What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

VA. Try out the following.

P1 An unknown thing must be mind-independent.
P2 There are unknown things in the universe.
C Therefore, there are mind-independent things in the universe.

[Skepdick]

P1 An unknown thing must be mind-independent.

Justify.

I don't know Portuguese.

[Iwannaplato]

PH wrote "knowable' but I qualified "empirical-rational possible' things" which can be speculated.
These "empirical-rational possible' things" are realizable as conditioned upon a human based FSK.
In this case, when realized they CANNOT be mind-independent.

All I saw was 'yes'. Whatever you label them, it seems like you are saying they could exist, now, before being found.

Or are you saying they will arise (begin existing) when found?

[Skepdick]

All I saw was 'yes'. Whatever you label them, it seems like you are saying they could exist, now, before being found.

Or are you saying they will arise (begin existing) when found?

Some of your labels appear to carry a greater weight in your mind than others.

For example the label "exists" seems loaded with the realist supposition. What information are you communicating about an object when you tell somebody else that it "exists"?

For example, there are numbers - we appear to be talking about them. Do they exist?

[Iwannaplato]

Some of your labels appear to carry a greater weight in your mind than others.

For example the label "exists" seems loaded with the realist supposition. What information are you communicating about an object when you tell somebody else that it "exists"?

I'm talking to someone who uses the word exist in ways that couple with his sense of realism, who uses it to distinguish between realist and non-realist positions. For example, here. viewtopic.php?p=624050#p624050
So, take the issue up with him.

Given his language and positions, I am asking questions, in his language.

I don't think he bothers to ask me questions in the way I use language, but then, that's fine. Mine varies.

[Skepdick]

I'm talking to someone who uses the word exist in ways that couple with his sense of realism, who uses it to distinguish between realist and non-realist positions.

So which one is it then? Is he coupling himself to realism; or distinguishing/decoupling himself from realism?

Seems you've made up your mind contrary to the way he's made up his mind. Thus manufacturing conflict (as usual).

The garden variaty anti-realism is constructivism where the mind-independence of reality is acknowledged and immediately devalued.

According to constructivists, the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction.

So what does the mind-independence of reality actually buy us if it doesn't buy us any knowledge of reality?

Given his language and positions, I am asking questions, in his language.

You aren't. You asking questions in your misunderstanding of his language.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay. It follows that there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared.

That is a strawman
I did not state "there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared."

It is presumed you are referring to "empirical-rational possible things" meaning they are merely possibilities while there are humans and are only realized upon a human based FSK.

And this is a philosophical/ontological realist position. These knowable things we're talking about are the features of reality that I refer to. And, as you agree, 'being known' isn't a necessary condition for their existence.

The philosophical/ontological realist's position is things [known and knowable] exist absolutely mind-independent, i.e. they exist even if there are no humans.

And these things aren't 'things-in-themselves' - noumena - to use Kant's silly term. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself can possibly be. It's a contentless, useless fiction - a sort of ghost that's haunted philosophy ever since Kant invented it.

When philosophical realists claim that reality and things exist absolutely mind-independent to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even when humans are extinct, these are literally things-in-themselves.
Kant is literally correct is using the term thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves, i.e. they exist independent of humans and the human conditions.

The philosophical realists' stance is an evolutionary default which led to theists claiming an absolutely mind independent soul that can survive physical death and a mind-independent God.
This evolutionary default leads to illusions albeit a useful illusions to drive Science forward and provide psychological comfort to theists at present.

The anti-philosophical_realists' [kantian] view is reality and things CANNOT exist in-themselves or by-themselves; somehow things exist in connection to the human conditions.

As Kant asserted,
Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182

To date, no philosopher had been able to prove that absolutely mind-independent things exist as real.

Oh, no! You seemed to have made a breakthrough, but you didn't notice. You agree that there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet. So those things must be (human) mind-independent. There's no way out - unless you think there's some other kind of mind involved.

Note I stated my approach is that of relative mind independence but ultimately it cannot be absolutely mind independent.

I stated we can SPECULATE there are possible knowable [empirical-rational] things in the universe not realized by humans as conditioned upon a human based FSK.

