What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

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.

Bonuns points for using "real" in an anti-realist sense

[Atla]

My principle has always been this;

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

Nicely put. What sets you apart from real philosophers is that you try to bend the world to your principles, whereas real philosophers try to look at the world unbiased.

[Skepdick]

real philosophers try to look at the world unbiased.

Now there's an oxymoron.

You could choose to look at the world.
You could choose not to look at the world.

What would you say biases philosophers towards their particular activity?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I need to remind you of this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

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

Before we can perceive, believe, know and say or speculate, there has to be an emergence and realization of 'what is real', say 'water is H20' [ignoring isomers] which is conditioned upon a human based FSK, i.e. the science-chemistry FSK.

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.

In the case of knowable things in the universe that we don't know about, that can only refer empirical-rational things that are speculated and possible to be known to be confirmed by the real evidences.

If I speculate, there is another human-like PH alive in an earth-like planet 1000 light years away, surely this is knowable and possible.
Since the above variable are all empirical-rational, it can be verified and justified to be real if the evidence is produced for verification within a FSK. And this has to be conditioned upon the science-biology FSK which the REALIZATION then cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
But then note the degree of the possibility of this speculation .. likely to be 0.000000001% but nevertheless still possible -not impossible- provided the empirical-rational evidences are produced.

As I had stated, earlier, we can speculate the possible existence of anything in the Universe that we do not know about as long as the variable involved are empirical-rational.

Your ignorance is based in your jumping to conclusion without proof, there are pre-existing absolutely mind-independent things, either known or knowable in the universe.

Your 'principle' is incorrect.

My principle is what Science is grounded on.
You deny scientific facts are objective?
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

You have not countered my following challenge to you;
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

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I stated those things we don't know about yet are merely SPECULATIONS, therefore do not exists as real until real evidences are produced and verified & justified as objective within a human based FSK.

If I speculate, there is another human-like IWP alive in an earth-like planet 1000 light years away, surely this is knowable and possible because the variables are all empirical-rational. It is matter of producing the evidence for verification and justification with a human-based FSK.

I had mentioned it is not bare perception, a human-based FSK is conditioned upon a 13.5 billion years history.

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?

My ANTI-philosophical_realism stance is against the philosophical realists' claim that reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.

Whatever is realizable [reality & things] and known by humans are all conditioned to a specific human based FSK which imply reality and things cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The point is one cannot claim DNA existed before Watson and Crick in an absolute state of mind-independence.

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?

I had stated, one cannot claim human-gut bacteria existed in a mind-independent state before the specific FSK confirmed their existence.

One can only claim human-gut bacteria existed because the science-biology FSK said so, thus conditioned upon the science-biology FSK which cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The "cannot be absolutely mind-independent" point is critical for philosophy because it will support the existence of objective moral facts [FSK-conditioned] and the non-existent of an independent God, soul that can survive physical death and unconditional freewill.

[Atla]

The "cannot be absolutely mind-independent" point is critical for philosophy because it will support the existence of objective moral facts [FSK-conditioned] and the non-existent of an independent God, soul that can survive physical death and unconditional freewill.

Nicely put, your positions have nothing to do with what's true, they only have to do with what you want to be the case.

Although it's dishonest to call these positions critical for philosophy, you wanted to say: "they are critical for my philosophy".

Since ancient times, philosophy in the West has described itself as pursuing the truth out of love for wisdom.

[Peter Holmes]

In the case of knowable things in the universe that we don't know about, that can only refer empirical-rational things that are speculated and possible to be known to be confirmed by the real evidences.

Offs. That we come to know about them by empirico-rational means is irrelevant. The point is that these knowable things exist BEFORE we come to know them. Our knowing them in the ways we do doesn't bring them into existence.

And you know this damn well. You're just stuck with having to maintain a fake and feeble antirealism - so that you can cobble together a useless argument for moral objectivity. Nul point.

[Skepdick]

The point is that these knowable things exist BEFORE we come to know them. Our knowing them in the ways we do doesn't bring them into existence.

Exactly! The point is that these moral truths exists BEFORE we come to know about them. Our knowing of morality in the ways that we do doesn't bring morality into existence.

So you agree then? Morality is objective.

And you know this damn well. You're just stuck with having to maintain a fake and feeble antirealism - so that you can cobble together a useless argument for moral objectivity. Nul point.

