Abstract -Justice -Exists as Real

[Walker]

(continued)

The physicality of thought, which is detected by the mind sense, is not bound by time.

“In the life of Gautama Buddha we notice him constantly saying that he is the twenty-fifth Buddha. The twenty-four before him are unknown to history, although the Buddha known to history must have built upon foundations laid by them. The highest men are calm, silent and unknown. They are the men who really know the power of thought; they are sure that even if they go into a cave and close the door and simply think five true thoughts and then pass away, these five thoughts of theirs will live throughout eternity. Indeed such thoughts of theirs will penetrate through the mountains, cross the oceans and travel through the world. They will enter deep into human hearts and brains and raise up men and women who will give them practical expression in the workings of human life … The Buddhas and the Christs will go from place to place preaching these truths … These Sattvika men are too near the Lord to be active and to fight, to be working, struggling, preaching and doing good, as they say, here on earth to humanity …”
- Swami Vivekananda

[Peter Holmes]

The problem with mysticism is that it's untethered to any need for evidence, and so sound argument. Mystics can make any old woo-woo claim they like.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Discuss??
Views??

Justice is a thought and thoughts are real. Thoughts are of a corporeal nature in the sense that they exist physically, but not physically like a chunk of wood or a rock. They are a more subtle form of physicality, like the wind is physical but more subtle than a rock. This relates to the conclusion here, it’s an important premise to make the point, a premise being one of two starting points to make a point, and knowledge being the other.

The physicality of thought is simple to experience and everyone does, although because of assumptions about the nature of the world, not everyone notices the subtlety of the experience concerning the thought, where thoughts come from, and where thoughts go.

Thoughts have various sources, such as in a chain of one thought beginning with a memory and connecting to present experience. Or, a thought can begin as a rationale. The source to consider for the point of the conclusion of this is, a thought can have an external origin.

The simplest way to consider this is through the experience of an outside thought. An outside thought is one that is not of your own making. It comes from out of the blue, so to speak. Out of thin air. This thought is a transmission from an outside source, not through any of the five senses, but through the sixth sense, which is the mind sense. The mind senses the world without the other five senses, and the beginning of this is picking up thoughts that originate outside of the skin.

Conclusion of the previous proof, based on the evidence of knowledge: Just as thoughts external to the skin can be perceived with the mind sense, many minds transmitting the same thought are a strong transmission that can be perceived in a gross, meaning unsubtle, way.

Everyone experiences this, although everyone does not parse the phenomenon according to an organized, rational framework or commonly experienced FSK, because a lot of what is going on is connected to what is personally emotional rather than concepts.

Therefore, a commonly held physical thought by a society, such as the physical principle of justice made simple by the first experience of injustice as a child (hey, that kid took my toy!) is a physical thing that requires a most subtle instrument to detect, and that subtle instrument is the brain-mind connection.

When an entire society carries the same physical concept of justice, that is a powerful transmission that any mind sense can detect, and if ignored then it is ignored with knowledge that injustice is being done, which is also a physical thought.

I have heard that Elon Musk created a physical apparatus, a machine-mind connection, that can transfer physical thoughts to a computer screen, without voice or fingers, which is akin to the point, which is continuous transmission and reception of the physical thought of justice.

Thoughts are merely manifestations of the brain, mind and self; they can be disorganized or organized.

Organized thoughts spring from something physical and organized in the brain and mind.
The point is the brain/mind are "programmed" via evolution with various 'software programs" i.e. algorithms that enable organized thoughts. Take for example the various hardwired inherent instincts, the later sense of self, intelligence, etc. which are features of human nature.

Noted your points re "physical concept of justice".

My point is the sense of justice is represented by a 'software program' that all humans inherited via evolution as as essential part of human nature.
This sense of justice is active in varying degrees in humans.
This sense of justice is represented by its neural correlates and it enable thoughts of justice to emerge.

In this sense, justice as an algorithm in the brain/mind exists as real in ALL humans, thus universal.
Justice is thus both physical and abstract.

The sense of Justice is so glaring evident within humanity.
Who denies this?

It can even be verified within certain species of monkeys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

[FlashDangerpants]

VAS seems to think that his own argument from design is somehow less mystical than Walker's.

