What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This means: reality is 'conditioned upon' or 'contingent upon' humans. And that is false. And I'm not straw manning VA's argument, or being dishonest.

And VA quotes the following definition of abstraction.
So, instead of responding to my argument about abstraction, which addresses the very claptrap that this definition regurgitates, VA is too lazy to do some actual critical thinking. Who'd have guessed?

What is your problem statement?

You think 'abstraction' is a claptrap?

No, try to read carefully. I say that the AI definition of abstraction that you quote is claptrap. And in my paper I explain why.

That is not an AI definition.
That definition of abstraction is a philosophical definition of what is abstraction.

PH explained: "It has been argued that language works by means of abstraction, as in the following example."
Really language is more like pasting and arranging 'signs' to whatever is already pre-abstracted in the human brain/mind.

Your explanation is a farce.

No, the shallowness is in your uncritical acceptance of tired old philosophical thinking and categories.

You got a lot of thinking to do.
"Abstraction" is a critical necessity to facilitate basis survival right from the beginning.

I must remember, when I stroke my dog, that it's a sort of meta-abstraction which began since abiogenesis occurred. It'll cut down the food bills.

You are insulting your intelligence.

It is common [vulgar] sense you are stroking a real particular physical dog and you have to live within common sense.

But if you are more intelligent and apply critical thinking, what you are stroking are merely furs and something solid.
At a more refined level, you hands are in contact with a cluster of molecules, atoms and quarks - would you deny this claim.

How you arrive at 'I am stroking my dog' within common sense is via a meta-abstraction from the particle soup to facilitate basis survival.

Can you hear yourself? My individual or 'particular' living dog doesn't exist.

Yes I hear my own voice and inner voices from my first person experience of my own empirical self.
These activities are all grounded on the basis of abstractions from particulars of solid things, molecules, atoms and particles.

Look up the a priori: 'relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience'. So, my dog began as a theoretical deduction reached by reasoning from first principles. Goddit.

This is due to your limited range of knowledge and ignorance.
A posteriori within philosophy refer to 'based on experience and senses', a priori is what is prior to experience and senses, i.e. the emergence and realization of reality traceable to abiogenesis and the Big Bang.
Your thinking is so shallow, narrow and worst dogmatic on it.

Etymology
borrowed from Medieval Latin ā priōrī literally, "from what is earlier"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a%20priori

So we must add 'meta-' to 'a priori' in the list of cool-sounding expressions you don't understand and abuse.

It you who is ignorant.

The relevance is due to;
"A posteriori within philosophy refer to 'based on experience and senses', a priori is what is prior to experience and senses, i.e. the emergence and realization of reality traceable to abiogenesis and the Big Bang."

Your main premise - facts depend on/are conditioned by/are contingent upon life forms, or (for some unexplained reason) humans - is false. And adding 'in the absolute sense' does nothing to rescue it.

I have already explained why the term 'absolute' as opposed to 'relative' is critical for my claims and context.

Morality: Absolute vs Relative Mind Independence
viewtopic.php?t=40600

"- facts depend on/are conditioned by/are contingent upon life forms, or humans."
It is,
whatever if fact is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system of emergence, realization of reality and its subsequent cognition[FSERC].

This is the same as 'what is fact' in this WIKI article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Your what is fact is grounded on an illusion:

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
You have not countered this effectively.

[Peter Holmes]

What is your problem statement?

You think 'abstraction' is a claptrap?

No, try to read carefully. I say that the AI definition of abstraction that you quote is claptrap. And in my paper I explain why.

That is not an AI definition.
That definition of abstraction is a philosophical definition of what is abstraction.

I apologise. It's just a dictionary definition that recycles the claptrap.

PH explained: "It has been argued that language works by means of abstraction, as in the following example."
Really language is more like pasting and arranging 'signs' to whatever is already pre-abstracted in the human brain/mind.

So, here you use 'brain' and 'mind' as synonyms - names for the same thing. And by this trick, you aim to wish away the myth of the mind, on which the a priori depends. As follows.

Your explanation is a farce.

No, the shallowness is in your uncritical acceptance of tired old philosophical thinking and categories.

