What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I can accept your all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" but only within a relative basis, i.e. relative to humans and the human-based scientific FSRK.

Have a really hard think about this hypothetical premise.

If the universe existed long before humans evolved, then the universe did and does not exist 'relative to humans and the human-based scientific FSRK'.

You agree with the antecedent, so I think you must agree with the consequent. And notice, this makes no claim about the ways we humans perceive and know the universe. It's not about knowledge at all.

It is useless and goes no where when an "IF" i.e. a big "IF" is used fictitiously and the above hypothetical premise.

But it is a SCIENTIFIC facts imperatively based on the human-based scientific FSRK that the the universe existed long before humans evolved.
It is also a truth based on the common sense and conventional sense FSRK, but these are less credible, so we bang on the human-based Scientific FSRK at its best.

So I maintain my argument:

1. The human-based scientific FSRK is not absolutely independent of human influence [conditions].
2. The human-based scientific FSRK generate scientific facts.
3. The inference "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" is a scientific fact.
4. Therefore the claim "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" cannot be absolutely independent of human influence [conditions] [1].

Since the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective, 4 is true and so, the p-realist's claim that reality and things exist absolutely independent of human influence is false.

Can you counter the above without resorting to hypothetical premises?

[Peter Holmes]

I can accept your all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" but only within a relative basis, i.e. relative to humans and the human-based scientific FSRK.

Have a really hard think about this hypothetical premise.

If the universe existed long before humans evolved, then the universe did and does not exist 'relative to humans and the human-based scientific FSRK'.

You agree with the antecedent, so I think you must agree with the consequent. And notice, this makes no claim about the ways we humans perceive and know the universe. It's not about knowledge at all.

It is useless and goes no where when an "IF" i.e. a big "IF" is used fictitiously and the above hypothetical premise.

But it is a SCIENTIFIC facts imperatively based on the human-based scientific FSRK that the the universe existed long before humans evolved.
It is also a truth based on the common sense and conventional sense FSRK, but these are less credible, so we bang on the human-based Scientific FSRK at its best.

So I maintain my argument:

1. The human-based scientific FSRK is not absolutely independent of human influence [conditions].
2. The human-based scientific FSRK generate scientific facts.
3. The inference "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" is a scientific fact.
4. Therefore the claim "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" cannot be absolutely independent of human influence [conditions] [1].

Since the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective, 4 is true and so, the p-realist's claim that reality and things exist absolutely independent of human influence is false.

Can you counter the above without resorting to hypothetical premises?

Okay. You agree that the universe existed long before humans evolved. So do you agree with the following argument, or can you see a problem with it?

Premise: Our knowing the fact that the universe existed long before humans evolved is not independent from us as humans. (This is your human-based FSRK theory.)
Conclusion: Therefore, the fact that the universe existed long before humans evolved is not independent from us as humans.

Or we can generalise this, as follows.

Premise: Humans know that X.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is not independent from humans.

I hope you can see that this is a non sequitur. And modifying independent with completely or absolutely makes no difference, as follows.

Premise: Humans know that X.
Conclusion: Therefore X is not completely/absolutely independent from humans.

This is still a non sequitur. For example, our knowing that the universe existed long before humans evolved (X) does not mean that its existence long before humans evolved has anything to do with us whatsover.

So I think the following argument is valid and sound.

P1 If the universe existed long before humans evolved, then, before humans evolved, the universe existed completely/absolutely independent from humans.
P2 The universe existed long before humans evolved.
C: Therefore, before humans evolved, the universe existed completely/absolutely independent from humans.

And this conclusion destroys your main claim. And the fallback claim that, when humans evolved, the universe stopped existing completely/absolutely independent from humans makes no sense whatsoever.

[Peter Holmes]

How to track the fallacies in VA's argument from epistemology to moral realism/objectivism?

