What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

So, we all agree there's no non-physical mind. But does anyone have any empirical evidence for the existence of a physical mind - maybe something like evidence for the existence of brains?

While we wait for ever for that, let's draw the obvious conclusion: the idea that reality is or could be 'mind-dependent' - that the existence of the universe depends on humans/human brains - is utterly incoherent.

FIrst you wanted proof. Now you want evidence.

Which one do you want? Make up your mind.

[Atla]

Would be this correct:

Kant's transcendental idealism has nothing to do with idealism, and Kant's transcendental realism has nothing to do with realism. And neither of them have anything to do with transcendence.

Transcendental idealism and transcendental realism discuss an entirely different issue than what idealism and realism, as generally understood, are discussing.

So saying something like: "Kant has shown that philosophical realism is illusory" would be word salad.

[Peter Holmes]

Would be this correct:

Kant's transcendental idealism has nothing to do with idealism, and Kant's transcendental realism has nothing to do with realism. And neither of them have anything to do with transcendence.

Transcendental idealism and transcendental realism discuss an entirely different issue than what idealism and realism, as generally understood, are discussing.

So saying something like: "Kant has shown that philosophical realism is illusory" would be word salad.

Yay to that. And anyway, what on earth is transcendence?: 'existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level'. I call that semantic infiltration.

[Skepdick]

Yay to that. And anyway, what on earth is transcendence?: 'existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level'. I call that semantic infiltration.

The physical level beyond normal existence is semantic infiltration.

[Iwannaplato]

Would be this correct:

Kant's transcendental idealism has nothing to do with idealism, and Kant's transcendental realism has nothing to do with realism. And neither of them have anything to do with transcendence.

Transcendental idealism and transcendental realism discuss an entirely different issue than what idealism and realism, as generally understood, are discussing.

So saying something like: "Kant has shown that philosophical realism is illusory" would be word salad.

Two detectives are working a case. They have the body. Some forensic clues. They have indirect witnesses (no one saw the actual murder). They get back in their car to plan. Kowalski is a retired detective that both detectives on this case respect but Detective 1 in addtion worships.

Detective one starts off:
D1: Kowalski would say that we should ignore the witnesses.
D2: But I think the old lady across the street had a good point about the delivery driver.
D1: On the Dino murders, Kowalski said [K's opinion about witnesses as reported/interpreted by D1]
D2: [drawn into the discussion of Kowalski against his better judgment] I think what Kowalski was getting at was X.
D1: No, clearly Kowalski meant.........

So, now instead of discussing the case, they are discussing what Kowalski meant. Instead of taking responsibility for a position, D1 has ensnared D2 in the philosophical interpretation of a 3rd, not present, detective's views. Suddenly the hermeneutics of Kowalski is added onto the tasks of the detectives.

D1 could say: I don't trust witnesses in general, let's start with the forensics. If D2 challenges this plan, D1 can justify the choice on his own grounds, in his own words. He can make the case himself.

Avoiding the Kant...I mean Kowalski circus. D1 can be informed by the wise mentor. If he's actually managed to integrate K and his ideas then he can justify without links, quotes, appeals to authority, etc.

Whether the intention is there or not, using K regularly is an enormous delaying and complexifying mechanism. Before you and I discuss X we gotta talk about K. Interpret K. Fight over interpretations of K.

I think the 'we gotta' implicit in the implicit appeal to authority here is subjective. We don't gotta.

And given that K has said contradictory things, and that different great detectives who know K's work differ, even radically, on what K actually meant one should do on murder cases, it's a bog.

Instead the two quite different topics could be separated into threads interpreting Kant
and threads talking about realism, for example.

So, what if Kowalski was a misanthropic, monist, transcendentalist, rogue cop pragmatist or whatever. Who cares. We don't need to discuss Kowalski's adjectives or categories. It's a circus of irrelevance.

[Skepdick]

the two quite different topics can be separated into threads interpreting Kant
and threads talking about realism, for example.

Why? Realism is an interpretation of sense-data.

As much as you want to avoid hermeneutics/interpretation detective work is nothing other than synthetiszing the interpretation framework which is more colloquially known as the murder theory - the story explaining the events leading up to the murder.

It's hermeneutics in action.

