What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

xxx

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus your "our shift from a classical to a relativistic to a quantum mechanical explanation of reality didn't change reality" is false because the reality did change.
That change in reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSK which is based on beliefs of empirical verification, justification, and rationality.

There's the rub. When we mistake what we say for the way things are, we end up with your utterly ridiculous conclusion.

Strawman the 1 'millionth' times.

Your problem is your philosophy is false because,
your mind-independent 'the ways things are' is mistaken as the real the way things are.

I have argued,
your mind-independent 'the ways things are' is an illusion; your mind-independent 'the ways things are' is not real. I have argued;

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992
You have yet to counter the above directly and effectively.

I wrote:
Thus your "our shift from a classical to a relativistic to a quantum mechanical explanation of reality didn't change reality" is false because the reality did change.
That change in reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSK which is based on beliefs of empirical verification, justification, and rationality.

As I had argued there is no permanent fixe mind-independent reality awaiting discovery by humans.
See this;
There is no such thing as an absolutely mind-independent reality-as-it-really-is / reality-in-itself / the noumenon.
viewtopic.php?p=661527#p661527

Here is an obvious example as an analogy;
A bat-FSK will realized [not perceived] a bat-FSK_ed reality.
If a bat then evolve with a human-FSK, it will realized a human-FSK_ed reality.
In this case, the reality has changed based on beliefs [FSK-conditioned].

It is more subtle with changes with the human-based sub-FSKs.
A human-common sense-FSK will realized [not perceived] a 'human common sense-FSK' reality.
A human-Newtonian sense-FSK will realized [not perceived] a 'human Newtonian sense-FSK' reality.
A human-Einsteinian sense-FSK will realized [not perceived] a 'human Einsteinian sense-FSK' reality.
A human-QM-sense-FSK will realized [not perceived] a 'human QM-sense-FSK' reality.

Thus "our shift from a classical to a relativistic to a quantum mechanical explanation of reality do change reality" because there is no absolutely mind-independent reality out there.

You are actually assuming there is no absolutely mind-independent reality out there, but ignorantly insisting that your 'assumed absolutely mind-independent reality out there' is really real based on faith without proofs. This is Metaphysics and as Putnam asserted you are wallowing in Cuckoo Land.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting

[Peter Holmes]

Thus your "our shift from a classical to a relativistic to a quantum mechanical explanation of reality didn't change reality" is false because the reality did change.
That change in reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSK which is based on beliefs of empirical verification, justification, and rationality.

There's the rub. When we mistake what we say for the way things are, we end up with your utterly ridiculous conclusion.

Strawman the 1 'millionth' times.

Your problem is your philosophy is false because,
your mind-independent 'the ways things are' is mistaken as the real the way things are.

I have argued,
your mind-independent 'the ways things are' is an illusion; your mind-independent 'the ways things are' is not real. I have argued;

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992
You have yet to counter the above directly and effectively.

I wrote:
Thus your "our shift from a classical to a relativistic to a quantum mechanical explanation of reality didn't change reality" is false because the reality did change.
That change in reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSK which is based on beliefs of empirical verification, justification, and rationality.

As I had argued there is no permanent fixe mind-independent reality awaiting discovery by humans.
See this;
There is no such thing as an absolutely mind-independent reality-as-it-really-is / reality-in-itself / the noumenon.
viewtopic.php?p=661527#p661527

Here is an obvious example as an analogy;
A bat-FSK will realized [not perceived] a bat-FSK_ed reality.
If a bat then evolve with a human-FSK, it will realized a human-FSK_ed reality.
In this case, the reality has changed based on beliefs [FSK-conditioned].

It is more subtle with changes with the human-based sub-FSKs.
A human-common sense-FSK will realized [not perceived] a 'human common sense-FSK' reality.
A human-Newtonian sense-FSK will realized [not perceived] a 'human Newtonian sense-FSK' reality.
A human-Einsteinian sense-FSK will realized [not perceived] a 'human Einsteinian sense-FSK' reality.
A human-QM-sense-FSK will realized [not perceived] a 'human QM-sense-FSK' reality.

Thus "our shift from a classical to a relativistic to a quantum mechanical explanation of reality do change reality" because there is no absolutely mind-independent reality out there.

