What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

I have enough negentropy to know that people who are stuck on the issue of entropy and negentropy, like you, don't see the bigger picture. Negentropy in an entropic observable universe is a necessary condition, but not of central importance at all.

Negentropy isn't necessary in a universe that's generaly entropic - it's an anti-pattern.

[Atla]

I have enough negentropy to know that people who are stuck on the issue of entropy and negentropy, like you, don't see the bigger picture. Negentropy in an entropic observable universe is a necessary condition, but not of central importance at all.

Negentropy isn't necessary in a universe that's generaly entropic - it's an anti-pattern.

Yes, it's generally not necessary of course. But when you see the bigger picture, you can notice something for which it IS necessary. And it has nothing to do with some epic fight between humanity and the Entropy Monster.

[Skepdick]

Yes, it's generally not necessary of course. But when you see the bigger picture, you can notice something for which it IS necessary. And it has nothing to do with some epic fight between humanity and the Entropy Monster.

It's precisely when you see the big, entropic picture is when you notice that negentropy (life!) goes contrary to the big picture.

[Atla]

Yes, it's generally not necessary of course. But when you see the bigger picture, you can notice something for which it IS necessary. And it has nothing to do with some epic fight between humanity and the Entropy Monster.

It's precisely when you see the big, entropic picture is when you notice that negentropy goes contrary to the big picture.

Too bad your big picture is still small

Despair and tremble in fear
The Entropy Monster is near

[Skepdick]

Too bad your big picture is still small

Despair and tremble in fear
The Entropy Monster is near

You say fear, I say awe

The laws of physics don't predict life. They predict the non-existence of life. They predict entropy, not negentropy.

Yet, here we are. Surprise.

[Atla]

You say fear, I say awe

The laws of physics don't predict life. They predict the non-existence of life. They predict entropy, not negentropy.

Yet, here we are. Surprise.

Here is an AI-generated picture of your Entropy Monster, I kinda like it. I think it's cute and we should befriend it.

[Skepdick]

You say fear, I say awe

The laws of physics don't predict life. They predict the non-existence of life. They predict entropy, not negentropy.

Yet, here we are. Surprise.

Here is an AI-generated picture of your Entropy Monster, I kinda like it. I think it's cute and we should befriend it.

Did you just copy that?

How negentropic of you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ah! Yes, this is obvious: perceiving, knowing and describing don't bring things into existence. So first they exist - and then we perceive, know and describe them. Bingo.

Strawman, where did I state literally 'first they exist' as if like a magic show?
I stated they have to emerge and be realized as existing then we perceive, know and describe them.

And this 'emergence and realization' is unexplained. You just state that it has to happen.

Emergence and realization' is a complex* process which happened before things are perceived, known an described. * because it has a 13.5 billion [4 billion organic] years of history.
I will not be wasting time to explain in detail because your skull is too thick with very strong resistance to reject Facts [FSK-ed]. I have given clues in previous posts.

Take 'water is H20' as a scientific fact which you as a philosophical realist, insists exists absolutely independent of the human conditions. But that is shortsighted and grounded on an illusion.

Whatever that 'fluid-X' is, had already emerged and was realized as a 'thing' which was intricately part and parcel of the abiogenesis process and the related FS-Realization [note LUCA -Last Universal Common Ancestor].
That 'fluid-X' thus emerged and is realized via its nervous system grounded on a certain pattern of perturbations.
This consistent pattern of perturbations of that 'fluid-X' with its primary and secondary features as experienced flowed from LUCA through the tree of life to humans.

That common pattern of perturbation in the Nervous System of humans which we now perceived, known and described as water [conventional FSK] and H20 [science-chemistry FSK] is conditioned by its specific FSK thus CANNOT be absolutely human-condition independent or in generally, organically-independent.

The most you can counter is the usual "what about the moon before there were humans and after human extinction"
Here your statement is conditioned and grounded upon 'time' [before or after], where time is grounded upon human conditions and thus ultimately nothing can be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

So note, Kant's Copernican Revolution.

Your philosophical realism stance of reality just cannot be realistic, i.e. it is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Your [& like] clinging to philosophical realism is more because of Psychology like theism that it is to philosophy.

This is incoherent nonsense.
What does it mean to say a thing 'has to emerge to be realized as real'?
Claptrap.

You have not even attempt to find out whether is it empirical-rationally possible, then you hastily jumped to the conclusion without justifications, that is your Claptrap.
Your conclusion followed from your ignorant, narrow, shallow, dogmatic Claptrap thinking.

Gut-Bacteria exist as real as conditioned upon a human-based science-biology FSK, thus cannot exist as absolutely human-independent.