You got a lot of thinking to do.
"Abstraction" is a critical necessity to facilitate basis survival right from the beginning.

You merely intone the drivel that I think I expose in my paper, by explaining what abstraction really is.

I must remember, when I stroke my dog, that it's a sort of meta-abstraction which began since abiogenesis occurred. It'll cut down the food bills.

You are insulting your intelligence.

It is common [vulgar] sense you are stroking a real particular physical dog and you have to live within common sense.

But if you are more intelligent and apply critical thinking, what you are stroking are merely furs and something solid.
At a more refined level, you hands are in contact with a cluster of molecules, atoms and quarks - would you deny this claim.

Bricks are not more real than the houses they constitute.

How you arrive at 'I am stroking my dog' within common sense is via a meta-abstraction from the particle soup to facilitate basis survival.

Word salad that gives you the warm feeling that you understand something.

Can you hear yourself? My individual or 'particular' living dog doesn't exist.

Yes I hear my own voice and inner voices from my first person experience of my own empirical self.
These activities are all grounded on the basis of abstractions from particulars of solid things, molecules, atoms and particles.

So molecules, atoms and particles are real things, but my dog is a 'meta-abstraction' from those real things. When and how do real things combine into an unreal thing - an abstraction? Exactly when in the agglomeration does the transformation into an abstraction occur? You really haven't thought this through.

Look up the a priori: 'relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience'. So, my dog began as a theoretical deduction reached by reasoning from first principles. Goddit.

This is due to your limited range of knowledge and ignorance.
A posteriori within philosophy refer to 'based on experience and senses', a priori is what is prior to experience and senses, i.e. the emergence and realization of reality traceable to abiogenesis and the Big Bang.
Your thinking is so shallow, narrow and worst dogmatic on it.

Whoa. No, the 'a priori' has nothing to do with a temporal sequence. It's a silly idea designed to pad out the myth of the mind - a mysterious place where supposedly 'reasoning' and 'thinking' go on independently from experience and observation of the world through the senses. The a priori/a posteriori distinction is a legacy from the mind/body. mind/matter substance dualism that still plagues us.

And your misapplication of the a priori to your mystical blather about 'the emergence and realisation of reality' is yet another demonstration of your conceptual hopelessness.

Etymology
borrowed from Medieval Latin ā priōrī literally, "from what is earlier"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a%20priori

Look up the etymological fallacy.

So we must add 'meta-' to 'a priori' in the list of cool-sounding expressions you don't understand and abuse.

It you who is ignorant.

The relevance is due to;
"A posteriori within philosophy refer to 'based on experience and senses', a priori is what is prior to experience and senses, i.e. the emergence and realization of reality traceable to abiogenesis and the Big Bang."

Same rubbish again. See above.

Your main premise - facts depend on/are conditioned by/are contingent upon life forms, or (for some unexplained reason) humans - is false. And adding 'in the absolute sense' does nothing to rescue it.

I have already explained why the term 'absolute' as opposed to 'relative' is critical for my claims and context.

Ditch the mind, and then mind-dependence and -independence vanish. Then switch to the brain - and the absurdity of talk about reality being independent from, or dependent on - relatively or absolutely - the human brain becomes patently obvious.

Morality: Absolute vs Relative Mind Independence
viewtopic.php?t=40600

"- facts depend on/are conditioned by/are contingent upon life forms, or humans."
It is,
whatever if fact is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system of emergence, realization of reality and its subsequent cognition[FSERC].

. This means: 'Facts depend on/are conditioned by/are contingent upon human beings.' And this is false.

What you actually mean is this: We humans have to perceive, know and describe (the facts of) reality in human ways. So our perceptions, knowledge and factual descriptions of reality 'depend' on us - 'in the absolute sense'.

No argument from me.

Your mangled Kantianism has twisted your thinking inside out and back to front.

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH explained: "It has been argued that language works by means of abstraction, as in the following example."
Really language is more like pasting and arranging 'signs' to whatever is already pre-abstracted in the human brain/mind.

So, here you use 'brain' and 'mind' as synonyms - names for the same thing. And by this trick, you aim to wish away the myth of the mind, on which the a priori depends. As follows.

