What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

...what is reality ultimately cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions since reality emerges and is realized with the human conditions before it is perceived, known and described.

Problem is you are stuck in a primal, proto and barbaric mode of thinking.

No, problem is you think that if you repeat a piece of nonsense often enough, it will stop being nonsense. It's a religious technique.

It's a fact that, more than a few hundred thousand years ago, there were no humans. And you know this damn well.

And since that's a fact, your claim that 'reality emerges and is realized with the human conditions before it is perceived, known and described' is flatly false. False, Factually false. A load of nonsensical tripe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...what is reality ultimately cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions since reality emerges and is realized with the human conditions before it is perceived, known and described.

Problem is you are stuck in a primal, proto and barbaric mode of thinking.

No, problem is you think that if you repeat a piece of nonsense often enough, it will stop being nonsense. It's a religious technique.

It's a fact that, more than a few hundred thousand years ago, there were no humans. And you know this damn well.

And since that's a fact, your claim that 'reality emerges and is realized with the human conditions before it is perceived, known and described' is flatly false. False, Factually false. A load of nonsensical tripe.

Despite my insistence you address this OP;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
with seriousness, you keep ignoring it and continue to babble the above blah, blah, blah ...

And since that's a fact,

Note your 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
As such, until you prove otherwise, you have no sound grounds to dispute my claims.

Your Philosophical-Realism claim that reality & facts are absolutely mind-independent, to the extent, the moon existence preceded humans and will continue to exists after humans are extinct. This claim is not tenable nor realistic; it is an illusion.

It's a fact that, more than a few hundred thousand years ago, there were no humans. And you know this damn well.

You are ignorant you are in a predicament with the above based on your human-body-brain-mind-independent philosophical realism.

• 1. The claim "It's a fact that, more than a few hundred thousand years ago, there were no humans." is a belief [biology and psychology] by you and other p-realists who are humans.
  
  2. Because the whole claim is a belief grounded on humans biology and psychology, it follows deductively, the ultimate reality of such a claim cannot be absolutely human-body-brain-mind-independent.
  
  3. There is no way reality [fact, truth, knowledge & objectivity] can exists absolutely independent of human-body-brain-mind.

Thus what is existence, reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK; the most credible and objective is the scientific FSR-FSK. [note FSR]

Note:
Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature
viewtopic.php?t=40248

i. "more than a few hundred thousand years ago" is grounded on time
ii. but time is not real [contrast p-realism] see video below.
iii. "more than a few hundred thousand years ago" cannot be real, thus unrealistic.
iv. Your claim re mind-independence in 1 above is unrealistic

IT'S NOT REAL! Physicists PROVE Time Does NOT Exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuMJbePKEtI

Note time is real but only when qualified to a human-based FSR-FSK.

Time is not real based on the p-realists' claim that time exists independent of humans, body, brain and mind; philosophical realism basis of mind-independent reality is not real, i.e. a mere illusion.

[Peter Holmes]

...what is reality ultimately cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions since reality emerges and is realized with the human conditions before it is perceived, known and described.

Problem is you are stuck in a primal, proto and barbaric mode of thinking.

No, problem is you think that if you repeat a piece of nonsense often enough, it will stop being nonsense. It's a religious technique.

It's a fact that, more than a few hundred thousand years ago, there were no humans. And you know this damn well.

And since that's a fact, your claim that 'reality emerges and is realized with the human conditions before it is perceived, known and described' is flatly false. False, Factually false. A load of nonsensical tripe.

Despite my insistence you address this OP;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
with seriousness, you keep ignoring it and continue to babble the above blah, blah, blah ...

And since that's a fact,

Note your 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
As such, until you prove otherwise, you have no sound grounds to dispute my claims.

Your Philosophical-Realism claim that reality & facts are absolutely mind-independent, to the extent, the moon existence preceded humans and will continue to exists after humans are extinct. This claim is not tenable nor realistic; it is an illusion.

It's a fact that, more than a few hundred thousand years ago, there were no humans. And you know this damn well.

You are ignorant you are in a predicament with the above based on your human-body-brain-mind-independent philosophical realism.

• 1. The claim "It's a fact that, more than a few hundred thousand years ago, there were no humans." is a belief [biology and psychology] by you and other p-realists who are humans.
  