Humans have to know reality in human ways. Therefore, reality isn't independent from humans. Therefore, what humans call facts of reality are, in some way, human constructions. Therefore, if humans say an action is morally right or wrong, this can be a fact. Therefore, morality is or can be objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is useless and goes no where when an "IF" i.e. a big "IF" is used fictitiously and the above hypothetical premise.

But it is a SCIENTIFIC facts imperatively based on the human-based scientific FSRK that the the universe existed long before humans evolved.
It is also a truth based on the common sense and conventional sense FSRK, but these are less credible, so we bang on the human-based Scientific FSRK at its best.

So I maintain my argument:

1. The human-based scientific FSRK is not absolutely independent of human influence [conditions].
2. The human-based scientific FSRK generate scientific facts.
3. The inference "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" is a scientific fact.
4. Therefore the claim "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" cannot be absolutely independent of human influence [conditions] [1].

Since the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective, 4 is true and so, the p-realist's claim that reality and things exist absolutely independent of human influence is false.

Can you counter the above without resorting to hypothetical premises?

Okay. You agree that the universe existed long before humans evolved. So do you agree with the following argument, or can you see a problem with it?

Premise: Our knowing the fact that the universe existed long before humans evolved is not independent from us as humans. (This is your human-based FSRK theory.)
Conclusion: Therefore, the fact that the universe existed long before humans evolved is not independent from us as humans.

Or we can generalise this, as follows.

Premise: Humans know that X.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is not independent from humans.

I hope you can see that this is a non sequitur. And modifying independent with completely or absolutely makes no difference, as follows.

Premise: Humans know that X.
Conclusion: Therefore X is not completely/absolutely independent from humans.

This is still a non sequitur. For example, our knowing that the universe existed long before humans evolved (X) does not mean that its existence long before humans evolved has anything to do with us whatsover.

So I think the following argument is valid and sound.

P1 If the universe existed long before humans evolved, then, before humans evolved, the universe existed completely/absolutely independent from humans.
P2 The universe existed long before humans evolved.
C: Therefore, before humans evolved, the universe existed completely/absolutely independent from humans.

And this conclusion destroys your main claim. And the fallback claim that, when humans evolved, the universe stopped existing completely/absolutely independent from humans makes no sense whatsoever.

Strawman as usual.

Despite having gone through it a 'million' times. I believe your deception is driven by some very primal force in the following strawman;

• Premise: Humans know that X.
  Conclusion: Therefore X is not completely/absolutely independent from humans.

You are forcing and twisting my point with the term "know" into your rigid box.

Rather, my views can be summarized as

Premise: X has an inevitable human influence. [X is embodied realism]
Conclusion: Therefore X is not completely/absolutely independent from humans.

As I had argued, also a "million" times there is a prior process of emergence and realization [FSR] before we "know" a thing via a human-based FSR. Note the following threads to support my point;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

So I think the following argument is valid and sound.
P1 If the universe existed long before humans evolved, then, before humans evolved, the universe existed completely/absolutely independent from humans.
P2 The universe existed long before humans evolved.
C: Therefore, before humans evolved, the universe existed completely/absolutely independent from humans.

This argument is exactly like William Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument which is flawed with conflation and equivocation.

You are trying to cheat or fool me by not giving more details for your P2.
I suppose your "P2-The universe existed long before humans evolved" is influenced by the human-based science-cosmology-FSRK.
If not, whose authority are you relying upon? your father? mother? wife?
At least Craig stated his P2 is from Science.

If your P2 is influenced by the human-based science-cosmology FSRK, then your conclusion cannot be completely and absolutely independent from humans.

So I my argument still prevails:

1. The human-based scientific FSRK is not absolutely independent of human influence [conditions].
2. The human-based scientific FSRK generate scientific facts.
3. The inference "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" is a scientific fact.
4. Therefore the claim "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" cannot be absolutely independent of human influence [conditions] [1].

Do you have counter to the above?

Upon refreshing my notes, the more appropriate term instead of 'conditioned upon' or 'influenced by' human factor, the better term is 'embodied' i.e. embodied realism, i.e.
embodied realism vs disembodied realism.