Iteratively collecting evidence, testing and discarding hypotheses until we are left with the best possible thesis-antithesis pair with the truth somewhere in the middle - it's the hermeneutic circle in action.

[Atla]

Would be this correct:

Kant's transcendental idealism has nothing to do with idealism, and Kant's transcendental realism has nothing to do with realism. And neither of them have anything to do with transcendence.

Transcendental idealism and transcendental realism discuss an entirely different issue than what idealism and realism, as generally understood, are discussing.

So saying something like: "Kant has shown that philosophical realism is illusory" would be word salad.

Two detectives are working a case. They have the body. Some forensic clues. They have indirect witnesses (no one saw the actual murder). They get back in their car to plan. Kowalski is a retired detective that both detectives on this case respect but Detective 1 in addtion worships.

Detective one starts off:
D1: Kowalski would say that we should ignore the witnesses.
D2: But I think the old lady across the street had a good point about the delivery driver.
D1: On the Dino murders, Kowalski said [K's opinion about witnesses as reported/interpreted by D1]
D2: [drawn into the discussion of Kowalski against his better judgment] I think what Kowalski was getting at was X.
D1: No, clearly Kowalski meant.........

So, now instead of discussing the case, they are discussing what Kowalski meant. Instead of taking responsibility for a position, D1 has ensnared D2 in the philosophical interpretation of a 3rd, not present, detective's views. Suddenly the hermeneutics of Kowalski is added onto the tasks of the detectives.

D1 could say: I don't trust witnesses in general, let's start with the forensics. If D2 challenges this plan, D1 can justify the choice on his own grounds, in his own words. He can make the case himself.

Avoiding the Kant...I mean Kowalski circus. D1 can be informed by the wise mentor. If he's actually managed to integrate K and his ideas then he can justify without links, quotes, appeals to authority, etc.

Whether the intention is there or not, using K regularly is an enormous delaying and complexifying mechanism. Before you and I discuss X we gotta talk about K. Interpret K. Fight over interpretations of K.

I think the 'we gotta' implicit in the implicit appeal to authority here is subjective. We don't gotta.

And given that K has said contradictory things, and that different great detectives who know K's work differ, even radically, on what K actually meant one should do on murder cases, it's a bog.

Instead the two quite different topics could be separated into threads interpreting Kant
and threads talking about realism, for example.

So, what if Kowalski was a misanthropic, monist, transcendentalist, rogue cop pragmatist or whatever. Who cares. We don't need to discuss Kowalski's adjectives or categories. It's a circus of irrelevance.

There's no case for me though, I automatically worked out "Kantianism" on my own when I was an adolescent, plus it's improved using the knowledge of the 250 years after Kant.

So to me, this is really just about poking VA for fun, while also getting a better grasp of the obscure terminology that Kant was using, and finding out where he may have made small-to-moderate mistakes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, we all agree there's no non-physical mind. But does anyone have any empirical evidence for the existence of a physical mind - maybe something like evidence for the existence of brains?

While we wait for ever for that, let's draw the obvious conclusion: the idea that reality is or could be 'mind-dependent' - that the existence of the universe depends on humans/human brains - is utterly incoherent.

Note I wrote above,

How can you be so ignorant that there are loads of scientific studies to confirm the structure, features, structures, processes, resulting effects of the mind as defined above?
These are proofs that the objective FSK-ed physical mind exists as empirically real.

I have gone through the "if not mind-independent, then mind-dependent" thingy a million times.
I don't use the mind-dependent term because it is too confusing to the extent that the universe came about dependent of the individual human mind or the collective minds.

Philosophical Realism [yours] claims that reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.

Those who are against, i.e. ANTI-Philosophical_Realism do not agree that things are absolutely mind-independent, but somehow related & linked [entangled, connected] to the human conditions [human mind and body].

[Peter Holmes]

So, we all agree there's no non-physical mind. But does anyone have any empirical evidence for the existence of a physical mind - maybe something like evidence for the existence of brains?

While we wait for ever for that, let's draw the obvious conclusion: the idea that reality is or could be 'mind-dependent' - that the existence of the universe depends on humans/human brains - is utterly incoherent.

Note I wrote above,

How can you be so ignorant that there are loads of scientific studies to confirm the structure, features, structures, processes, resulting effects of the mind as defined above?
These are proofs that the objective FSK-ed physical mind exists as empirically real.