If we speculate there are empirical-rational things say, bacteria on Jupiter, they are possible to be knowable [because we have bacteria on Earth] but there is no confirmation that such speculated empirical-rational exist as real. They are only real when empirical evidences are brought forth to emerge and realized within the science-biology FSK, thereby they cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA. Try out the following.

P1 An "unknown thing" must be mind-independent.
P2 There are unknown things in the universe.
C Therefore, there are mind-independent things in the universe.

P1 An speculated* unknown thing cannot be mind-independent.
P2 There are unknown things [can be speculate] in the universe.
C Therefore, there cannot be speculated mind-independent things in the universe.

* speculation involved the mind, therefore it cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

You have countered the following;
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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH wrote "knowable' but I qualified "empirical-rational possible' things" which can be speculated.
These "empirical-rational possible' things" are realizable as conditioned upon a human based FSK.
In this case, when realized they CANNOT be mind-independent.

All I saw was 'yes'. Whatever you label them, it seems like you are saying they could exist, now, before being found.

Or are you saying they will arise (begin existing) when found?

My principle has always been this;

What is real, fact, truth, knowledge and objective is always conditioned to a specific human based FSK.
So yes, they emerge and are realized when processed via the specific human based FSK.

If there are evidence provided for that speculated thing, and if it likely a scientific thing, then it has to be conditioned upon the specific scientific FSK, i.e. Physics, Chemistry or Biology or a combination.
Because it it conditioned within a human-based FSK, it cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

[Peter Holmes]

My principle has always been this;

What is real... is always conditioned to a specific human based FSK.
So yes, they emerge and are realized when processed via the specific human based FSK.

False. This is to mistake what we believe, know and say - or speculate - about reality - 'what is real' - for reality. And since you agree that there are knowable things in the universe that we don't know about, your claim is a contradiction. A description - including a speculative one - is not the described. Your 'principle' is incorrect.

[Skepdick]

My principle has always been this;

What is real... is always conditioned to a specific human based FSK.
So yes, they emerge and are realized when processed via the specific human based FSK.

False. This is to mistake what we believe, know and say - or speculate - about reality - 'what is real' - for reality.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes strikes again.

Could you tell us something about reality; or what is real not influenced by your knowledge?

And since you agree that there are knowable things in the universe that we don't know about, your claim is a contradiction.

Are contradictions even real?

A description - including a speculative one - is not the described. Your 'principle' is incorrect.

So what is the described then? Because (according to you) the described is not red.

square-xxl.png

[Will Bouwman]

Could you tell us something about reality; or what is real not influenced by your knowledge?

Perception is real.

[Iwannaplato]

What is real, fact, truth, knowledge and objective is always conditioned to a specific human based FSK.

So, those things that you said exist that we don't know about yet. How do they exist now, prior to becoming conditioned on an FSK?
Also, it seems you have shifted over time (not a problem, just trying to understand) from things not existing unless perceived, to things not existing unless they are conditioned on a human FSK. Does this mean bare perception is an FSK?

It also seems like real and knowledge are the same in the above sentence.

So yes, they emerge and are realized when processed via the specific human based FSK.

And before they are processed via a specific human-based FSK they don't exist?

So, there was, for example, no DNA before Watson and Crick? No cell membranes before whoever discovered them? Does this mean these things were not necessary for, say, reproduction or metabolism before they were in an FSK?

If there are evidence provided for that speculated thing, and if it likely a scientific thing, then it has to be conditioned upon the specific scientific FSK, i.e. Physics, Chemistry or Biology or a combination.
Because it it conditioned within a human-based FSK, it cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

So, before the various sciences came along there was, for example, no tree-root or human-gut bacteria in symbiotic relationships with their hosts?

Did these symbiotic relationships arise when we figured out they were there?

Does this mean that prior to the discovery of these symbiotic relationships, humans did not need or use bacteria to aid their digestion and trees did not need or use bacteria in the soil around the roots?

Do you have any evidence for changes in human digestion in this way or for changes in the way trees get nutrients from the soil?

[Skepdick]

Could you tell us something about reality; or what is real not influenced by your knowledge?

Perception is real.

And you are comfortable that it satisfies my condition? e.g you don't know that perception is real.

[Will Bouwman]

And you are comfortable that it satisfies my condition? e.g you don't know that perception is real.

I do know that perception is real. What I don't know is whether anything else is.