You are actually assuming there is no absolutely mind-independent reality out there, but ignorantly insisting that your 'assumed absolutely mind-independent reality out there' is really real based on faith without proofs. This is Metaphysics and as Putnam asserted you are wallowing in Cuckoo Land.

There's no reason to conclude that to experience reality differently is to experience (to be in) a different reality - to conclude that bats and humans and cockroaches don't exist in one and the same reality.

Just as there's no reason to believe that, because individual human experience is 'first person', each human exists in a different reality.

To my knowledge, there's no evidence for either of these claims. In fact, all of the evidence we have so far indicates that these claims are false.

Antirealists don't have a leg to stand on.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no reason to conclude that to experience reality differently is to experience (to be in) a different reality - to conclude that bats and humans and cockroaches don't exist in one and the same reality.

Just as there's no reason to believe that, because individual human experience is 'first person', each human exists in a different reality.

To my knowledge, there's no evidence for either of these claims. In fact, all of the evidence we have so far indicates that these claims are false.

Antirealists don't have a leg to stand on.

Remember and note, you claim reality and things exist as absolutely mind-independent to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to do so after humans are gone.

Evidence?? what evidence??
Note P1: whatever is evidence is mind-related.
Therefore, whatever that follows has to be mind-related in the ultimate sense and cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

You have not proven [unfortunately this has to be mind-related] reality and things are absolutely mind-independent? I am Still waiting?

Yes, because individual human experience is 'first person', each human exists in a different reality, which is as unique as their finger prints or DNA coding.
In another perspective what is realized as real is conditioned upon their shared-reality as conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK; there is no reality and things that are ultimately and absolutely mind-independent [albeit there are relative mind-independent things].

ANTI-philosophical_realists stand on the legs of empirical-rational justifications, verifications and objectivity within a specific human-based FSK of which the science-FSK is the most credible and objective.

[Peter Holmes]

There's no reason to conclude that to experience reality differently is to experience (to be in) a different reality - to conclude that bats and humans and cockroaches don't exist in one and the same reality.

Just as there's no reason to believe that, because individual human experience is 'first person', each human exists in a different reality.

To my knowledge, there's no evidence for either of these claims. In fact, all of the evidence we have so far indicates that these claims are false.

Antirealists don't have a leg to stand on.

Remember and note, you claim reality and things exist as absolutely mind-independent to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to do so after humans are gone.

Evidence?? what evidence??
Note P1: whatever is evidence is mind-related.
Therefore, whatever that follows has to be mind-related in the ultimate sense and cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

You have not proven [unfortunately this has to be mind-related] reality and things are absolutely mind-independent? I am Still waiting?

Yes, because individual human experience is 'first person', each human exists in a different reality, which is as unique as their finger prints or DNA coding.
In another perspective what is realized as real is conditioned upon their shared-reality as conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK; there is no reality and things that are ultimately and absolutely mind-independent [albeit there are relative mind-independent things].

ANTI-philosophical_realists stand on the legs of empirical-rational justifications, verifications and objectivity within a specific human-based FSK of which the science-FSK is the most credible and objective.

We agree that 'the mind' is embodied. So 'mind-independence' is 'independence from the body'. So your claim is that reality is not independent from the human body - or the dog body, the hamster body, the cockroach body, and so on. (You don't plead specially for the human body, do you? If so, on what grounds?)

Philosophical/ontological antirealists have no 'empirical-rational [?] justifications', because their whole argument is that reality doesn't exist 'outside' the mind - the embodied mind - so that all we can experience are mental constructs. But even our bodies - and so our embodied minds - are mental constructs. (No special pleading, please.) And this is to disappear up your own arse.

Anti-philosophical realists don't have a leg to stand on. Or a body at all.

[Skepdick]

We agree that 'the mind' is embodied. So 'mind-independence' is 'independence from the body'. So your claim is that reality is not independent from the human body - or the dog body, the hamster body, the cockroach body, and so on. (You don't plead specially for the human body, do you? If so, on what grounds?)

Philosophical/ontological antirealists have no 'empirical-rational [?] justifications', because their whole argument is that reality doesn't exist 'outside' the mind - the embodied mind - so that all we can experience are mental constructs. But even our bodies - and so our embodied minds - are mental constructs. (No special pleading, please.) And this is to disappear up your own arse.