I know you deny the mind exists [ridiculous view], so I included 'brain/mind' for those who agree the mind exists as real.

You merely intone the drivel that I think I expose in my paper, by explaining what abstraction really is.

Your thinking re 'abstraction' is too shallow.
Do you have any references to support your view and references that counter my views regarding 'abstraction' in the philosophical sense.
I bet you don't have both.

Bricks are not more real than the houses they constitute.

Strawman as usual.
A 'brick house' is NOT made wholly of 'bricks' alone. So, yes, Bricks are not more real than the houses they constitute.
But in a more refined perspective, the molecules, atoms and particles are more precise and realistic than the house they constitute.

It may not be practical, but for each house, if we define it in terms of the types and location of each molecule, atom, particle, then would it more precise and realistic than mere pointing to 'that is a house'.
You cannot deny this.

Word salad that gives you the warm feeling that you understand something.

So molecules, atoms and particles are real things, but my dog is a 'meta-abstraction' from those real things. When and how do real things combine into an unreal thing - an abstraction? Exactly when in the agglomeration does the transformation into an abstraction occur? You really haven't thought this through.

You got it wrong.
Within the common sense and conventional sense re FSERC, your dog [as a meta-abstraction] is a real thing. [not an unreal thing like a God or nuomenal]
But in higher perspective of reality, that common sense dog is actually a bundle of furs, organs, molecules, atoms and particles.

I have explained how reality emerged and is realized [via a priori meta-abstraction] and thereafter a posteriori conceptual abstraction, in many threads, e.g.

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476

Suggest you listen to this, it is definitely worth the time;

Your Brain: Perception Deception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU6LfXNeQM4
Neuroscientists discover the tricks and shortcuts the brain takes to help us survive.
Is what you see real?
Join neuroscientist Heather Berlin on a quest to understand how your brain shapes your reality, and why you can’t always trust what you perceive.
In the first hour of this two-part series, learn what the latest research shows about how your brain processes and shapes the world around you, and discover the surprising tricks and shortcuts your brain takes to help you survive.

Whoa. No, the 'a priori' has nothing to do with a temporal sequence. It's a silly idea designed to pad out the myth of the mind - a mysterious place where supposedly 'reasoning' and 'thinking' go on independently from experience and observation of the world through the senses. The a priori/a posteriori distinction is a legacy from the mind/body. mind/matter substance dualism that still plagues us.

And your misapplication of the a priori to your mystical blather about 'the emergence and realisation of reality' is yet another demonstration of your conceptual hopelessness.

In philosophy a priori/a posteriori is generally referenced to before [nature] and after experience [nurture].
Your instincts which are necessary for basic survival are a priori i.e. nature, not nurture.

Both terms "a priori" "a posteriori" appear in Euclid's Elements and were popularized by Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, an influential work in the history of philosophy.[1] Both terms are primarily used as modifiers to the noun knowledge (i.e., a priori knowledge). A priori can be used to modify other nouns such as truth. Philosophers may use apriority, apriorist and aprioricity as nouns referring to the quality of being a priori.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

See, your knowledge is limited to the dictionary meaning rather that how they are used in philosophy.

Look up the etymological fallacy.

There is no fallacy in the philosophical context.

Same rubbish again. See above.

It is your ignorance of the terms used in philosophy.

Ditch the mind, and then mind-dependence and -independence vanish. Then switch to the brain - and the absurdity of talk about reality being independent from, or dependent on - relatively or absolutely - the human brain becomes patently obvious.

The "mind" [physical] in context is something of a convenience to represent more complex brain activities that differ from brain of the lower animals.
It is very primitive thinking to insist the mind[empirical and psychology] do not exist as real.
In your case [to cater your childish thinking], I have used absolutely human-independent, i.e. things exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

. This means: 'Facts depend on/are conditioned by/are contingent upon human beings.' And this is false.

What you actually mean is this: We humans have to perceive, know and describe (the facts of) reality in human ways. So our perceptions, knowledge and factual descriptions of reality 'depend' on us - 'in the absolute sense'.

No argument from me.

Your mangled Kantianism has twisted your thinking inside out and back to front.

