Two Senses of 'Objective'

[Iwannaplato]

I have already argued extensively [in various threads] that the credibility and objectivity of ALL FSKs can be presented in a continuum in degrees from 0.0001 to 100%.

Yes, I even mentioned that.

At present, the Scientific FSK rated as the most credibility and objective, say assigned as a standard and a GIVEN rating 100/100.

You are using the passive voice here which is misleading. You rated it that way, assigning it as standard.

A Morality-Proper FSK exists inherently within human nature [..which I am arguing for] which can be used as the Standard to rate all other pseudo-moral-FSKs.

And there are less people who believe that than in Allah. If objectivity as you have said many times is intersubjectivty that would include the setting of criteria and epistemology. They trump your numbers on intersubjectivity.

Unless you are going to run the angle that PH does, which is that their intersubjectivity is wrong, because it isn't correct about the mind-independent reality. But as an antirealist you can't do that.

The various views on morality regarding the Hamas/Israel will have to be deliberated on an element to element basis and where necessary on an overall basis.
That Hamas are willing to torture and kill babies, we can rate their morality-FSK credibility and objectivity at 0.001/100, i.e. relative to the scientific FSK [100/100] and morality-proper FSK at say 90/100. [this will need detailed analysis, rating and computation] which I will not go into at present.

So many errors, so little time. More Palestinian babies have been killed than Israeli ones. Hamas is not the Palestinians, just as Israle is not the Jews. The issue of is Israel's millitary operation continuing moral or not has vast numbers on both sides. Both views have vast intersubjective support.

And my point is not to say one of these views is wrong. My point is that if intersubjectivty is what determines objectivity, we have conflicting objectivies. If you want to come with some way of determining object values to trump these conflicting objectivities, you need majority intersubjective support for YOUR VALUES AND PRIORITIES when creating that FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already argued extensively [in various threads] that the credibility and objectivity of ALL FSKs can be presented in a continuum in degrees from 0.0001 to 100%.

Yes, I even mentioned that.

At present, the Scientific FSK rated as the most credibility and objective, say assigned as a standard and a GIVEN rating 100/100.

You are using the passive voice here which is misleading. You rated it that way, assigning it as standard.

There is nothing wrong with that if you understand the context.
I had argued the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective thus assigning it as the GIVEN standard.

Analogy:
If say you are exactly 250cm [almost 8 Feet] Tall at present.
To be meaningful I can assign your height of 250cm as the GIVEN standard at 100/100 within humanity.
So, a person of 200cm would be 80% in height with reference to the standard.
So, a person of 125cm would be 50% in height with reference to the standard and so on.
If there is a person who is 300cm that would be 120% the standard.
If I state a person height is 50%, then within the context, his height would be 125cm and so on.

Although we do not use the above sort of measurements and computations for height, the methodology is used effectively for other indicators.
I am proposing to use it for credibility and objective of FSKs.
There is nothing wrong with it?

A Morality-Proper FSK exists inherently within human nature [..which I am arguing for] which can be used as the Standard to rate all other pseudo-moral-FSKs.

And there are less people who believe that than in Allah. If objectivity as you have said many times is intersubjectivty that would include the setting of criteria and epistemology. They trump your numbers on intersubjectivity.

Not sure of what is your point here.

You understand we cannot rely on the fallacy of ad populum.
The scientific FSK is the most credible and objective but it is sustained by only a small group of scientists [whilst trusted by many laymen based on faith] and lesser if we refer to the science-physics FSK.
So yes, it is the criteria rating that counts not numbers of subjects within a FSK.

Unless you are going to run the angle that PH does, which is that their intersubjectivity is wrong, because it isn't correct about the mind-independent reality. But as an antirealist you can't do that.

Again not sure of your point.

The various views on morality regarding the Hamas/Israel will have to be deliberated on an element to element basis and where necessary on an overall basis.
That Hamas are willing to torture and kill babies, we can rate their morality-FSK credibility and objectivity at 0.001/100, i.e. relative to the scientific FSK [100/100] and morality-proper FSK at say 90/100. [this will need detailed analysis, rating and computation] which I will not go into at present.

So many errors, so little time. More Palestinian babies have been killed than Israeli ones. Hamas is not the Palestinians, just as Israle is not the Jews. The issue of is Israel's millitary operation continuing moral or not has vast numbers on both sides. Both views have vast intersubjective support.