[Walker]

The problem with mysticism is that it's untethered to any need for evidence, and so sound argument. Mystics can make any old woo-woo claim they like.

This may help with your problem, seeing as how it refines your notions concerning woo-woo.
viewtopic.php?p=728407#p728407

[Walker]

I think you're right. It's why campfire and fireplace gazing is soothing.

Keyword: Epigenetic marks

[Atla]

My point is the sense of justice is represented by a 'software program' that all humans inherited via evolution as as essential part of human nature.

Hmm how did humans evolve when there is no external world to evolve in?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Malady of the External World Dogmatism:

Human beings have the unique ability to view the world in a detached way: We can think about the world in terms that transcend our own experience or interest, and consider the world from a vantage point that is, in Nagel's words, "nowhere in particular".

At the same time, each of us is a particular person in a particular place, each with his own "personal" view of the world, a view that we can recognize as just one aspect of the whole.

How do we reconcile these two standpoints--intellectually, morally, and practically?

To what extent are they irreconcilable and to what extent can they be integrated?

Thomas Nagel's ambitious and lively book tackles this fundamental issue, arguing that our divided nature is the root of a whole range of philosophical problems, touching, as it does, every aspect of human life.

He deals with its manifestations in such fields of philosophy as: the mind-body problem, personal identity, knowledge and skepticism, thought and reality, free will, ethics, the relation between moral and other values, the meaning of life, and death.

Excessive objectification has been a malady of recent analytic philosophy, claims Nagel, it has led to implausible forms of reductionism in the philosophy of mind and elsewhere.

The solution is not to inhibit the objectifying impulse, but to insist that it learn to live alongside the internal perspectives that cannot be either discarded or objectified.
Reconciliation between the two standpoints, in the end, is not always possible

The View From Nowhere
Thomas Nagel -1986
https://philpapers.org/rec/NAGTVF

Nagel is a scientific realist but he suggested that one should not be dogmatic and claimed absoluteness of it. i.e. an absolute mind-independently reality is an impossibility.

I don't agree with scientific realism [it is not tenable]; thus I am indifferent to the idea of an absolutely mind-independent reality.

Whatever is real and objective cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
Thus the most optimal view to accept reality is that it is contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of that emerged-reality.

[Atla]

The Malady of the External World Dogmatism:

Human beings have the unique ability to view the world in a detached way: We can think about the world in terms that transcend our own experience or interest, and consider the world from a vantage point that is, in Nagel's words, "nowhere in particular".

At the same time, each of us is a particular person in a particular place, each with his own "personal" view of the world, a view that we can recognize as just one aspect of the whole.

How do we reconcile these two standpoints--intellectually, morally, and practically?

To what extent are they irreconcilable and to what extent can they be integrated?

Thomas Nagel's ambitious and lively book tackles this fundamental issue, arguing that our divided nature is the root of a whole range of philosophical problems, touching, as it does, every aspect of human life.

He deals with its manifestations in such fields of philosophy as: the mind-body problem, personal identity, knowledge and skepticism, thought and reality, free will, ethics, the relation between moral and other values, the meaning of life, and death.

Excessive objectification has been a malady of recent analytic philosophy, claims Nagel, it has led to implausible forms of reductionism in the philosophy of mind and elsewhere.

The solution is not to inhibit the objectifying impulse, but to insist that it learn to live alongside the internal perspectives that cannot be either discarded or objectified.
Reconciliation between the two standpoints, in the end, is not always possible

The View From Nowhere
Thomas Nagel -1986
https://philpapers.org/rec/NAGTVF

Nagel is a scientific realist but he suggested that one should not be dogmatic and claimed absoluteness of it. i.e. an absolute mind-independently reality is an impossibility.

I don't agree with scientific realism [it is not tenable]; thus I am indifferent to the idea of an absolutely mind-independent reality.

Whatever is real and objective cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
Thus the most optimal view to accept reality is that it is contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of that emerged-reality.

Yeah if you had the faintest glimmer of intelligence and intellectual honesty, you wouldn't first deliberately redefine the world 'absolute' to mean 'not mind-dependent', and then conflate it with the original meaning of absolute. Sophistry is all you got.

[Iwannaplato]

Nagel is a scientific realist but he suggested that one should not be dogmatic and claimed absoluteness of it. i.e. an absolute mind-independently reality is an impossibility.