Strawman and deliberate omission the 'million' times.
Do you have to resort to deliberate omission to cover for your ignorance.

I mentioned 'contingent' but you insist in using 'depend' which I had explained can be very misleading.

I mentioned 'emergence and realization of reality' but you deliberately ignored it all the time.
Problem is you just waved them away without trying to understand [not agree with] my points on this matter.

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, VA quotes a Co-Pilot pronouncement, as though it must be true:

'...Kant recognizes the existence of the noumenal realm as a conceptual construct [within the human mind[s]], rather than asserting its objective reality [out there in the external world]'.

With AI, as with any other kind of programming, it's RIRO: Rubbish In, Rubbish Out.

Just look at these mystical expressions: 'the noumenal realm', 'a conceptual construct' and (VA's insertion) 'the human mind'. Kant didn't 'recognise the existence' of these fictional things. As a man of his time and philosophical training, he just assumed they exist, and based his ontology and epistemology on that assumption.

To what is the external world external? Why, to the human mind, of course: the internal world, the noumenal realm, where conceptual constructs and abstractions sort of float about, with no objective reality. Human bodies, including human brains, neurons, synapses and electrochemical processes, are part of the external world, of course.

So, how does the non-physical or the abstract relate to the physical, causally or otherwise? Mystics have no answer. They keep quiet, because otherwise they have to appeal to magic, which is childish and explains nothing. Which is why they keep quiet. Might as well say a god or the pixies dun it.

This is displaced or sublimated supernaturalist religion. Time to wake up.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, VA quotes a Co-Pilot pronouncement, as though it must be true:

'...Kant recognizes the existence of the noumenal realm as a conceptual construct [within the human mind[s]], rather than asserting its objective reality [out there in the external world]'.

With AI, as with any other kind of programming, it's RIRO: Rubbish In, Rubbish Out.

Just look at these mystical expressions: 'the noumenal realm', 'a conceptual construct' and (VA's insertion) 'the human mind'. Kant didn't 'recognise the existence' of these fictional things. As a man of his time and philosophical training, he just assumed they exist, and based his ontology and epistemology on that assumption.

To what is the external world external? Why, to the human mind, of course: the internal world, the noumenal realm, where conceptual constructs and abstractions sort of float about, with no objective reality. Human bodies, including human brains, neurons, synapses and electrochemical processes, are part of the external world, of course.

So, how does the non-physical or the abstract relate to the physical, causally or otherwise? Mystics have no answer. They keep quiet, because otherwise they have to appeal to magic, which is childish and explains nothing. Which is why they keep quiet. Might as well say a god or the pixies dun it.

This is displaced or sublimated supernaturalist religion. Time to wake up.

Most of the time [missed sometimes] I [the only one so far] have quoted AI with the [wR] "with Reservation" suffix.

AI is just like philosophical resources from WIKI, SEP, or IEP and elsewhere; the difference is AI is interactive where we can ask further questions if not sure.
The AI site itself warned, AI can mistake, so we have to use it with this limitation.
When I discuss AI with Kant, I am reasonable equipped with the CPR, thus able to ensure the points are within topic.

When discussing Kant's CPR with AI, it will give the general view that the noumenon exists beyond the empirical but it is inaccessible and unknowable; that is because the majority who discussed the related issue presented that point.
But upon detailed discussion with AI on the above point where I gave all the relevant references from the CPR, AI then changed its view to;

The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon
viewtopic.php?p=723277#p723277

Point is you have not read and understood [not agree with] Kant CPR thoroughly, thus your above has no validity nor soundness to it.

You are one of the worst intellectually; in all [rare exception if any] you have never quoted from any reliable external sources other than from your own narrow shallow silo thinking.

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, VA quotes a Co-Pilot pronouncement, as though it must be true:

'...Kant recognizes the existence of the noumenal realm as a conceptual construct [within the human mind[s]], rather than asserting its objective reality [out there in the external world]'.

With AI, as with any other kind of programming, it's RIRO: Rubbish In, Rubbish Out.

Just look at these mystical expressions: 'the noumenal realm', 'a conceptual construct' and (VA's insertion) 'the human mind'. Kant didn't 'recognise the existence' of these fictional things. As a man of his time and philosophical training, he just assumed they exist, and based his ontology and epistemology on that assumption.