And my point is not to say one of these views is wrong. My point is that if intersubjectivty is what determines objectivity, we have conflicting objectivies. If you want to come with some way of determining object values to trump these conflicting objectivities, you need majority intersubjective support for YOUR VALUES AND PRIORITIES when creating that FSK.

The above is a strawman.
There is a big difference between Palestinians and Hamas [a political group in GAZA].

According to the U.S. government and other sources, Palestinian residents of these territories are predominantly Sunni Muslims, with small Shia and Ahmadi Muslim communities.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-repo ... -and-gaza/#:

ETA: deleted Hamas stated as purely shia.

I did not rate the Israeli's FSK at all.
If I have to do so, the Israeli's FSK would be a political FSK conditioned upon its constitution where the killing of civilians in a declared war is considered inevitable.
Where a political FSK provides for war and the killing of humans [children and adults] its morality rating [if rated] would be very low in contrast to morality-proper-FSK [say 20/100 to morality-proper 80/100.]

If any Israelite were to kill Palestinian on their own, that would be a punishable crime within Israel's.

For Hamas, anything goes with killing of those they regard as enemies as conditioned upon their own political FSK and that of the Quran.

Like what is truth, facts and knowledge within the highest credibility and objectivity of science [no majority of intersubjective support], what we need is the necessary criteria that make it credible and objective, see;
Objectivity: Science vs Theology Rated
viewtopic.php?t=41096

[FlashDangerpants]

I think you probably confused Hamas and Hezbollah there. Hamas is not Shia.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Agreed Hamas are not purely Shia.
I was misled by their main supporter, i.e. Iran who are ruled by Shia ideology.
Both Sunni and Shia are constituted by the Quran where non-believers ought to be killed upon the slightest threat. [Quran 5:33]

[Sculptor]

I have already explained how a FSK is objective.

Ideas that exist only in your head are by definition subective.

That is a truism and strawman.
Obviously ideas in my [one subject] mind are subjective.

But a human-based FSK which I discussed here is conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects, i.e. many minds [heads].

Who, exactly?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ideas that exist only in your head are by definition subective.

That is a truism and strawman.
Obviously ideas in my [one subject] mind are subjective.

But a human-based FSK which I discussed here is conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects, i.e. many minds [heads].

Who, exactly?

Who??
How is that you don't know?

It is undeniable that all share-prices quoted in the various Stock Exchange, e.g. the London Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange and others, are objective.
Do you deny this claim?

Objective Share Prices from a Stock Exchange is conditioned by a human-based Stock-Exchange-FSK which is grounded upon the consensus of a collective-of-subjects.

You asked 'who' are comprised within this collective-of-subjects that sustained the objectivity of the listed share-prices from these human-based FSK.

If you have studied Economics, you would have understood, what determined 'price' is a convergence of supply vs demands conditioned upon all relevant subjective sentiments and other psychological factors.

There are no objective share-prices if there are no humans establishing stock exchanges and people's demand and supply interacting within a human-based Economic FSK.

Therefore there is objectivity in the sense of a human-based FSK which is grounded on intersubjectivity, thus my original claim re 2 below;

'Objective' is a very loose term but most of the moral fact deniers [PH & gang] are stuck with a dogmatic view of 'what is objective' within the Philosophical Realism perspective;
There are Two Senses of Objective: i.e.

• 1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
  2. Objectivity in the FSK Sense

Where you mocked my 2. based on your ignorance.

FSK seems to be your amusing invention and so meaning 2 is in your own head, therefore subjective.

Based on my explanation above, e.g. objective share-prices are objective in the human-based FSK sense, i.e. no humans no objective share-prices quoted in stock-exchanges.

Get it?

[Sculptor]

That is a truism and strawman.
Obviously ideas in my [one subject] mind are subjective.

But a human-based FSK which I discussed here is conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects, i.e. many minds [heads].

Who, exactly?

Who??
How is that you don't know?

But I know.
Because it's only you.
Can you not recognise a rhetorical question?

[popeye1945]

The objective is to label our biological extensions, for we do not experience things as they are, we experience how things affect/alter our standing biology. The objective we then state is our biological readout of apparent reality, relative to our altered biological state. This is an emergent quality of the union of subject and object; the experience and knowledge of what we call objective reality belong solely to the subject and never to the object.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The objective is to label our biological extensions, for we do not experience things as they are, we experience how things affect/alter our standing biology. The objective we then state is our biological readout of apparent reality, relative to our altered biological state. This is an emergent quality of the union of subject and object; the experience and knowledge of what we call objective reality belong solely to the subject and never to the object.

