Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

If, by agreement on the use of signs, we call one colour 'red' and another colour 'blue', it isn't a matter of probability that the one colour is red and the other is blue.

If agreement on the use of signs is sufficient to make true, factual claims about colors then you are contradicting yourself...

And it demolishes any kind of consensus theory of truth.

If the consensus theory is demolished then what makes it true, a fact that this particular color is red?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If, by agreement on the use of signs, we call one colour 'red' and another colour 'blue', it isn't a matter of probability that the one colour is red and the other is blue. It isn't - excepting some 'halfway blend' between the colours - undecidable which is red and which is blue. The names are arbitrary, but so what? The categories or identities could be different, but so what? We could play a different game - but so what?

'How can I know what you're seeing when you say a colour is red?' Well, how do you know that what you're seeing is red? You've learnt how to use a word. Can we make mistakes when playing a language game? Of course.

That, outside language, there are no linguistic categories or identities - sameness and difference - in reality doesn't mean there aren't different things in reality. We could categorise rocks and trees as 'the same' - but so what? The idea that reality conforms to our ways of talking about it is a delusion - a projection. And the so-called symbol-grounding problem is a product of that delusion.

So what? ???
Again what you are ignorant of is this;
You need to understand the contrasting views between your philosophical realism vs ANTI-philosophical_realism [mine = kantian].

Your basic fundamental underlying principle of your philosophy related to 'what is fact, reality, physical' is grounded on philosophical realism, whatever physical [matter of fact] must be absolutely mind-independent from the human conditions.
Your definition of what is fact is that feature of reality which is just-is or being so, that is the case, states of affairs.

But philosophical realism as I had argued is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
You have not counter this claim which you are not capable of doing.

From your above, based on your illusory philosophical realism mind-independence, you are ASSUMING there is permanent fixed color independent of the talking about it or the language games played.

No! No! No! there is no mind-independent color or color-waves emitting from the surfaces of things out there.
Rather when 8 billion people look at that red color patch, there will be 8 billion different realizations and emergences of a color experiences [just like their finger prints].

Note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

There can never be a fixed mind-independent color awaiting to be perceived as assumed based on your illusory mind-independence of philosophical realism.

From the 8 billion different emerges and realization of that patch of color, it is subject to different human based FSR-FSK which are subsequently perceived known and then shared knowledge [via consensus] is generated via language games with specific descriptions.

[Atla]

No! No! No! there is no mind-independent color or color-waves emitting from the surfaces of things out there.
Rather when 8 billion people look at that red color patch, there will be 8 billion different realizations and emergences of a color experiences [just like their finger prints].

Of course there's probably a mind-independent wave emitting from the surfaces. Have you tried NOT skipping the entire field of science?

You really are just far too incompetent to adopt Kant's truth to indirect perception.

[Skepdick]

Of course there's probably a mind-independent wave emitting from the surfaces. Have you tried NOT skipping the entire field of science?

Wave or particle? Them confused photons...

[Veritas Aequitas]

No! No! No! there is no mind-independent color or color-waves emitting from the surfaces of things out there.
Rather when 8 billion people look at that red color patch, there will be 8 billion different realizations and emergences of a color experiences [just like their finger prints].

Of course there's probably a mind-independent wave emitting from the surfaces. Have you tried NOT skipping the entire field of science?

You really are just far too incompetent to adopt Kant's truth to indirect perception.

There are color-waves emitting from the surfaces of things out there empirically [mind-related] BUT they are not absolutely mind-independent.

Don't mention Kant so arrogantly when you have not thoroughly understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's CPR.

[Atla]

No! No! No! there is no mind-independent color or color-waves emitting from the surfaces of things out there.
Rather when 8 billion people look at that red color patch, there will be 8 billion different realizations and emergences of a color experiences [just like their finger prints].

Of course there's probably a mind-independent wave emitting from the surfaces. Have you tried NOT skipping the entire field of science?

You really are just far too incompetent to adopt Kant's truth to indirect perception.

There are color-waves emitting from the surfaces of things out there empirically [mind-related] BUT they are not absolutely mind-independent.

Don't mention Kant so arrogantly when you have not thoroughly understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's CPR.

I understand Kant's CPR better than you. Prove that those waves aren't absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception (naive realism). Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Of course there's probably a mind-independent wave emitting from the surfaces. Have you tried NOT skipping the entire field of science?

You really are just far too incompetent to adopt Kant's truth to indirect perception.

There are color-waves emitting from the surfaces of things out there empirically [mind-related] BUT they are not absolutely mind-independent.

Don't mention Kant so arrogantly when you have not thoroughly understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's CPR.

I understand Kant's CPR better than you.
Prove that those waves aren't absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception (naive realism). Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

Kant's Copernican Revolution is declared in the Preface in the 2nd Edition;

Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.

If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the Objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.

From the above, Kant stated where in the past or the present, our knowledge must conform to mind-independent objects as things in themselves as claimed by philosophical realists, that has ended in failure.

However,
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.
This mean that what is reality of the object it must be conditioned upon the constitution of the human faculty of Intuition, we can can know reality.

Since what is reality [object] is conditioned upon the human faculty of Intuition [space & time, etc.] the object cannot be mind-independent as claimed by philosophical realism.

Thus the supposed external color waves and their objects while has relative independence cannot be ULTIMATELY be absolutely mind-independent.

If you claim you understand the CPR so well, quote references from CPR to support your claim.