And you know this damn well. You're just stuck with having to maintain a fake and feeble moral subjectivism - so that you can cobble together a useless argument against moral objectivity. Nul point.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the case of knowable things in the universe that we don't know about, that can only refer empirical-rational things that are speculated and possible to be known to be confirmed by the real evidences.

Offs. That we come to know about them by empirico-rational means is irrelevant. The point is that these knowable things exist BEFORE we come to know them. Our knowing them in the ways we do doesn't bring them into existence.

How many 'million' times do I need to remind you of this;

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

I have also stated 'million' of times, "Our knowing them in the ways we do doesn't bring them into existence."
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts [bring them into existence]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925

It is our 13.5 historical human existence [not knowing or describing] that enable things to emerge and be realized as a human based thing via the specific FSR-FSK, then subsequently perceived, known and described.
This point will trigger your evolutionary default's cognitive dissonance thus it will take whatever your defense mechanism to repel it; for some [not you] it is the killing of those who oppose philosophical realism.

And you know this damn well. You're just stuck with having to maintain a fake and feeble antirealism - so that you can cobble together a useless argument for moral objectivity. Nul point.

You are the one who is stuck with an evolutionary default of primal psychological states to insist upon an absolutely mind-independent reality and thing via your ideology of philosophical realism which is grounded upon an illusion.

You have yet to counter my following challenge to you;
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 suggest you research on the Psychology of Philosophy from the beginning up the present to get an idea of what I am getting at.
A simple contrast is Philosophical_Realism is an evolutionary default which is primal like that of say Newtonian Physics while ANTi-Philosophical_Realism [Kantian] is like that of Quantum Mechanics.

[Iwannaplato]

I stated those things we don't know about yet are merely SPECULATIONS, therefore do not exists as real until real evidences are produced and verified & justified as objective within a human based FSK.

Then it seems to me your answer to the question PH asked you...

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.)

Should be no, rather than yes.

I had mentioned it is not bare perception, a human-based FSK is conditioned upon a 13.5 billion years history.

So, it wasn't enough for humans or neanderthals to see the Moon for it to exist, they had to have an FSK - a framework and system of knowledge?

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?

My ANTI-philosophical_realism stance is against the philosophical realists' claim that reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.

Whatever is realizable [reality & things] and known by humans are all conditioned to a specific human based FSK which imply reality and things cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The point is one cannot claim DNA existed before Watson and Crick in an absolute state of mind-independence.

Did DNA exist before that or not? No one had seen it. No one knew about it. And it certainly wasn't integrated in an FSK. Did it exist or not?

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?

I had stated, one cannot claim human-gut bacteria existed in a mind-independent state before the specific FSK confirmed their existence.

I'm not asking you what other people can claim or not. I am asking you what you are claiming. Did those bacteria exist or not before they were integrated in a scientific FSK?

One can only claim human-gut bacteria existed because the science-biology FSK said so, thus conditioned upon the science-biology FSK which cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

I understand that no one said it existed back then. That's not what I am asking. I am not asking if one can claim it existed. I am not claiming it existed. I am asking you if it existed and I can only draw the conclusion that you think it did not.

It was not a part of an FSK 500 years ago, for example. As you said, things arise when integrated in FSK's. This entails they were not there before.

Unless you are proposing retroactive causation: assertions in FSK's now about the past lead to things being in the past that were not there.

Notice that you shift the focus each time. I am asking you for your position and you respond by telling me what other people cannot say.

The "cannot be absolutely mind-independent" point is critical for philosophy because it will support the existence of objective moral facts [FSK-conditioned] and the non-existent of an independent God, soul that can survive physical death and unconditional freewill.

This is an argument not in support of your position but how it would support other positions you have.

It is critical that it is true because this would support these other positions I have.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I stated those things we don't know about yet are merely SPECULATIONS, therefore do not exists as real until real evidences are produced and verified & justified as objective within a human based FSK.

Then it seems to me your answer to the question PH asked you...

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.)

Should be no, rather than yes.

Should be yes.
As I had stated one can speculate on things that are potentially knowable if they are 'empirical-rational elements.
"Potentially knowable" is merely a possibility they may exist and knowable, but it does not confirm they do exist.

As I had stated a possible twin of IWP could exists in a planet 1000 light years away.
Why is this not a valid possibility to be known when all the elements are empirical-rational?
It is a matter of producing the empirical rational evidence for verification and confirmation.