Could you show us where he said that last bit.

I don't agree with scientific realism [it is not tenable]; thus I am indifferent to the idea of an absolutely mind-independent reality.

You're not indifferent to the idea, unless you've had a sudden change of heart. You have told people that this idea leads to violence and called people who believe in it idiots. You know, signs that you have a dogmatic position on the issue.

Anyway Nagel:
"The idea that the world is mind-independent and that we can know this is something that can never be displaced, even by those who claim to reject it."

From "The Last Word" (1997)

"To say that something is objectively the case is to say that it is true independently of what anyone thinks about it."
From "The Last Word" (1997)

He warns about the epistemic issues related to a mind independent reality and urges humitly about the enormous hurdles there. So, there is some epistemic anti-realism which not having - as you indicate by saying he is a scientific realist - himself an ontological anti-realism. Which might, of course, put him in the general camp of Atla, while focusing more on consciousness than most indirect realists - who focus more on perception. And he does, despite thinking there is a mind independent reality, think we can learn about it, which puts him close to Atla, both being on the more optimistic end of Indirect Realists.

Anyway, perhaps everyone could be less dogmatic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Contrary to popular belief 'facts' are not based upon 'physical things' alone.

This is a claim which incurs the burden of proving (demonstrating) that any non-physical thing exists - a burden unmet, so far, to my knowledge. Which means that skepticism with regard to non-physical or abstract things is the only rational position.

I have presented the OP where abstract objects do exist as real and objectively.
So far your objections are not rational.
viewtopic.php?p=728320#p728320

Your limitation is your philosophical vista is too narrow and shallow.

There are two senses of what is 'physical', reality, truth, knowledge and objectivity, i.e.

1. FSERC based on a collective of subjects
2. Philosophical realism's absolutely human/mind independent sense.

In addition, your definition of what is an abstract-object and non-physical is too narrow within sense 2 above, which is;
"An abstract object is a non-physical, non-mental object that exists outside of space and time and is wholly unextended."

If you define reality and physical as absolutely human/mind independent [philosophical realism], i.e. the exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, then, abstract and non-physical objects do not exist.
BUT such a claim is grounded on philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.
As such your definition, argument and claim of the non-existence of abstract and non-physical is not valid.

On the other hand, if we define abstract and non-physical objects as real objects that are contingent upon a human-based FSERC within space and time, then they are real FSERC objects which can be utilized for real use.
As I had argued, the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

In this case, the basis of abstract and non-physical objects must be as near credible and objectivity to the scientific FSERC.

As such, the concept of 'justice' exists as really-real as contingent within a legal FSERC which is translatable to practical use.
The consideration is whether the legal FSERC relied upon is credible and objective.
Therefore, justice is real as qualified within a legal FSERC subject to its credibility and objectivity.

The above argument is applicable to all abstract and non-physical objects, e.g. wisdom, intelligence, love, hate, evil, good, and the like which all exists within space and time, thus spatial and temporal based.

[Iwannaplato]

As such, the concept of 'justice' exists as really-real as contingent within a legal FSERC which is translatable to practical use.
The consideration is whether the legal FSERC relied upon is credible and objective.
Therefore, justice is real as qualified within a legal FSERC subject to its credibility and objectivity.

So, we have a trial and two equal populations of people come to differing conclusions about whether the verdict and sentence showed justice. Was there justice or not? Or is justice sometimes like Schrodinger's cat, both there and not.

Where slavery was the law and escaped slaves, under the then current justice system, could be tortured, even killed, and this was considered justice, was it justice, and true and real? And what was that justice made of?

If the majority decides in the future to again have slavery, will it then be a sign of justice to have slaves?

[Atla]

It can't be so impossibly fucking hard to have simple, rational thinking.

[Iwannaplato]

It can't be so impossibly fucking hard to have simple, rational thinking.

And me, I am perfecty happy to use the word 'justice', but the whole FSERC thing, any FSERC, creating objectivity.....woh.

I'll probably be told that my previous post is a strawman because he is anti-slavery.

[Iwannaplato]

Nagel is a scientific realist but he suggested that one should not be dogmatic and claimed absoluteness of it. i.e. an absolute mind-independently reality is an impossibility.

Again, could you show where he said that last part?