I have gone through the "if not mind-independent, then mind-dependent" thingy a million times.
I don't use the mind-dependent term because it is too confusing to the extent that the universe came about dependent of the individual human mind or the collective minds.

Philosophical Realism [yours] claims that reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.

Those who are against, i.e. ANTI-Philosophical_Realism do not agree that things are absolutely mind-independent, but somehow related & linked [entangled, connected] to the human conditions [human mind and body].

So, we're not call reality 'mind-dependent', but instead 'not mind-independent'. Right.

And, meanwhile, there's no such thing as a non-physical mind. So talk about minds containing mental things and events is really talk about physical things and events.

And, meanwhile, talk of reality being 'not mind-independent' is incoherent. In what way is the tree in my garden not independent from human brains?

I wonder what it will take for you to recognise that your argument is bollocks?

[Skepdick]

And, meanwhile, there's no such thing as a non-physical mind. So talk about minds containing mental things and events is really talk about physical things and events.

So why do you talk about feelings, pain, dreams, memories or experiences?
Why don't you talk about the physical things/events you are really talking about?

The more Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes speaks the more he solidifies the claim that he's a fucking idiot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, we all agree there's no non-physical mind. But does anyone have any empirical evidence for the existence of a physical mind - maybe something like evidence for the existence of brains?

While we wait for ever for that, let's draw the obvious conclusion: the idea that reality is or could be 'mind-dependent' - that the existence of the universe depends on humans/human brains - is utterly incoherent.

Note I wrote above,

How can you be so ignorant that there are loads of scientific studies to confirm the structure, features, structures, processes, resulting effects of the mind as defined above?
These are proofs that the objective FSK-ed physical mind exists as empirically real.

I have gone through the "if not mind-independent, then mind-dependent" thingy a million times.
I don't use the mind-dependent term because it is too confusing to the extent that the universe came about dependent of the individual human mind or the collective minds.

Philosophical Realism [yours] claims that reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.

Those who are against, i.e. ANTI-Philosophical_Realism do not agree that things are absolutely mind-independent, but somehow related & linked [entangled, connected] to the human conditions [human mind and body].

So, we're not call reality 'mind-dependent', but instead 'not mind-independent'. Right.

And, meanwhile, there's no such thing as a non-physical mind. So talk about minds containing mental things and events is really talk about physical things and events.

You are using the primal container "in" metaphor.
The mind is not a "container" even metaphorically.
You are thinking too narrowly and shallowly with the above.

What is mind [mind-system] is that SPECIFIC set of active organic biological physical neurons within a system that enable all the activities and effects of what we label as mind.

For example the Digestive System is NOT merely talking about physical things and events BUT rather it is a very distinct SYSTEM comprising all the relevant active physical organs, parts and mechanism, processes and events all working as a whole.

In the future [now on the way] scientists will be able to fully map and identify all the psychical neurons that are supposed to support the mind-system or what we now call 'mind'.

And, meanwhile, talk of reality being 'not mind-independent' is incoherent. In what way is the tree in my garden not independent from human brains?

I wonder what it will take for you to recognise that your argument is bollocks?

Again, your knowledge and thinking is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.
Don't be hasty and arrogant to think my argument is bollocks when in reality your thinking and mind is boll-blocked.

Here is crude example.

Note the individual pando pines in the above image.
IF a pando-pine-tree [Y] is given self-consciousness, he will perceive the next and next pando pines as absolutely mind-independent from his mind.
But if that individual pine is knowledge, he will realize he is in fact connected via the root system to all other pando-pines around him.
As such, pando-pine-tree [Y] is not mind-independent but somehow related, connected, entangled with all the other pando-pine-treee.

• Pando (Latin for "I spread")[1] is a clonal organism representing an individual male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). It was identified as a single living organism because its parts possess identical genetic markers[2] and it is assumed to have a massive interconnected underground root system.
  Pando occupies 108 acres (43.6 ha) and is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000 tonnes (6,000,000 kg),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)

Similarly, individual humans are like the pando-pines but we are intricately part and parcel of one single system of reality.
The problem is this relation is not easy to grasp because the majority are too primal and hard cored wired with a consciousness of absolute mind-independence towards philosophical realism. Note,

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

[Peter Holmes]

...individual humans are like the pando-pines but we are intricately part and parcel of one single system of reality.
The problem is this relation is not easy to grasp because the majority are too primal and hard cored wired with a consciousness of absolute mind-independence...