I had mentioned it is not bare perception, a human-based FSK is conditioned upon a 13.5 billion years history.

So, it wasn't enough for humans or neanderthals to see the Moon for it to exist, they had to have an FSK - a framework and system of knowledge?

Every organism has its basic FSR[realization].
A sonar bat will have a FSR that realize the reality of the moon differently from humans and who is to say the human FSR of the moon represent the ultimate reality?

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?

My ANTI-philosophical_realism stance is against the philosophical realists' claim that reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.

Whatever is realizable [reality & things] and known by humans are all conditioned to a specific human based FSK which imply reality and things cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The point is one cannot claim DNA existed before Watson and Crick in an absolute state of mind-independence.

Did DNA exist before that or not? No one had seen it. No one knew about it. And it certainly wasn't integrated in an FSK. Did it exist or not?

The DNA did not exist if no one has seen it before they were discovered by Watson and Crick.

At the extreme,
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

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?

I had stated, one cannot claim human-gut bacteria existed in a mind-independent state before the specific FSK confirmed their existence.

I'm not asking you what other people can claim or not. I am asking you what you are claiming. Did those bacteria exist or not before they were integrated in a scientific FSK?

One can only claim human-gut bacteria existed because the science-biology FSK said so, thus conditioned upon the science-biology FSK which cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

I understand that no one said it existed back then. That's not what I am asking. I am not asking if one can claim it existed. I am not claiming it existed. I am asking you if it existed and I can only draw the conclusion that you think it did not.

It was not a part of an FSK 500 years ago, for example. As you said, things arise when integrated in FSK's. This entails they were not there before.

Unless you are proposing retroactive causation: assertions in FSK's now about the past lead to things being in the past that were not there.

Notice that you shift the focus each time. I am asking you for your position and you respond by telling me what other people cannot say.

Why so concern with me? It should be dealt as a general issue.
This is weird since I was not there 500 years ago.
If you are asking me, did those gut bacteria existed 500 years ago, then I say, they do not exist.

But if anyone at present ask, did those gut bacteria exist 500 years on hindsight based on a science-biological FSK, then any positive answers will have to be qualified with mind-dependence.

Don't complain too much when you are the one who is stuck with a dogmatic stance and unable to shift paradigm to understand my position.

The "cannot be absolutely mind-independent" point is critical for philosophy because it will support the existence of objective moral facts [FSK-conditioned] and the non-existent of an independent God, soul that can survive physical death and unconditional freewill.

This is an argument not in support of your position but how it would support other positions you have.

It is critical that it is true because this would support these other positions I have.
[/quote]
I don't get it.

The "cannot be absolutely mind-independent" point is critical for philosophy because it will support the existence of objective moral facts [FSK-conditioned]
and the non-existent of an independent God, soul that can survive physical death and unconditional freewill.

Which argument is not in support of my position??

[Peter Holmes]

The "cannot be absolutely mind-independent" point is critical for philosophy because it will support the existence of objective moral facts [FSK-conditioned]

1 Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, whatever the mind is - it's rational to assume it's physical. So the expressions 'mind-dependent' and 'mind-independent' mean 'human-body-dependent' and 'human body-independent'.

2 Therefore, VA claims that reality cannot be absolutely independent from the human body - and has provided no evidence or sound argument to support this claim. The fatuous 'humans are part of reality' is the best VA has to offer. This is mysticism pretending not to be.

3 The function of the modifier 'absolutely' in 'absolutely independent' is unclear. If the implication is that reality is 'relatively independent' from the human body, then that relationship has to be explained. Again, inspection under the hood reveals nothing more than mysticism.

4 The actual purpose of VA's ridiculous metaphysical speculation is evident above: 'it will support the existence of objective moral facts'. But since 'objective' and 'factual' are nearly synonymous terms, the expression 'objective fact' is a redundancy; there are no subjective facts, let alone moral ones.

5 Therefore, VA's argument amounts to this: 'Reality is not absolutely independent from the human body; therefore, there are moral facts'. And the idiocy is evident.

[Iwannaplato]

Should be yes.
As I had stated one can speculate on things that are potentially knowable if they are 'empirical-rational elements.
"Potentially knowable" is merely a possibility they may exist and knowable, but it does not confirm they do exist.

You think there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about. That is what 'Yes' means. Do you think things in the universe that humans don't know about - at the moment.