  2. Because the whole claim is a belief grounded on humans biology and psychology, it follows deductively, the ultimate reality of such a claim cannot be absolutely human-body-brain-mind-independent.
  
  3. There is no way reality [fact, truth, knowledge & objectivity] can exists absolutely independent of human-body-brain-mind.

Thus what is existence, reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK; the most credible and objective is the scientific FSR-FSK. [note FSR]

Do you think the following arguments are valid?:

1 We believe the Big Bang occurred. Therefore the Big Bang is not independent from our belief.

2 We know that electromagnetic force exists. Therefore, electromagnetic force is not independent from our knowledge.

3 We describe gravitational accretion in human ways. Therefore, gravitational accretion is not independent from our description.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, problem is you think that if you repeat a piece of nonsense often enough, it will stop being nonsense. It's a religious technique.

It's a fact that, more than a few hundred thousand years ago, there were no humans. And you know this damn well.

And since that's a fact, your claim that 'reality emerges and is realized with the human conditions before it is perceived, known and described' is flatly false. False, Factually false. A load of nonsensical tripe.

Despite my insistence you address this OP;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
with seriousness, you keep ignoring it and continue to babble the above blah, blah, blah ...

And since that's a fact,

Note your 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
As such, until you prove otherwise, you have no sound grounds to dispute my claims.

Your Philosophical-Realism claim that reality & facts are absolutely mind-independent, to the extent, the moon existence preceded humans and will continue to exists after humans are extinct. This claim is not tenable nor realistic; it is an illusion.

It's a fact that, more than a few hundred thousand years ago, there were no humans. And you know this damn well.

You are ignorant you are in a predicament with the above based on your human-body-brain-mind-independent philosophical realism.

• 1. The claim "It's a fact that, more than a few hundred thousand years ago, there were no humans." is a belief [biology and psychology] by you and other p-realists who are humans.
  
  2. Because the whole claim is a belief grounded on humans biology and psychology, it follows deductively, the ultimate reality of such a claim cannot be absolutely human-body-brain-mind-independent.
  
  3. There is no way reality [fact, truth, knowledge & objectivity] can exists absolutely independent of human-body-brain-mind.

Thus what is existence, reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK; the most credible and objective is the scientific FSR-FSK. [note FSR]

Do you think the following arguments are valid?:

1 We believe the Big Bang occurred. Therefore the Big Bang is not independent from our belief.

2 We know that electromagnetic force exists. Therefore, electromagnetic force is not independent from our knowledge.

3 We describe gravitational accretion in human ways. Therefore, gravitational accretion is not independent from our description.

Note the ETA points I added in editing the above post.

Note you missed out the critical FSR-FSKed facts;

1 We believe the Big Bang occurred grounded on the human-based Science-Cosmological FSR-FSK.
Because it is human-based, it follows deductively it cannot be mind-independent
Therefore the Big Bang is not independent from our belief.

2 We know that electromagnetic force exists grounded on the human-based Science-Physics FSR-FSK.
Because it is human-based, it follows deductively it cannot be mind-independent. Therefore, electromagnetic force is not independent from our knowledge.

3 We describe gravitational accretion in human ways grounded on the human-based Science-Physics FSR-FSK.
Because it is human-based, it follows deductively it cannot be mind-independent. Therefore, gravitational accretion is not independent from our description.

Can you counter the above?

[Iwannaplato]

1 We believe the Big Bang occurred grounded on the human-based Science-Cosmological FSR-FSK.
Because it is human-based, it follows deductively it cannot be mind-independent
Therefore the Big Bang is not independent from our belief.

I think you know it's a no-no to use the present tense here. The question isn't is it. The question is 'was it independent when it happened?'

[Veritas Aequitas]

Deductively and realistically;

• 1. According the human-based scientific-cosmology FSR-FSK and the evolution-biology FSK, humans emerged 13.5 billion years after the Big Bang.
  In this case, it is ASSUMED the Big-Bang occurred independent of humans, body, brain and mind.
  
  2. Because the FSR-FSKs are human-based, it follows deductively, whatever is assumed and claimed as real CANNOT be independent of humans, body, brain and mind.
  