How to track the fallacies in VA's argument from epistemology to moral realism/objectivism?
Humans have to know reality in human ways. Therefore, reality isn't independent from humans. Therefore, what humans call facts of reality are, in some way, human constructions. Therefore, if humans say an action is morally right or wrong, this can be a fact. Therefore, morality is or can be objective.

See the above in how I exposed your deception.

[Peter Holmes]

So I my argument still prevails:

1. The human-based scientific FSRK is not absolutely independent of human influence [conditions].
2. The human-based scientific FSRK generate scientific facts.
3. The inference "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" is a scientific fact.
4. Therefore the claim "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" cannot be absolutely independent of human influence [conditions] [1].

Do you have counter to the above?

Yes, and you conveniently ignored it in my last post. So I'll try again.

1 Yes, of course, human knowledge is not independent from humans.

2 Therefore, yes, of course, human knowledge that the universe existed long before humans evolved is not independent from humans.

3 But, of course, the universe's existence - the fact that the universe existed - long before humans evolved had nothing to do with humans whatsoever.

Your mistake is and has always been to muddle up features of reality that are or were the case - things that natural scientists, among others, study - with things we believe and know about those features of reality. That's where your FSRK blather comes from.

In this case, the universe existed long before humans evolved. That's just a fact of reality. And that we have come know about this fact through what you call an FSRK doesn't mean the fact depends on/is influenced by/etc [insert your latest useless expression] an FSRK.

[Iwannaplato]

3 But, of course, the universe's existence - the fact that the universe existed - long before humans evolved had nothing to do with humans whatsoever.

Yes, good to write 'fact that'.

So, we have the fact. The universe existed X number of years'
And we have the fact that it existed. The latter construction is not referring to the assertion (The language based factual information) but rather to the existence of the universe.

I think it would always be best to avoid using fact in both instances, but rather just in one.

For fact, perhaps 'conclusion'.

The conclusion about it's existence is the result of a methodology, what VA likes to call an FSK. And that conclusion is, yes, always connected to minds and is the product of human processes.

The issue is whether the existence of the universe is also necessarily connected only and is dependent on humans minds.

I'd also like to point out that elsewhere VA has been saying that unobservables are real. I've pointed out the problem with him saying that, since this grants existence to things that cannot be experienced. The universe before we existed (or actually even yesterday) cannot be observed. Suddely, when it suits him things that cannot be experienced are real. Which means we can infer their existence, which is what realists do.

He's often quoted Von Frassen who is a consistent ontological antirealist and he says, more or less, that we should remain silent about the existence of unobservables. Yes, use the ideas as useful fictions but remain agnostic.

VA who for a long time was MORE radical than Von Frassen, has said those things beyond experience do not exist, such as the Moon, etc.

Yet, suddenly he is granting that unobservables exist.

Very strangely he is now, in yet another thread on conceptualization arguing that antirealists believe in a prior, raw, unmediated experience that we have. Unlke realists who (only?) deal with conceptualization. This is precisely the opposite of the truth.

Antirealists focus on the mediation, cultural aspects, constructive aspect, language affected filters, interpretation of ALL experience.

If anyone think there is no raw experience it is the antirealists.

Of course, realists realize that those are factors, but do think one can draw conclusions about reality, even mind independent reality.

But it's the antirealists who think everything is mediated and conceptualized and thus we cannot get around this mediation to reality 'out there.'

I mention these things because he is now contradicting himself even more than usual and some of these assertions, in other threads, might usefully be applied to the main issue of morality here.

[Peter Holmes]

3 But, of course, the universe's existence - the fact that the universe existed - long before humans evolved had nothing to do with humans whatsoever.

Yes, good to write 'fact that'.

So, we have the fact. The universe existed X number of years'
And we have the fact that it existed. The latter construction is not referring to the assertion (The language based factual information) but rather to the existence of the universe.

I think it would always be best to avoid using fact in both instances, but rather just in one.

For fact, perhaps 'conclusion'.