Say this as often as you like - it remains incoherent rubbish. There's absolutely no evidence that the universe didn't 'exist as real' (stupid expression) before humans evolved - and all the evidence we have indicates that it did. ALL THE EVIDENCE. So the universe MUST HAVE BEEN absolutely mind-independent before we evolved - unless you're hinting at a Berkeleyan argument for the existence of a god's mind.

I have been asserting;
whatever is real, exists, true, knowledge, objective must be conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
There is no other way; whatever other way you claim is a non-starter.

Not Berkeleyan [superficially an idealist but ultimately a philosophical realist] but Kantian Empirical_Realism-Transcendental_Realism [plus Buddhist Philosophy and other rational stances].

Because reality and things are realistically conditioned upon a specific FSR-FSK, reality and things therein CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

Can you prove the EXISTENCE of gut bacteria - or any other feature of reality, is absolutely human [mind, brain, body] independent?

Yes - a thousand times yes. Or rather, natural scientists can. They can also prove that there were dinosaurs long before humans evolved. But your silly argument is that, because we have to prove and know things in human ways, the existence of those things isn't independent from the human mind. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

My ace-card is ALL scientists must comply with the 'constitution' of the human-based Science-FSK in general and to the FSK of their specific field.
There is no way a scientist can claim 'Water is H20' because he said so but it is implicit to the conditions of the science-chemistry FSK.
Thus it follows, 'Water is H20' cannot be absolutely mind-independent [philosophical realism].

See.. you're the ignorant, shallow, narrow, dogmatic and stupid one.

So far you have merely talk but have not shown proofs.
Show me your proofs?

Why do you ask for proof of the existence of things that you agree obviously exist as real? See your comment above.

Still don't get it?
You are making a positive claim, gut-bacteria existed >500 years ago and now absolutely independent and Unconditional of the human conditions [mind-independent].
So provide proofs for your positive claim??

Okay, since you seem too lazy or stupid to find out for yourself, I'll try to find a reference to the evolution of bacteria, including human gut bacteria. I'm absolutely sure there's tons of well-researched empirical evidence.

I did a course in Genetics from MITx.

Whatever the knowledge of the evolution of bacteria including human gut bacteria, it has to be conditioned and grounded to a specific human-based science FSK.
Because it is human-based, it follows whatever the conclusions therefrom, they CANNOT be absolutely human-conditions independent.

[Atla]

Strawman, where did I state literally 'first they exist' as if like a magic show?
I stated they have to emerge and be realized as existing then we perceive, know and describe them.

And this 'emergence and realization' is unexplained. You just state that it has to happen.

Emergence and realization' is a complex* process which happened before things are perceived, known an described. * because it has a 13.5 billion [4 billion organic] years of history.
I will not be wasting time to explain in detail because your skull is too thick with very strong resistance to reject Facts [FSK-ed]. I have given clues in previous posts.

Take 'water is H20' as a scientific fact which you as a philosophical realist, insists exists absolutely independent of the human conditions. But that is shortsighted and grounded on an illusion.

Whatever that 'fluid-X' is, had already emerged and was realized as a 'thing' which was intricately part and parcel of the abiogenesis process and the related FS-Realization [note LUCA -Last Universal Common Ancestor].
That 'fluid-X' thus emerged and is realized via its nervous system grounded on a certain pattern of perturbations.
This consistent pattern of perturbations of that 'fluid-X' with its primary and secondary features as experienced flowed from LUCA through the tree of life to humans.

That common pattern of perturbation in the Nervous System of humans which we now perceived, known and described as water [conventional FSK] and H20 [science-chemistry FSK] is conditioned by its specific FSK thus CANNOT be absolutely human-condition independent or in generally, organically-independent.

The most you can counter is the usual "what about the moon before there were humans and after human extinction"
Here your statement is conditioned and grounded upon 'time' [before or after], where time is grounded upon human conditions and thus ultimately nothing can be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

So note, Kant's Copernican Revolution.

Your philosophical realism stance of reality just cannot be realistic, i.e. it is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Your [& like] clinging to philosophical realism is more because of Psychology like theism that it is to philosophy.

You have not even attempt to find out whether is it empirical-rationally possible, then you hastily jumped to the conclusion without justifications, that is your Claptrap.
Your conclusion followed from your ignorant, narrow, shallow, dogmatic Claptrap thinking.

Say this as often as you like - it remains incoherent rubbish. There's absolutely no evidence that the universe didn't 'exist as real' (stupid expression) before humans evolved - and all the evidence we have indicates that it did. ALL THE EVIDENCE. So the universe MUST HAVE BEEN absolutely mind-independent before we evolved - unless you're hinting at a Berkeleyan argument for the existence of a god's mind.