Anti-philosophical realists don't have a leg to stand on. Or a body at all.

What an idiotic way of thinking.

independent adjective 1. free from outside control; not subject to another's authority.

If the world was "independent" from me then how is it that I am changing it?
How is it that I can control it?
How is it that I have authority over some parts of if?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no reason to conclude that to experience reality differently is to experience (to be in) a different reality - to conclude that bats and humans and cockroaches don't exist in one and the same reality.

Just as there's no reason to believe that, because individual human experience is 'first person', each human exists in a different reality.

To my knowledge, there's no evidence for either of these claims. In fact, all of the evidence we have so far indicates that these claims are false.

Antirealists don't have a leg to stand on.

Remember and note, you claim reality and things exist as absolutely mind-independent to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to do so after humans are gone.

Evidence?? what evidence??
Note P1: whatever is evidence is mind-related.
Therefore, whatever that follows has to be mind-related in the ultimate sense and cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

You have not proven [unfortunately this has to be mind-related] reality and things are absolutely mind-independent? I am Still waiting?

Yes, because individual human experience is 'first person', each human exists in a different reality, which is as unique as their finger prints or DNA coding.
In another perspective what is realized as real is conditioned upon their shared-reality as conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK; there is no reality and things that are ultimately and absolutely mind-independent [albeit there are relative mind-independent things].

ANTI-philosophical_realists stand on the legs of empirical-rational justifications, verifications and objectivity within a specific human-based FSK of which the science-FSK is the most credible and objective.

We agree that 'the mind' is embodied. So 'mind-independence' is 'independence from the body'. So your claim is that reality is not independent from the human body - or the dog body, the hamster body, the cockroach body, and so on. (You don't plead specially for the human body, do you? If so, on what grounds?)

All things are intricately part and parcel of reality, thus cannot be absolutely independent from one another in the ultimate sense [not relative sense].

The focus is on the human conditions [mind, brain and body] because that is relevant to the topic re Philosophical_Realism versus ANTI-Philosophical_Realism.

Philosophical_Realists claim reality and things are absolutely mind-independent to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to do so even if humans are extinct.

As an ANTI-Philosophical_Realist [Kantian], I refute reality and things CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

So what is the issue?

Philosophical/ontological antirealists have no 'empirical-rational [?] justifications', because their whole argument is that reality doesn't exist 'outside' the mind - the embodied mind - so that all we can experience are mental constructs. But even our bodies - and so our embodied minds - are mental constructs. (No special pleading, please.) And this is to disappear up your own arse.

Anti-philosophical realists don't have a leg to stand on. Or a body at all.

That is a strawman - the 1 "million" times.
You are kicking and disappearing up your own arse.

The ANTI-Philosophical_Realist's [specifically Kantian] position is this;

• 1. Claims that reality and things CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent as claimed by philosophical realists to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to do so even if humans are extinct; thus there are no objective moral facts.
  
  2. Claims that reality and things do exist outside the body and mind, but only relatively mind-independent [empirical realism]. In this sense, what is reality and things can be empirically verified and justified as objective as conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
  In this sense, what is experienced and empirically verifiable are not mental constructs [as sense-data or hallucinations] but somehow cannot be independent of the human conditions.

All things and humans are intricately part and parcel of reality.
The fact that one's mind, brain & body based on a first-person experience can be empirically verified and justified via a human-based FSK is an obvious evidence at least to one self that reality and things cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
You deny this?

The above is reinforced via a credible human-based FSK like the science-FSK.
You deny scientific facts are objective?

Btw, you have yet to prove your philosophical-realism stance of an absolutely mind-independent reality and things are really real.
You have been running from the below since the beginning.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

PH: 'empirical-rational [?] justifications'
Kant argued pure empiricism and pure rationalism are not tenable to be realistic.
As such, Kant combined the empirical with the rational to work necessarily in complementarity, thus the 'empirical-rational' basis.
In this case, the empirical [experience and observation] must be supported by serious critical thinking and rationality.

[Peter Holmes]

Remember and note, you claim reality and things exist as absolutely mind-independent to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to do so after humans are gone.

Evidence?? what evidence??
Note P1: whatever is evidence is mind-related.
Therefore, whatever that follows has to be mind-related in the ultimate sense and cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

You have not proven [unfortunately this has to be mind-related] reality and things are absolutely mind-independent? I am Still waiting?