To what is the external world external? Why, to the human mind, of course: the internal world, the noumenal realm, where conceptual constructs and abstractions sort of float about, with no objective reality. Human bodies, including human brains, neurons, synapses and electrochemical processes, are part of the external world, of course.

So, how does the non-physical or the abstract relate to the physical, causally or otherwise? Mystics have no answer. They keep quiet, because otherwise they have to appeal to magic, which is childish and explains nothing. Which is why they keep quiet. Might as well say a god or the pixies dun it.

This is displaced or sublimated supernaturalist religion. Time to wake up.

Most of the time [missed sometimes] I [the only one so far] have quoted AI with the [wR] "with Reservation" suffix.

AI is just like philosophical resources from WIKI, SEP, or IEP and elsewhere; the difference is AI is interactive where we can ask further questions if not sure.
The AI site itself warned, AI can mistake, so we have to use it with this limitation.
When I discuss AI with Kant, I am reasonable equipped with the CPR, thus able to ensure the points are within topic.

When discussing Kant's CPR with AI, it will give the general view that the noumenon exists beyond the empirical but it is inaccessible and unknowable; that is because the majority who discussed the related issue presented that point.
But upon detailed discussion with AI on the above point where I gave all the relevant references from the CPR, AI then changed its view to;

The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon
viewtopic.php?p=723277#p723277

Point is you have not read and understood [not agree with] Kant CPR thoroughly, thus your above has no validity nor soundness to it.

You are one of the worst intellectually; in all [rare exception if any] you have never quoted from any reliable external sources other than from your own narrow shallow silo thinking.

You don't even pretend to address the point I'm making. Waste of time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, VA quotes a Co-Pilot pronouncement, as though it must be true:

'...Kant recognizes the existence of the noumenal realm as a conceptual construct [within the human mind[s]], rather than asserting its objective reality [out there in the external world]'.

With AI, as with any other kind of programming, it's RIRO: Rubbish In, Rubbish Out.

Just look at these mystical expressions: 'the noumenal realm', 'a conceptual construct' and (VA's insertion) 'the human mind'. Kant didn't 'recognise the existence' of these fictional things. As a man of his time and philosophical training, he just assumed they exist, and based his ontology and epistemology on that assumption.

To what is the external world external? Why, to the human mind, of course: the internal world, the noumenal realm, where conceptual constructs and abstractions sort of float about, with no objective reality. Human bodies, including human brains, neurons, synapses and electrochemical processes, are part of the external world, of course.

So, how does the non-physical or the abstract relate to the physical, causally or otherwise? Mystics have no answer. They keep quiet, because otherwise they have to appeal to magic, which is childish and explains nothing. Which is why they keep quiet. Might as well say a god or the pixies dun it.

This is displaced or sublimated supernaturalist religion. Time to wake up.

Most of the time [missed sometimes] I [the only one so far] have quoted AI with the [wR] "with Reservation" suffix.

AI is just like philosophical resources from WIKI, SEP, or IEP and elsewhere; the difference is AI is interactive where we can ask further questions if not sure.
The AI site itself warned, AI can mistake, so we have to use it with this limitation.
When I discuss AI with Kant, I am reasonable equipped with the CPR, thus able to ensure the points are within topic.

When discussing Kant's CPR with AI, it will give the general view that the noumenon exists beyond the empirical but it is inaccessible and unknowable; that is because the majority who discussed the related issue presented that point.
But upon detailed discussion with AI on the above point where I gave all the relevant references from the CPR, AI then changed its view to;

The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon
viewtopic.php?p=723277#p723277

Point is you have not read and understood [not agree with] Kant CPR thoroughly, thus your above has no validity nor soundness to it.

You are one of the worst intellectually; in all [rare exception if any] you have never quoted from any reliable external sources other than from your own narrow shallow silo thinking.

You don't even pretend to address the point I'm making. Waste of time.

Philosophy is a complex issue across wide chasms, especially when dealing with dogmatic and ideological thinkers like you.

I believe my response above indirectly cover the points you raised.
If not, present what is missing.