Let's remember that earlier in your positions the Moon did not exist when not looked at, even after it fit in an FSK.
Here PH is asking you about things that have never been seen/experienced but may well be found out about in the future.
This is not even being agnostic about whether things can exist even if no one has perceived them yet.
You think things like that do exist...if you keep answering yes.

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

To which you answered, twice now, yes.

If you have defined 'empirical-rational elements', please link me. That would seem to indicate nearly anything.

As I had stated a possible twin of IWP could exists in a planet 1000 light years away.
Why is this not a valid possibility to be known when all the elements are empirical-rational?
It is a matter of producing the empirical rational evidence for verification and confirmation.

Well my twin would be a perceiving, thinking being.
But could a twin of the stone that is my backyard exist on a planet 1000 light years away.

(And again you are granting with 'could' the possibility. This means that things that are currently unknown may be out there. Even that is a concession. But further you say 'yes' when he asks if you think there are those things. That's not 'they could exist', that's you saying that you think they do exist, despite not being, at this time known)

I had mentioned it is not bare perception, a human-based FSK is conditioned upon a 13.5 billion years history.

So, it wasn't enough for humans or neanderthals to see the Moon for it to exist, they had to have an FSK - a framework and system of knowledge?

Every organism has its basic FSR[realization].
A sonar bat will have a FSR that realize the reality of the moon differently from humans and who is to say the human FSR of the moon represent the ultimate reality?

Yeah, that's what I meant in relation to bare attention. But an FSR is not an 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?

My ANTI-philosophical_realism stance is against the philosophical realists' claim that reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.

Whatever is realizable [reality & things] and known by humans are all conditioned to a specific human based FSK which imply reality and things cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

This didn't answer my question. I am not interested in what you are against. I am asking about your claim. Did they exist then?

The point is one cannot claim DNA existed before Watson and Crick in an absolute state of mind-independence.

Did DNA exist before that or not? No one had seen it. No one knew about it. And it certainly wasn't integrated in an FSK. Did it exist or not?[/quote]

The DNA did not exist if no one has seen it before they were discovered by Watson and Crick.

So, how did we reproduce without DNA? It must have been by a different process, because DNA is central to reproduction.

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


It did not say that then. This was said much, much later.

, thus conditioned upon the science-biology FSK which cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

I understand that no one said it existed back then. That's not what I am asking. I am not asking if one can claim it existed. I am not claiming it existed. I am asking you if it existed and I can only draw the conclusion that you think it did not.

It was not a part of an FSK 500 years ago, for example. As you said, things arise when integrated in FSK's. This entails they were not there before.

Unless you are proposing retroactive causation: assertions in FSK's now about the past lead to things being in the past that were not there.

Notice that you shift the focus each time. I am asking you for your position and you respond by telling me what other people cannot say.

Why so concern with me? It should be dealt as a general issue.

I am responding to your claims. I am not asking about your personality. There's no ad hom here. I am asking about your specific non-realist position. I am not interested, in these posts in VA as a person. I am interested in your claims and your position. When you tell me what others cannot claim and I am focused on what you claim, you are not responding to me about the part of your position I am asking about.

This is weird since I was not there 500 years ago.
If you are asking me, did those gut bacteria existed 500 years ago, then I say, they do not exist.

Thank you. That's exactly what I have been asking.

So, this would mean humans digested their food in a manner very different from today. And given how gut health is dependent on good bacterial flora AND this affects the brain and other body systems, this means humans were quite different then. Do we have any evidence that humans back then had a different digestive process?

Don't complain too much when you are the one who is stuck with a dogmatic stance and unable to shift paradigm to understand my position.

You don't know what my stance is and it is not the one I held 20 years ago.

And now you ARE FOCUSING ON ME. This is an insult and an implicit ad hom.

I don't get it.

The "cannot be absolutely mind-independent" point is critical for philosophy because it will support the existence of objective moral facts [FSK-conditioned]

That's lovely, but you are saying/implying other things also. And now you have clarified that humans did not have gut bacteria, prior to science.

[Peter Holmes]

'There are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about at the moment.'

But...

'Features of reality don't exist unless and until humans know about them.'

[Skepdick]

'There are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about at the moment.'

But...

'Features of reality don't exist unless and until humans know about them.'

This only confuses realist who think "exists" says something something about the world, and not something about the person uttering the assertion.