I have been asserting;
whatever is real, exists, true, knowledge, objective must be conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
There is no other way; whatever other way you claim is a non-starter.

Not Berkeleyan [superficially an idealist but ultimately a philosophical realist] but Kantian Empirical_Realism-Transcendental_Realism [plus Buddhist Philosophy and other rational stances].

Because reality and things are realistically conditioned upon a specific FSR-FSK, reality and things therein CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

Can you prove the EXISTENCE of gut bacteria - or any other feature of reality, is absolutely human [mind, brain, body] independent?

Yes - a thousand times yes. Or rather, natural scientists can. They can also prove that there were dinosaurs long before humans evolved. But your silly argument is that, because we have to prove and know things in human ways, the existence of those things isn't independent from the human mind. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

My ace-card is ALL scientists must comply with the 'constitution' of the human-based Science-FSK in general and to the FSK of their specific field.
There is no way a scientist can claim 'Water is H20' because he said so but it is implicit to the conditions of the science-chemistry FSK.
Thus it follows, 'Water is H20' cannot be absolutely mind-independent [philosophical realism].

See.. you're the ignorant, shallow, narrow, dogmatic and stupid one.

So far you have merely talk but have not shown proofs.
Show me your proofs?
Still don't get it?
You are making a positive claim, gut-bacteria existed >500 years ago and now absolutely independent and Unconditional of the human conditions [mind-independent].
So provide proofs for your positive claim??

Okay, since you seem too lazy or stupid to find out for yourself, I'll try to find a reference to the evolution of bacteria, including human gut bacteria. I'm absolutely sure there's tons of well-researched empirical evidence.

I did a course in Genetics from MITx.

Whatever the knowledge of the evolution of bacteria including human gut bacteria, it has to be conditioned and grounded to a specific human-based science FSK.
Because it is human-based, it follows whatever the conclusions therefrom, they CANNOT be absolutely human-conditions independent.

Sheer insanity. Just because the past is described by us humans, doesn't mean that the past is human-dependent.

VA's negative noumenon philosophy is incompatible with science, so he has to keep lying that science supports his drivel.

[Skepdick]

VA's negative noumenon philosophy is incompatible with science.

Eh?

Literally electrons and positrons.
Particles and anti-particles.
Matter and anti-matter.

[Iwannaplato]

Sheer insanity. Just because the past is described by us humans, doesn't mean that the past is human-dependent.

Well, you described Veritas and he is clearly Atla-dependent, so there's nothing odd about this.

[Atla]

VA's negative noumenon philosophy is incompatible with science.

Eh?

Literally electrons and positrons.
Particles and anti-particles.
Matter and anti-matter.

All of which are noumena.. heh-heh

[Atla]

Sheer insanity. Just because the past is described by us humans, doesn't mean that the past is human-dependent.

Well, you described Veritas and he is clearly Atla-dependent, so there's nothing odd about this.

My biggest problem with Atla-dependent anti-realism is that I couldn't come up with characters like VA, Skepdick and Age, even if I tried. But maybe my imagination has bizarre unconscious depths that are unknown even to myself.

[Iwannaplato]

Sheer insanity. Just because the past is described by us humans, doesn't mean that the past is human-dependent.

Well, you described Veritas and he is clearly Atla-dependent, so there's nothing odd about this.

My biggest problem with Atla-dependent anti-realism is that I couldn't come up with characters like VA, Skepdick and Age, even if I tried. But maybe my imagination has bizarre unconscious depths that are unknown even to myself.

Oh, it's entanglement not causation, but there is no universe where he exists and don't. He can't prove that his existence doesn't depend on you, and especially not to you.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's a popular fallacy.

Premise: Identities or categories - and so sameness and difference - are linguistic things.
Conclusion: Therefore, in reality - outside language - there are no identities or categories, and therefore no sameness and difference.

This non sequitur comes from mistaking what we say for the way things are - the original philosophical delusion, which has had deep and ramifying consequences.

It has led to the silly idea that, beyond the fact that it's necessary for communication, agreement on the use of signs constitutes what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity.

(The things we call cats and dogs - features of reality - are what they are whatever we call them, and whether we say they're the same as or different from each other.)

It has led to the silly idea that to construct a model of reality is to construct reality - and that all we can know about reality are the models we construct, which means that reality is 'mind-dependent', or 'not mind-independent'.

And it has led to the silly idea that, since what we call facts are supposedly our inventions, any declarative can assert a fact - so that 'abortion is morally wrong' can be just as much a factual assertion, with a classical truth-value, as 'water is H2O'.

'What we call facts aren't what we say they are'. But. 'There are moral facts - which are what we say they are'.