There is no such things as 'things as they are in themselves' or 'things as they are by themselves' existing absolutely independent of the human conditions.
If you insists, justify [prove] that such a thing-by-itself exists as real.

I posted this relevant point earlier:

What science states about reality [ultimate or otherwise] is reality-by-science [always qualified] not reality-by-itself [or reality-in-itself] [never unqualified].
What science says about reality is still "a biological readout" albeit by a collective of biological entities in consensus; so it is reality-by-science.
Point is reality-by-science [collective of humans within the scientific framework and system] is more credible and objective than reality-by-you or reality-by-people.

The 'truth of what is' is still the truth-of-what-is by someone or some group of people; there is no such thing as truth-of-what-is-by-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any cognitive beings [humans or otherwise].

It is impossible to conceptualize what is reality-by-itself or reality-in-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any self.
As you aware this reality-by-science [or reality by individuals] versus reality-by-itself is a serious topic within the philosophy community?

[popeye1945]

The objective is to label our biological extensions, for we do not experience things as they are, we experience how things affect/alter our standing biology. The objective we then state is our biological readout of apparent reality, relative to our altered biological state. This is an emergent quality of the union of subject and object; the experience and knowledge of what we call objective reality belong solely to the subject and never to the object.

There is no such things as 'things as they are in themselves' or 'things as they are by themselves' existing absolutely independent of the human conditions. If you insists, justify [prove] that such a thing-by-itself exists as real.-

There seems to be a little confusion here. I think you read into my statements what isn't there. I am not speaking of Kant's thing in itself. I am outlining how we come to experience and acquire knowledge of the experience. What we experience depends on the nature of our biological condition and the object sources. Our senses enable and also limit. Nothing can be said to exist in the absence of a conscious subject, for the physical world in and of itself is meaningless. We only know on a subjective level or a biological level.

What science states about reality [ultimate or otherwise] is reality-by-science [always qualified] not reality-by-itself [or reality-in-itself] [never unqualified].
What science says about reality is still "a biological readout" albeit by a collective of biological entities in consensus; so it is reality-by-science.
Point is reality-by-science [collective of humans within the scientific framework and system] is more credible and objective than reality-by-you or reality-by-people. The 'truth of what is' is still the truth-of-what-is by someone or some group of people; there is no such thing as truth-of-what-is-by-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any cognitive beings [humans or otherwise].
It is impossible to conceptualize what is reality-by-itself or reality-in-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any self.
As you aware this reality-by-science [or reality by individuals] versus reality-by-itself is a serious topic within the philosophy community?
[/quote]

Truth reality to the individual is experience; to the group, it is agreement. Science does say that the ultimate reality is unmanifested energies and a place of no things. For most of us, that would be hard to term a reality, but there you have it. Don't forget, according to science, all is energy.
Relying upon a collective to know reality must make you housebound. Tongue in cheek.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The objective is to label our biological extensions, for we do not experience things as they are, we experience how things affect/alter our standing biology. The objective we then state is our biological readout of apparent reality, relative to our altered biological state. This is an emergent quality of the union of subject and object; the experience and knowledge of what we call objective reality belong solely to the subject and never to the object.

There is no such things as 'things as they are in themselves' or 'things as they are by themselves' existing absolutely independent of the human conditions. If you insists, justify [prove] that such a thing-by-itself exists as real.-

There seems to be a little confusion here. I think you read into my statements what isn't there. I am not speaking of Kant's thing in itself. I am outlining how we come to experience and acquire knowledge of the experience. What we experience depends on the nature of our biological condition and the object sources. Our senses enable and also limit. Nothing can be said to exist in the absence of a conscious subject, for the physical world in and of itself is meaningless. We only know on a subjective level or a biological level.

I inferred from the following.
Your mentioned of "apparent reality" implied that for you there is a 'real' reality as opposed to that apparent reality.

For me, there is no question of 'apparent reality' in this case with reference to a biological conditioned reality. That is the ONLY reality.
'Apparent reality' is something like sense illusion, e.g. bent stick is water, or a piece of rope mistaken for a snake.