  3. There is no way reality [fact, truth, knowledge & objectivity] can exists absolutely independent of human-body-brain-mind.

The claim by philosophical realism that reality and things exist as mind-independent is an ideology which is illusory driven from an evolutionary default.
Mind-independent and the mode of external-ness do have practical utilities but it is limited to a certain range of human activities thus cannot be absolute.

The limited mode of external-ness had posed a lot of philosophical issues in consideration of higher refined realities; this is why Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution to ground reality on the human conditions which is more realistic, verifiable, justifiable and objective.

[Flannel Jesus]

The claim by philosophical realism that reality and things exist as mind-independent is an ideology which is illusory driven from an evolutionary default.

It doesn't become illusory just because you claim it again and again and again. You think it's illusory, you haven't established that for the rest of us.

[Iwannaplato]

The claim by philosophical realism that reality and things exist as mind-independent is an ideology which is illusory driven from an evolutionary default.

It doesn't become illusory just because you claim it again and again and again. You think it's illusory, to haven't established that for the rest of us.

He will claim he has demonstrated this, but he hasn't. It's debate by attrition. At some point most people will give up in the face of this repetition and 'responses'. Not because they are convinced or could not, yet again, point out the holes in the argument, but because it is pointless to continue interacting with him. It's a pyrrhic victory, not that this will get noticed either.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The claim by philosophical realism that reality and things exist as mind-independent is an ideology which is illusory driven from an evolutionary default.

It doesn't become illusory just because you claim it again and again and again. You think it's illusory, you haven't established that for the rest of us.

Note,

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

How Physics is Driving Philosophical Realism to Extinction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40002

Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40094

I am prepared for a serious debate on the above.

[Flannel Jesus]

If you were prepared for serious debate, you'd drop the "note" schtick.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you were prepared for serious debate, you'd drop the "note" schtick.

I will try to remember in your case as demanded.

You also requested I drop the 'human-based' in referenced to FSK, but I think the 'human-based' prefix is critical; it is an added burden to type the extra words [..I wish I don't have to], but I believe based on past experiences with other poster, it is necessary.

This is because from 'human-based' it follows deductively, it cannot be mind-independent; human-based inevitably involved the mind.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't have a problem with you saying "note" in general, but you would do well to understand when to use note: for established, agreed upon facts.

"Martha Stewart isn't a shining beacon of morality herself, note her time in prison."

That's how to use "note" as a verb and have it make sense. You're asking the reader to "note" something that is a well established fact that they will probably not have any reason to dispute. Martha Stewart did go to prison, that's an established fact that very few people dispute.

We "note" well established and agreeable facts, not contentious points that you're arguing for.

[Peter Holmes]

VA thinks the following arguments are valid.

1 We believe the Big Bang occurred. Therefore the Big Bang is not independent from our belief.

2 We know that electromagnetic force exists. Therefore, electromagnetic force is not independent from our knowledge.

3 We describe gravitational accretion in human ways. Therefore, gravitational accretion is not independent from our description.

And perhaps the following sums up the idiocy,

4 We perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. Therefore, there can be no reality independent from humans.

And this, somehow, accounts for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts. Since we invent or create or construct all facts, there's no reason to think we can't invent or create or construct moral facts.

[Skepdick]

VA thinks the following arguments are valid.

1 We believe the Big Bang occurred. Therefore the Big Bang is not independent from our belief.

2 We know that electromagnetic force exists. Therefore, electromagnetic force is not independent from our knowledge.

3 We describe gravitational accretion in human ways. Therefore, gravitational accretion is not independent from our description.

And perhaps the following sums up the idiocy,

4 We perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. Therefore, there can be no reality independent from humans.

And this, somehow, accounts for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts. Since we invent or create or construct all facts, there's no reason to think we can't invent or create or construct moral facts.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes thinks the following argument is invalid and unsound.

P1. Murder is wrong.
P2. Murder is wrong.
C. Murder is wrong.

Is there even a point pretending this twat cares about the principles he claims to espouse?

[Peter Holmes]

P1. Murder is wrong.
P2. Murder is wrong.
C. Murder is wrong.

I wonder what sort of fucking moron would think that's an argument?