The conclusion about it's existence is the result of a methodology, what VA likes to call an FSK. And that conclusion is, yes, always connected to minds and is the product of human processes.

The issue is whether the existence of the universe is also necessarily connected only and is dependent on humans minds.

I'd also like to point out that elsewhere VA has been saying that unobservables are real. I've pointed out the problem with him saying that, since this grants existence to things that cannot be experienced. The universe before we existed (or actually even yesterday) cannot be observed. Suddely, when it suits him things that cannot be experienced are real. Which means we can infer their existence, which is what realists do.

He's often quoted Von Frassen who is a consistent ontological antirealist and he says, more or less, that we should remain silent about the existence of unobservables. Yes, use the ideas as useful fictions but remain agnostic.

VA who for a long time was MORE radical than Von Frassen, has said those things beyond experience do not exist, such as the Moon, etc.

Yet, suddenly he is granting that unobservables exist.

Very strangely he is now, in yet another thread on conceptualization arguing that antirealists believe in a prior, raw, unmediated experience that we have. Unlke realists who (only?) deal with conceptualization. This is precisely the opposite of the truth.

Antirealists focus on the mediation, cultural aspects, constructive aspect, language affected filters, interpretation of ALL experience.

If anyone think there is no raw experience it is the antirealists.

Of course, realists realize that those are factors, but do think one can draw conclusions about reality, even mind independent reality.

But it's the antirealists who think everything is mediated and conceptualized and thus we cannot get around this mediation to reality 'out there.'

I mention these things because he is now contradicting himself even more than usual and some of these assertions, in other threads, might usefully be applied to the main issue of morality here.

Thanks. Muchly agreed. Diagnosing VA's many confusions isn't easy, and I think you do a good job.

I take your point about facts and conclusions. But my point is that a feature of reality that is or was the case isn't a conclusion of any kind, because it isn't part of an argument. It just is or was the case. And I think VA denies that there are or were such things.

I understand that VA's is only one kind of philosophical/ontological antirealism - and that his claims are fundamentally contradictory. But I believe you also describe your position as antirealist - in which case, I have a question.

Suppose the reality that we humans perceive and 'conceptualise' were perceived and conceptualised differently, maybe by a different species, maybe by aliens. Would that change reality? Would it be a different reality? Does it make sense to say that? And how could we know that it does?

[Skepdick]

3 But, of course, the universe's existence - the fact that the universe existed - long before humans evolved had nothing to do with humans whatsoever.

For a fan of the deflationary approach you sure don't seem to understand it. The verb "exists" expresses an assertion.

The universe. There it is. All of it. All around you. <vigorous jazz hands gesturing at everything>

What are you attempting to communicate to me when you assert that it "exists" ?
Suppose it doesn't exist. What would be different about it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So I my argument still prevails:

1. The human-based scientific FSRK is not absolutely independent of human influence [conditions].
2. The human-based scientific FSRK generate scientific facts.
3. The inference "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" is a scientific fact.
4. Therefore the claim "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" cannot be absolutely independent of human influence [conditions] [1].

Do you have counter to the above?

Yes, and you conveniently ignored it in my last post. So I'll try again.

1 Yes, of course, human knowledge is not independent from humans.

2 Therefore, yes, of course, human knowledge that the universe existed long before humans evolved is not independent from humans.

You have not addressed the validity of my above argument.
The conclusion does follows thus
the claim "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" cannot be absolutely independent of human influence [conditions] [1],
so your claim 'reality and things existed regardless of humans' is not tenable in the ultimate sense.

You are stuck with the concept of know, knowing and 'knowledge'.
If it is merely knowledge, then, I can agree with you.
But realistically, there are the prior processes of emergence, realization of reality BEFORE there is knowing, knowledge and description.
My premise 1 include the FSRK, i.e. cover the processes of emergence, realization of reality [FSR] then FSK [in combination is FSRK].

Thus, to wave away the concept of the FSR and FSK is very intellectually immature.
Try again very hard to counter my above argument?