Please. 'Humans are intricately part and parcel of one single system of reality'. This is mystical claptrap.

And the expression 'absolute mind-independence' is incoherent. But then, when you need a straw man, who cares?

[Veritas Aequitas]

...individual humans are like the pando-pines but we are intricately part and parcel of one single system of reality.
The problem is this relation is not easy to grasp because the majority are too primal and hard cored wired with a consciousness of absolute mind-independence...

Please. 'Humans are intricately part and parcel of one single system of reality'. This is mystical claptrap.

You are so ignorant and striving very hard to be arrogant.

One common denominator that ties up all things in the universe is the continuing expanding forces from one single force of the Big Bang.

Chaos Theory is a clue to the above and that understanding and internalize this theory is critical for humanity in terms of global warming, climate change, global pollutions, other global effects. etc. Other events [even light years away] within the universe will also effect Earth and humanity.

Chaos Theory is an interdisciplinary area of scientific study and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, and were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.[1]
Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnection, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[2]

The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions).[3]

A metaphor for this behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Texas can cause a tornado in Brazil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Anyway, I don't expect you to grasp the above and will continue to wallow in your pit of ignorance, which in a way is to my benefit as a leverage to refresh my existing knowledge.

And the expression 'absolute mind-independence' is incoherent. But then, when you need a straw man, who cares?

Why?
What wrong with comparing 'absolute to relative' in the context I am using?
As usual, you will do your handwaving drills.

[Peter Holmes]

...individual humans are like the pando-pines but we are intricately part and parcel of one single system of reality.
The problem is this relation is not easy to grasp because the majority are too primal and hard cored wired with a consciousness of absolute mind-independence...

Please. 'Humans are intricately part and parcel of one single system of reality'. This is mystical claptrap.

You are so ignorant and striving very hard to be arrogant.

One common denominator that ties up all things in the universe is the continuing expanding forces from one single force of the Big Bang.

Chaos Theory is a clue to the above and that understanding and internalize this theory is critical for humanity in terms of global warming, climate change, global pollutions, other global effects. etc. Other events [even light years away] within the universe will also effect Earth and humanity.

Chaos Theory is an interdisciplinary area of scientific study and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, and were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.[1]
Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnection, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[2]

The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions).[3]

A metaphor for this behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Texas can cause a tornado in Brazil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Anyway, I don't expect you to grasp the above and will continue to wallow in your pit of ignorance, which in a way is to my benefit as a leverage to refresh my existing knowledge.

And the expression 'absolute mind-independence' is incoherent. But then, when you need a straw man, who cares?

Why?
What wrong with comparing 'absolute to relative' in the context I am using?
As usual, you will do your handwaving drills.

It's incoherent because, since there's no non-physical mind, talk of mind-dependence or 'not-mind-independence' makes no sense. And meanwhile, the claim that reality is not independent from human brains is ridiculous.

So you resort to the claim that, since everything in the universe is physical, humans are 'part and parcel of', and not independent from, the universe - from reality - as though that's a profound and meaningful insight. It isn't.

You want, and claim to have, empirical evidence for your moral theory. But the main evidence you cite is from neuroscience, which investigates neuronal physiology and says exactly nothing about morality.

To solve this problem, you've invented a 'morality-proper framework and system of knowledge', which is laughable. Its premise is that we should avoid evil and promote good - suitably defined - which is an unexceptional moral opinion, and therefore subjective.

Problem. Solution: claim that there are features of the human brain that lead to behaviour that avoids evil - ignoring the fact that other features of the human brain lead to behaviour that promotes evil - but that the choice of which features to enhance is 'obvious' or a matter of fact. It isn't. It's a choice, which is subjective.

Untangling the mess of your ideas and arguments can be hard work.

[Peter Holmes]

VA's premise is moral: we should avoid evil by promoting its related good. But VA then claims this is a factual conclusion, from factual premises - so that morality is objective. (Face palm.)

By contrast, his sidekick, dick-for-brains, tries to subvert the distinction between facts and opinions, with the aim of establishing that there are moral facts. (Face palm.)

Does anyone have a more rational argument for moral objectivity? (Theistic moral objectivists need not bother.)