What science states about reality [ultimate or otherwise] is reality-by-science [always qualified] not reality-by-itself [or reality-in-itself] [never unqualified].
What science says about reality is still "a biological readout" albeit by a collective of biological entities in consensus; so it is reality-by-science.
Point is reality-by-science [collective of humans within the scientific framework and system] is more credible and objective than reality-by-you or reality-by-people. The 'truth of what is' is still the truth-of-what-is by someone or some group of people; there is no such thing as truth-of-what-is-by-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any cognitive beings [humans or otherwise].
It is impossible to conceptualize what is reality-by-itself or reality-in-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any self.
As you aware this reality-by-science [or reality by individuals] versus reality-by-itself is a serious topic within the philosophy community?

Truth reality to the individual is experience; to the group, it is agreement. Science does say that the ultimate reality is unmanifested energies and a place of no things. For most of us, that would be hard to term a reality, but there you have it. Don't forget, according to science, all is energy.
Relying upon a collective to know reality must make you housebound. Tongue in cheek.

Science by default which can never claimed certainty will not claim there is an 'ultimate reality'.
Science at best can only claim, the finest reality of scientific reality confirmed based on empirical evidence is blah, blah, blah ....
In addition, science can only claim for scientific reality [the most credible and objective] and not any other reality [e.g. legal, history, linguistic, political, social, etc.].

[popeye1945]

There is no such things as 'things as they are in themselves' or 'things as they are by themselves' existing absolutely independent of the human conditions. If you insists, justify [prove] that such a thing-by-itself exists as real.-

There seems to be a little confusion here. I think you read into my statements what isn't there. I am not speaking of Kant's thing in itself. I am outlining how we come to experience and acquire knowledge of the experience. What we experience depends on the nature of our biological condition and the object sources. Our senses enable and also limit. Nothing can be said to exist in the absence of a conscious subject, for the physical world in and of itself is meaningless. We only know on a subjective level or a biological level.

I inferred from the following.
Your mentioned of "apparent reality" implied that for you there is a 'real' reality as opposed to that apparent reality.

For me, there is no question of 'apparent reality' in this case with reference to a biological conditioned reality. That is the ONLY reality.
'Apparent reality' is something like sense illusion, e.g. bent stick is water, or a piece of rope mistaken for a snake.

What science states about reality [ultimate or otherwise] is reality-by-science [always qualified] not reality-by-itself [or reality-in-itself] [never unqualified].
What science says about reality is still "a biological readout" albeit by a collective of biological entities in consensus; so it is reality-by-science.
Point is reality-by-science [collective of humans within the scientific framework and system] is more credible and objective than reality-by-you or reality-by-people. The 'truth of what is' is still the truth-of-what-is by someone or some group of people; there is no such thing as truth-of-what-is-by-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any cognitive beings [humans or otherwise].
It is impossible to conceptualize what is reality-by-itself or reality-in-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any self.
As you aware this reality-by-science [or reality by individuals] versus reality-by-itself is a serious topic within the philosophy community?

Truth reality to the individual is experience; to the group, it is agreement. Science does say that the ultimate reality is unmanifested energies and a place of no things. For most of us, that would be hard to term a reality, but there you have it. Don't forget, according to science, all is energy.
Relying upon a collective to know reality must make you housebound. Tongue in cheek.

Science by default which can never claimed certainty will not claim there is an 'ultimate reality'.
Science at best can only claim, the finest reality of scientific reality confirmed based on empirical evidence is blah, blah, blah ....
In addition, science can only claim for scientific reality [the most credible and objective] and not any other reality [e.g. legal, history, linguistic, political, social, etc.].

We agree that apparent reality is a biological readout. Ultimate reality would be all the energy present, which does and does not affect our biology, altering and giving us a perception. In the real world, there is no color or sound without biology to interpret it into an altered state of color or sound. There is an abundance of frequencies and vibrations beyond our biological senses. The totality of energy, frequencies, and vibrations is the ultimate reality. Energy times the speed of light squared is all the forms we know, and so, so many that we do not. It is as if cosmic energy plays biology as an instrument, and the one melody it plays for us is apparent reality. A biological readout of the biological reactions of our experiences that then become causes in our outside world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There seems to be a little confusion here. I think you read into my statements what isn't there. I am not speaking of Kant's thing in itself. I am outlining how we come to experience and acquire knowledge of the experience. What we experience depends on the nature of our biological condition and the object sources. Our senses enable and also limit. Nothing can be said to exist in the absence of a conscious subject, for the physical world in and of itself is meaningless. We only know on a subjective level or a biological level.