3 But, of course, the universe's existence - the fact that the universe existed - long before humans evolved had nothing to do with humans whatsoever.

Your mistake is and has always been to muddle up features of reality that are or were the case - things that natural scientists, among others, study - with things we believe and know about those features of reality. That's where your FSRK blather comes from.

In this case, the universe existed long before humans evolved. That's just a fact of reality. And that we have come know about this fact through what you call an FSRK doesn't mean the fact depends on/is influenced by/etc [insert your latest useless expression] an FSRK.

You keep getting stuck with believe and know.

All facts must be conditioned upon a specific embodied [human-based] FSR and FSK as the authority of that fact that is claimed. This is undeniable, can you counter this?

You just cannot state "That's just a fact of reality" without taking into account the implicit ground, i.e. this is merely a linguistic fact conditioned by the linguistic FSRK.
Otherwise, when stating "That's just a fact of reality" on what authority are you relying on it if you do not rely on any FSRK [science or otherwise].

Therefore, logically and deductively, you cannot remove the human element [human based FSRK] from any conclusion that follows.

To simplify:

1. All facts [objective] must be conditioned upon an embodied [human-based[ FSRK].
2. Fact X exists
3. Therefore, Fact X is conditioned upon an an embodied [human-based[ FSRK]
4. Thus Fact X cannot be absolutely independent of human influence [conditions], embodiment.
5. So, Philosophical Realism that claim reality and things exists absolutely independent of the human condition, influence and embodiment is not tenable.

6. Because it is not tenable, the reality and things of philosophical realism are ultimately illusions, i.e. not of objective reality.

Can you counter the above?
Don't keep getting 'stuck' with know, knowing, beliefs and knowledge.
If you insist on this, prove my above argument is wrong first.

[Veritas Aequitas]

3 But, of course, the universe's existence - the fact that the universe existed - long before humans evolved had nothing to do with humans whatsoever.

Yes, good to write 'fact that'.
So, we have the fact. The universe existed X number of years'
And we have the fact that it existed. The latter construction is not referring to the assertion (The language based factual information) but rather to the existence of the universe.

I think it would always be best to avoid using fact in both instances, but rather just in one.

For fact, perhaps 'conclusion'.

The conclusion about it's existence is the result of a methodology, what VA likes to call an FSK. And that conclusion is, yes, always connected to minds and is the product of human processes.

The issue is whether the existence of the universe is also necessarily connected only and is dependent on humans minds.

It is a strawman to refer to the term 'dependent' and I have explained that many times.

Existence is not a predicate.
To validify the existence of anything, it must be predicated upon an embodied FSRK.
The most credible FSRK is the embodied scientific FSRK.
It is crucial to consider the emergence and realization of reality [FSR] before the perceiving and knowing of reality [FSK].

Logically and deductively, whatever the fact is, it must be related to the human factor and there is no whatever the fact [in whatever ways] can be absolutely independent of the human elements. Since philosophical realism claims the latter, p-realism is not tenable as objective reality.

The rest of the post re Van Frassen is misunderstanding of my POV.
Just as with Kant, Hume and others, I do not agree with Van Frassen on everything.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Suppose the reality that we humans perceive and 'conceptualise' were perceived and conceptualised differently, maybe by a different species, maybe by aliens. Would that change reality? Would it be a different reality? Does it make sense to say that? And how could we know that it does?

Prove there is a universal reality that is constant regardless of living things?

Note Meno Paradox,
how can you realize and know anything is absolutely real when you don't know what it is in the first place?

Thus whatever is realized as real and known must be qualified to the paradigm [FSRK] one relied upon to realize and know reality and things.
Not forgetting before one knows, there is the prior process of emergence and realization of reality.

[Peter Holmes]

3 But, of course, the universe's existence - the fact that the universe existed - long before humans evolved had nothing to do with humans whatsoever.

