synonymous with unrelated, unconnected, unassociated, and the like.

In this case, 'mind-independent' of philosophical realism is more appropriate to mind-unrelated, mind-unassociated.
Therefore ANTI-philosophical-realism would be human body, brain, mind-related or mind-associated.

My definition of a FSR-FSK [emergence and realization of reality] is human-based, thus mind, brain and body related - QED.

[Skepdick]

Prove to me that reality - the universe - depends on human bodies. What's the scientific, empirical evidence for that claim? For example, what evidence is there that the gravitational accretion that formed planet earth depended in any way at all on human beings. This is bonkers.

The theory that gravitational accretion formed planet earth is a theory constructed by humans to explan the possible history of a present-day phenomenon.

Therefore it depends on human beings.

Q.E.D

What you've proved here is that the theory depends on human beings, not that the gravitational accretion does. Do you understand that? If you don't, go and take a course on logic.

Gravitational accretion is a theory. You are reifying it and committing a fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

Logic also depends on human beings. If you want to go down that rabbit hole.