Yes, because individual human experience is 'first person', each human exists in a different reality, which is as unique as their finger prints or DNA coding.
In another perspective what is realized as real is conditioned upon their shared-reality as conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK; there is no reality and things that are ultimately and absolutely mind-independent [albeit there are relative mind-independent things].

ANTI-philosophical_realists stand on the legs of empirical-rational justifications, verifications and objectivity within a specific human-based FSK of which the science-FSK is the most credible and objective.

We agree that 'the mind' is embodied. So 'mind-independence' is 'independence from the body'. So your claim is that reality is not independent from the human body - or the dog body, the hamster body, the cockroach body, and so on. (You don't plead specially for the human body, do you? If so, on what grounds?)

All things are intricately part and parcel of reality, thus cannot be absolutely independent from one another in the ultimate sense [not relative sense].

The focus is on the human conditions [mind, brain and body] because that is relevant to the topic re Philosophical_Realism versus ANTI-Philosophical_Realism.

Philosophical_Realists claim reality and things are absolutely mind-independent to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to do so even if humans are extinct.

As an ANTI-Philosophical_Realist [Kantian], I refute reality and things CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

So what is the issue?

Philosophical/ontological antirealists have no 'empirical-rational [?] justifications', because their whole argument is that reality doesn't exist 'outside' the mind - the embodied mind - so that all we can experience are mental constructs. But even our bodies - and so our embodied minds - are mental constructs. (No special pleading, please.) And this is to disappear up your own arse.

Anti-philosophical realists don't have a leg to stand on. Or a body at all.

That is a strawman - the 1 "million" times.
You are kicking and disappearing up your own arse.

The ANTI-Philosophical_Realist's [specifically Kantian] position is this;

• 1. Claims that reality and things CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent as claimed by philosophical realists to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to do so even if humans are extinct; thus there are no objective moral facts.
  
  2. Claims that reality and things do exist outside the body and mind, but only relatively mind-independent [empirical realism]. In this sense, what is reality and things can be empirically verified and justified as objective as conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
  In this sense, what is experienced and empirically verifiable are not mental constructs [as sense-data or hallucinations] but somehow cannot be independent of the human conditions.

All things and humans are intricately part and parcel of reality.
The fact that one's mind, brain & body based on a first-person experience can be empirically verified and justified via a human-based FSK is an obvious evidence at least to one self that reality and things cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
You deny this?

The above is reinforced via a credible human-based FSK like the science-FSK.
You deny scientific facts are objective?

Btw, you have yet to prove your philosophical-realism stance of an absolutely mind-independent reality and things are really real.
You have been running from the below since the beginning.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

PH: 'empirical-rational [?] justifications'
Kant argued pure empiricism and pure rationalism are not tenable to be realistic.
As such, Kant combined the empirical with the rational to work necessarily in complementarity, thus the 'empirical-rational' basis.
In this case, the empirical [experience and observation] must be supported by serious critical thinking and rationality.

Do you think there are things in the universe that humans don't know about? A yes or no answer will suffice.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All things and humans are intricately part and parcel of reality.
The fact that one's mind, brain & body based on a first-person experience can be empirically verified and justified via a human-based FSK is an obvious evidence at least to one self that reality and things cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
You deny this?

The above is reinforced via a credible human-based FSK like the science-FSK.
You deny scientific facts are objective?

Btw, you have yet to prove your philosophical-realism stance of an absolutely mind-independent reality and things are really real.
You have been running from the below since the beginning.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

PH: 'empirical-rational [?] justifications'
Kant argued pure empiricism and pure rationalism are not tenable to be realistic.
As such, Kant combined the empirical with the rational to work necessarily in complementarity, thus the 'empirical-rational' basis.
In this case, the empirical [experience and observation] must be supported by serious critical thinking and rationality.

Do you think there are things in the universe that humans don't know about? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Either a yes or no will keep you in ignorance.

In the sense of knowledge, there are two main categories of things in the Universe;

1. The empirical-rational possible things are knowable regardless of where they are in the universe. It is a matter of producing the empirical-rational things as evidence to be verified and justified by Science [the most credible FSK]. I may speculate there could be dogs, animals, dinosaurs, etc. we know empirically on Earth and they exist in an Earth-like planet some thousands of light years away.