Yes, good to write 'fact that'.
So, we have the fact. The universe existed X number of years'
And we have the fact that it existed. The latter construction is not referring to the assertion (The language based factual information) but rather to the existence of the universe.

I think it would always be best to avoid using fact in both instances, but rather just in one.

For fact, perhaps 'conclusion'.

The conclusion about it's existence is the result of a methodology, what VA likes to call an FSK. And that conclusion is, yes, always connected to minds and is the product of human processes.

The issue is whether the existence of the universe is also necessarily connected only and is dependent on humans minds.

It is a strawman to refer to the term 'dependent' and I have explained that many times.

Existence is not a predicate.

This is a silly claim. The word existence and its cognates can be respectable grammatical predicates, as in 'dogs exist'. And the verb can be operated, as in 'dogs don't exist' and 'do dogs exist?' So the expression 'the universe existed long before humans evolved' is perfectly coherent and meaningful.

The claim - 'existence is not a predicate' - was probably supposed to mean 'existence is not a property' - in the sense that, if we describe something by listing its properties, 'it exists' wouldn't usually be one of them, and nor would 'it doesn't exist'. Given a suitable explanation of 'exists', a thing either does or doesn't exist - and, of course, that's a (qualified) realist claim.

To call a predicate (a linguistic expression) a property is to mistake what we say for the way things are - the original philosophical delusion.

To validify [sic] the existence of anything, it must be predicated upon [sic] an embodied FSRK.

And here's the delusion at work - mixed up in an extraordinary conceptual mess. Wtf is 'an embodied framework and system of reality and knowledge'? And how can a thing that exists be 'predicated upon' it. This is throwing a word goulash at the wall and hoping something sticks.

The most credible FSRK is the embodied scientific FSRK.
It is crucial to consider the emergence and realization of reality [FSR] before the perceiving and knowing of reality [FSK].

This is irrelevant.

Logically and deductively, whatever the fact is, it must be related to the human factor and there is no whatever the fact [in whatever ways] can be absolutely independent of the human elements. Since philosophical realism claims the latter, p-realism is not tenable as objective reality.

To repeat. Human knowing and saying - which is where logic comes in - that the universe existed long before humans evolved is, of course, not independent from humans in any way whatsoever - never mind completely or absolutely. This is trivially true. We have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.

But that the universe existed long before humans evolved is a raw fact of reality that has nothing to do with humans or a fantasy 'embodied FSRK', scientific or otherwise.

[Skepdick]

And the verb can be operated, as in 'dogs don't exist' and 'do dogs exist?' So the expression 'the universe existed long before humans evolved' is perfectly coherent and

This is an idiotic mode of reasoning. No surprise there. Since it's the idiot known as Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes doing it.

Does the universe exist?

The determiner "the" in the question implies a referent which renders the verb "exist" meaningless.

And the question with it.

[Peter Holmes]

Does the Christian god exist?

The use of a definite article in a subject noun phrase doesn't always render predicate exist meaningless. What sort of moron would think that? Oh, wait...

And anyway, the question 'Does the universe exist? isn't meaningless. Some hatters think the universe could be an illusion.

But, for those of us who don't, to repeat: that the universe existed long before humans evolved is a raw fact of reality that has nothing to do with humans or a fantasy 'embodied FSRK', scientific or otherwise.

Suck on that, faux anti-realists.

[Skepdick]

Does the Christian god exist?

The use of a definite article in a subject noun phrase doesn't always render predicate exist meaningless. What sort of moron would think that? Oh, wait...

And anyway, the question 'Does the universe exist? isn't meaningless. Some hatters think the universe could be an illusion.

Look at Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes trying to muddy the water.

An illusionary universe, a universe existing as an illusion and a non-existing universe are the exact same universe.

First law of thought: law of identity. A smart cunt, a stupid cunt and a deeply philosophical cunt are simply different descriptions of one and the same cunt. Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes

All descriptions share a referent. No description comes any closer to; nor is it any further from the referent.

To slightly paraphrase Rorty "True descriptions are those descriptions your contemporaries will let you get away with."