I inferred from the following.
Your mentioned of "apparent reality" implied that for you there is a 'real' reality as opposed to that apparent reality.

For me, there is no question of 'apparent reality' in this case with reference to a biological conditioned reality. That is the ONLY reality.
'Apparent reality' is something like sense illusion, e.g. bent stick is water, or a piece of rope mistaken for a snake.

What science states about reality [ultimate or otherwise] is reality-by-science [always qualified] not reality-by-itself [or reality-in-itself] [never unqualified].
What science says about reality is still "a biological readout" albeit by a collective of biological entities in consensus; so it is reality-by-science.
Point is reality-by-science [collective of humans within the scientific framework and system] is more credible and objective than reality-by-you or reality-by-people. The 'truth of what is' is still the truth-of-what-is by someone or some group of people; there is no such thing as truth-of-what-is-by-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any cognitive beings [humans or otherwise].
It is impossible to conceptualize what is reality-by-itself or reality-in-itself, i.e. absolutely independent of any self.
As you aware this reality-by-science [or reality by individuals] versus reality-by-itself is a serious topic within the philosophy community?

Truth reality to the individual is experience; to the group, it is agreement. Science does say that the ultimate reality is unmanifested energies and a place of no things. For most of us, that would be hard to term a reality, but there you have it. Don't forget, according to science, all is energy.
Relying upon a collective to know reality must make you housebound. Tongue in cheek.

Science by default which can never claimed certainty will not claim there is an 'ultimate reality'.
Science at best can only claim, the finest reality of scientific reality confirmed based on empirical evidence is blah, blah, blah ....
In addition, science can only claim for scientific reality [the most credible and objective] and not any other reality [e.g. legal, history, linguistic, political, social, etc.].

We agree that apparent reality is a biological readout. Ultimate reality would be all the energy present, which does and does not affect our biology, altering and giving us a perception. In the real world, there is no color or sound without biology to interpret it into an altered state of color or sound. There is an abundance of frequencies and vibrations beyond our biological senses. The totality of energy, frequencies, and vibrations is the ultimate reality. Energy times the speed of light squared is all the forms we know, and so, so many that we do not. It is as if cosmic energy plays biology as an instrument, and the one melody it plays for us is apparent reality. A biological readout of the biological reactions of our experiences that then become causes in our outside world.

You missed my point.

I did not agree "apparent reality is a biological readout".
My point is, whatever-is-reality is conditioned upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and System [FS].

There is no such thing as an 'ultimate reality' that is not conditioned upon the human conditions [merely biology is too simplified].

The 'energy' that you conceptualized or as confirmed by science cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions - the human FS.

It appear you are speaking from Philosophical Realism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Philosophical realism—.. is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3][4]
This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.

Your "Ultimate reality would be all the energy present, which does and does not affect our biology"
implied Philosophical Realism, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans [biology] or not.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
As such, you are chasing an illusion if you insist that ultimate reality exists regardless of human conditions [biology].

The point is there is empirical mind-independence but this empirical mind-independence is still subject to the the human conditions. This is Kant's Copernican Revolution.
Such a stance is very counter intuitive and create uneasy cognitive dissonances, but it is most real philosophically.

If you insist upon your sort of biological or mind-independent ultimate reality, this will open the pandora box for God's existence as possible, thus bringing along all its epistemological issues. You're a theist?

[popeye1945]

You have a system FS, whatever that is. That didn't make any sense to me in the past, and I doubt the dialogue will prove fruitful. So, respectfully, I sign off here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have a system FS, whatever that is. That didn't make any sense to me in the past, and I doubt the dialogue will prove fruitful. So, respectfully, I sign off here.

It is at your discretion. You are limiting your knowledge-base by not researching to find out what it is [not necessary agree with it].

Every sphere of knowledge is qualified to its specific Framework and System, i.e. with its rules, conditions that need to be met.
One cannot claim a reality & knowledge is scientific unless it meets the conditions of the scientific framework and system, i.e. meeting the requirements of the scientific method, empirically based, peer reviews, etc.
Water is H20 is because the science-chemistry FS said so; a legal FS cannot claim with authority, 'water is H20'.

I suggest you explore this FS concept with AI, e.g. ChatGpt.