2. Then we have things that are things-by-themselves which is your transcendental fact. i.e. a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, states of affairs.
The other things are those which are a contradiction - square-circle. There is the belief of an absolutely perfect God. These non-empirical-rational things cannot [impossible] be known at all.

As a reminder;
Btw, you have yet to prove your philosophical-realism stance of an absolutely mind-independent reality and things are really real.
You have been running from the below since the beginning.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

[Atla]

Either a yes or no will keep you in ignorance.

In the sense of knowledge, there are two main categories of things in the Universe;

1. The empirical-rational possible things are knowable regardless of where they are in the universe. It is a matter of producing the empirical-rational things as evidence to be verified and justified by Science [the most credible FSK]. I may speculate there could be dogs, animals, dinosaurs, etc. we know empirically on Earth and they exist in an Earth-like planet some thousands of light years away.

2. Then we have things that are things-by-themselves which is your transcendental fact. i.e. a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, states of affairs.
The other things are those which are a contradiction - square-circle. There is the belief of an absolutely perfect God. These non-empirical-rational things cannot [impossible] be known at all.

As a reminder;
Btw, you have yet to prove your philosophical-realism stance of an absolutely mind-independent reality and things are really real.
You have been running from the below since the beginning.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

You have no idea what thing-in-itself means.

thing-in-itself (plural things-in-themselves) (from Kantian philosophy on) A thing as it is independent of any conceptualization or perception by the human mind, postulated by practical reason but existing in a condition which is in principle unknowable and unexperienceable.

[Peter Holmes]

All things and humans are intricately part and parcel of reality.
The fact that one's mind, brain & body based on a first-person experience can be empirically verified and justified via a human-based FSK is an obvious evidence at least to one self that reality and things cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
You deny this?

The above is reinforced via a credible human-based FSK like the science-FSK.
You deny scientific facts are objective?

Btw, you have yet to prove your philosophical-realism stance of an absolutely mind-independent reality and things are really real.
You have been running from the below since the beginning.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

PH: 'empirical-rational [?] justifications'
Kant argued pure empiricism and pure rationalism are not tenable to be realistic.
As such, Kant combined the empirical with the rational to work necessarily in complementarity, thus the 'empirical-rational' basis.
In this case, the empirical [experience and observation] must be supported by serious critical thinking and rationality.

Do you think there are things in the universe that humans don't know about? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Either a yes or no will keep you in ignorance.

In the sense of knowledge, there are two main categories of things in the Universe;

1. The empirical-rational possible things are knowable regardless of where they are in the universe. It is a matter of producing the empirical-rational things as evidence to be verified and justified by Science [the most credible FSK]. I may speculate there could be dogs, animals, dinosaurs, etc. we know empirically on Earth and they exist in an Earth-like planet some thousands of light years away.

2. Then we have things that are things-by-themselves which is your transcendental fact. i.e. a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, states of affairs.
The other things are those which are a contradiction - square-circle. There is the belief of an absolutely perfect God. These non-empirical-rational things cannot [impossible] be known at all.

As a reminder;
Btw, you have yet to prove your philosophical-realism stance of an absolutely mind-independent reality and things are really real.
You have been running from the below since the beginning.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

I'm not asking about things that cannot be known, such as things that can't possibly exist.

And how we can know about things - using a 'framework and system of knowledge - is not the issue.

Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?

A yes or no answer will suffice. (I just want to make sure I understand what you wrote above about 'empirical-rational possible' things.)

[Skepdick]

Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

That's a false dichotomy.

The true answer is simply: I don't know

If you bring new knowledge to my attention the answer was yes. But is it still yes? I don't know.

To give you any other answer would be intellectually dishonest and would amount to knowing everything I don't know. An impossibility.

[Peter Holmes]

VA.

I'm not asking about things that cannot be known, such as things that can't possibly exist.

And how we can know about things - using a 'framework and system of knowledge - is not the issue.

Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?

A yes or no answer will suffice. (I just want to make sure I understand what you wrote above about 'empirical-rational possible' things.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment?

A yes or no answer will suffice. (I just want to make sure I understand what you wrote above about 'empirical-rational possible' things.)

Yes.