Btw, remember the things you have omitted, overlooked, ignored and strawman which I had reminded you a 1000 and million times.
Despite that I had continues because it served my interests in other ways regardless of whether you are on point or not.

It is at your discretion whatever which way.

[Peter Holmes]

I believe my response above indirectly cover the points you raised.

And that's the problem. I don't think you understand - let alone think critically about - what you read. And that's why conversations with you are so fruitless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe my response above indirectly cover the points you raised.

And that's the problem. I don't think you understand - let alone think critically about - what you read. And that's why conversations with you are so fruitless.

This is like you are presenting your proposition at a high school [which obviously to the best of the ability] is still crude and raw.
What I have presented is from a Master degree level, thus override the high school view.

Here's from AI [wR]; [ABC = PH]

Weaknesses of ABC's Presentation of Abstraction
ABC's presentation of abstraction has several weaknesses:
1. Oversimplification: ABC focuses solely on common nouns and the idea of "universals" (abstract properties shared by all things of a kind). This ignores other important aspects of abstraction.
•Abstraction as a mental process: As the Wikipedia definition points out, abstraction is a mental process of focusing on relevant information and ignoring irrelevant details. This applies not just to nouns but to all areas of thought. For example, a map abstracts the real world to show only the features relevant for navigation.

2. Misconstruing "abstract noun": ABC argues an abstract noun isn't an abstract thing, but a word itself is a physical thing. This is a technical point. While nouns are words, they represent concepts. "Truth" is an abstract concept, even if the word itself is printed on paper.
[•ABC confuses words (concrete nouns) with the things they represent (dogs). Words are symbols, not the things themselves.
•The debate around "abstract things" isn't about words, but about the existence of universals (shared properties) independent of specific objects.]

3. Equating abstract with unreal: ABC suggests abstract things are unreal like supernatural things. This is misleading. Abstract things like numbers, shapes, or concepts like justice are real in the sense that they have meaning and play a role in our thinking and communication. They may not be physical objects, but they are powerful tools for understanding the world.

[• ABC dismisses the "problem of identity" without acknowledging its complexity. There are different views on universals (Platonism vs. Nominalism) that deserve discussion.
• The comparison between abstract things and supernatural things is a strawman argument, as abstract things don't claim the same kind of existence as deities.]


4. Dismissing philosophical debate: ABC dismisses the Platonic-Nominalist debate as a product of "mentalist nonsense."
While these debates can be complex, they raise important questions about the nature of universals and concepts. Dismissing them outright doesn't contribute to a deeper understanding.

Strengths (or Relevance) of ABC's Presentation
Despite the weaknesses, there's some relevance to ABC's view:
• Highlighting Language's Role: ABC emphasizes the role of language in abstraction, particularly through categorizing with common nouns.
• Questioning Universals: While ABC's dismissal of universals goes too far, their point is that some philosophers overemphasize the existence of abstract entities separate from the physical world.

Overall,

• ABC's presentation offers a limited perspective on abstraction

.
For a more nuanced understanding, consider both the idea of abstraction as a mental process and the philosophical debates surrounding universals and abstract entities.

As I had countered, your views are too narrow and shallow, but a more meaningful view of abstraction is as a brain [mental] process with evolutionary origins.

A Plausible Evolutionary Perspective on Abstraction
Your proposal is indeed reasonable and aligns with a growing body of scientific and philosophical thought.

Key Points in Support of Your Proposal:
• Evolutionary Necessity: The ability to categorize and generalize information, which is essentially abstraction, is fundamental to survival. From the simplest organisms recognizing edible substances to complex humans understanding abstract concepts like justice, abstraction has been a driving force in evolution.
• Pattern Recognition: As you suggest, pattern recognition, a core component of abstraction, is essential for identifying threats, opportunities, and resources. This ability has been refined over millions of years.
• Language as a Tool: Language is a sophisticated tool that evolved to represent and communicate abstract concepts. While it's a relatively recent development, it builds upon pre-existing cognitive abilities.