[Atla]

There are color-waves emitting from the surfaces of things out there empirically [mind-related] BUT they are not absolutely mind-independent.

Don't mention Kant so arrogantly when you have not thoroughly understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's CPR.

I understand Kant's CPR better than you.
Prove that those waves aren't absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception (naive realism). Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

Kant's Copernican Revolution is declared in the Preface in the 2nd Edition;

Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.

If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the Objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.

From the above, Kant stated where in the past or the present, our knowledge must conform to mind-independent objects as things in themselves as claimed by philosophical realists, that has ended in failure.

However,
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.
This mean that what is reality of the object it must be conditioned upon the constitution of the human faculty of Intuition, we can can know reality.

Since what is reality [object] is conditioned upon the human faculty of Intuition [space & time, etc.] the object cannot be mind-independent as claimed by philosophical realism.

Thus the supposed external color waves and their objects while has relative independence cannot be ULTIMATELY be absolutely mind-independent.

If you claim you understand the CPR so well, quote references from CPR to support your claim.

Yes the above is the Kantian argument based on direct perception. Again:

Prove that those waves aren't absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception (naive realism). Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I understand Kant's CPR better than you.
Prove that those waves aren't absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception (naive realism). Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

Kant's Copernican Revolution is declared in the Preface in the 2nd Edition;

Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.

If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the Objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.

From the above, Kant stated where in the past or the present, our knowledge must conform to mind-independent objects as things in themselves as claimed by philosophical realists, that has ended in failure.

However,
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.
This mean that what is reality of the object it must be conditioned upon the constitution of the human faculty of Intuition, we can can know reality.

Since what is reality [object] is conditioned upon the human faculty of Intuition [space & time, etc.] the object cannot be mind-independent as claimed by philosophical realism.

Thus the supposed external color waves and their objects while has relative independence cannot be ULTIMATELY be absolutely mind-independent.

If you claim you understand the CPR so well, quote references from CPR to support your claim.

Yes the above is the Kantian argument based on direct perception. Again:

Prove that those waves aren't absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception (naive realism). Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

Note the above, based on Kant's argument,

Thus the supposed external color waves and their objects while has relative independence cannot be ULTIMATELY be absolutely mind-independent.


Repeat:
If you claim you understand the CPR so well, quote references from CPR to support your claim, the waves of color are absolutely mind-independent.

[Atla]

Note the above, based on Kant's argument,

Thus the supposed external color waves and their objects while has relative independence cannot be ULTIMATELY be absolutely mind-independent.


Repeat:
If you claim you understand the CPR so well, quote references from CPR to support your claim, the waves of color are absolutely mind-independent.

I said make the argument without resorting to direct perception. I didn't say it's in the CPR, which is the problem. Again:

Prove that those waves aren't absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception (naive realism). Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.


Which would mean that your argument was based on a non-starter all along. We all knew this, it just took me time to finally pin it down, Kant is rarely translated into plain English unfortunately, and you only made that problem worse.

[Will Bouwman]

The source of authority for Theism is reality. Theism believes there's a God...

Which as I have said before, is an underdetermined hypothesis. If you insist that your faith is a calculation, then you are simply doing the numbers wrong. Whatever evidence, even whatever you personally experience, there are more possible explanations than God for it. What makes you think the answer is God is your belief.

I don't take any comfort from a conviction that God doesn't exist, but unlike you, nor do I take any comfort from a conviction that God does exist.

Okay: can I ask about that?

Which of the following (or something else) is closest to a fair reading of your beliefs on that:

1) There may or may not be a God, and I simply don't know.

That is the fairest reading of both our beliefs. The difference isn't knowledge, it is faith, in the debased sense.

If somebody offers you an irrational axiom, or one for which they have no rationale you should believe, why would you "not care" and just believe them?

I don't just believe irrational claims. You are offering 'God exists', and again, it is one hypothesis, but your rationale isn't strong enough to persuade anyone who doesn't already share your belief. To then insist that only by agreeing with you can we be moral is just silly. I can believe something like 'treat others with the respect they deserve' just as fervently as you, and even if my only resort is "Shut up: I have a gun", that at least will allow you to rest in peace once it has done it's work. This contrasts with your last resort "Shut up, I have a God", who will never stop torturing me for not finding you persuasive.
Is it moral for you to undertake a responsibility you are not equipped for?

[Skepdick]

The source of authority for Theism is reality. Theism believes there's a God...

Which as I have said before, is an underdetermined hypothesis. If you insist that your faith is a calculation, then you are simply doing the numbers wrong.

Ehhh?! There's no such thing as wrong calculation without an authority on how calculations ought to be done.

Wittgeinstein's rule-following paradox...

It's pretty ironic that both you and IC believe in authorities, eh?

[Will Bouwman]

Ehhh?! There's no such thing as wrong calculation without an authority on how calculations ought to be done.

Wittgeinstein's rule-following paradox...

It's pretty ironic that both you and IC believe in authorities, eh?

Says the bloke who cites Wittgenstein.

[Skepdick]

Ehhh?! There's no such thing as wrong calculation without an authority on how calculations ought to be done.

Wittgeinstein's rule-following paradox...

It's pretty ironic that both you and IC believe in authorities, eh?

Says the bloke who cites Wittgenstein.

Then don't treat it as a citation/appeal to authority.

Refer to his words on the matter (so I don't have to type them out, or demonstrate to you that his claim is true).

How parsimonious of me.

[Will Bouwman]

Refer to his words on the matter

Like he is an authority.