Further Considerations:
• Neural Correlates: Exploring the neural basis of abstraction could provide empirical support for your hypothesis. Studies on brain structures involved in pattern recognition and decision-making might reveal evolutionary continuity.
• Cultural Evolution: While the foundation of abstraction might be biological, cultural factors also shape its development. The transmission of abstract knowledge through language and other cultural means has accelerated the process.
• Consciousness and Abstraction: The relationship between consciousness and abstraction is a complex one. Does consciousness emerge from abstract thinking, or does it enable more sophisticated forms of abstraction?
- Artificial Intelligence: By grounding AI research in the evolutionary principles of abstraction, we can potentially create more intelligent, adaptable, and human-like systems.

Your proposal offers a compelling evolutionary perspective on abstraction. It provides a framework for understanding how this cognitive ability has shaped human and animal behavior. By exploring the interplay between biological, cognitive, and cultural factors, we can gain deeper insights into the nature of abstraction.

[Peter Holmes]

Premise: Facts are human constructs.

Conclusion: Therefore:

1 the universe is a human construct; and

2 there can be moral facts.

Views?
Questions?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Premise: Facts are human constructs.

Conclusion: Therefore:

1 the universe is a human construct; and

2 there can be moral facts.

Views?
Questions?

Where did you get the above from?
Relevant reference?

Do you have any counter to my critique [validated by AI] of your narrow and shallow view of 'what is abstraction' above:
ABC's [PH] presentation of abstraction has several weaknesses:
viewtopic.php?p=723467#p723467

My wider view of abstraction is the a priori [nurture] abstraction which is linked to the emergence and realization of reality before it is cognized and described a posteriori [after experience].
Our one-celled ancestors were already abstracting which had facilitated their survival and that is adapted within our DNA > 3 billion years later. Your thinking is too shallow which is merely confined to language and words.

[Peter Holmes]

Premise: Facts are human constructs.

Conclusion: Therefore:

1 the universe is a human construct; and

2 there can be moral facts.

Views?
Questions?

Where did you get the above from?
Relevant reference?

It's your argument.

Do you have any counter to my critique [validated by AI] of your narrow and shallow view of 'what is abstraction' above:
ABC's [PH] presentation of abstraction has several weaknesses:
viewtopic.php?p=723467#p723467

My wider view of abstraction is the a priori [nurture] abstraction which is linked to the emergence and realization of reality before it is cognized and described a posteriori [after experience].
Our one-celled ancestors were already abstracting which had facilitated their survival and that is adapted within our DNA > 3 billion years later. Your thinking is too shallow which is merely confined to language and words.

Abstraction: 'The quality of dealing with ideas rather than events.'

Abstraction: 'Abstraction is a process of generalizing complex events in the real world to the concepts that underlie them. It involves induction of ideas or the synthesis of particular facts into one general theory about something.'

So, the amoeba generalised complex events in the real world to the concepts that underlie them; it engaged in the induction of ideas or the synthesis of particular facts into one general theory about something.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Premise: Facts are human constructs.

Conclusion: Therefore:

1 the universe is a human construct; and

2 there can be moral facts.

Views?
Questions?

Where did you get the above from?
Relevant reference?

It's your argument.

I agreed to your suggestion with qualifications to the variables involved:

• P1 If any human framework and system [FSERC] can ground facts, then a human moral framework and system [FSERC] can ground moral facts.
  
  P2 Any human framework and system [FSERC] can ground facts.
  
  C Therefore, a human moral framework and system [FSERC] can ground FSERC-ed moral facts.

The FSERC is not a simple construct.

Do you have any counter to my critique [validated by AI] of your narrow and shallow view of 'what is abstraction' above:
ABC's [PH] presentation of abstraction has several weaknesses:
viewtopic.php?p=723467#p723467

My wider view of abstraction is the a priori [nurture] abstraction which is linked to the emergence and realization of reality before it is cognized and described a posteriori [after experience].
Our one-celled ancestors were already abstracting which had facilitated their survival and that is adapted within our DNA > 3 billion years later. Your thinking is too shallow which is merely confined to language and words.

Abstraction: 'The quality of dealing with ideas rather than events.'

Abstraction: 'Abstraction is a process of generalizing complex events in the real world to the concepts that underlie them. It involves induction of ideas or the synthesis of particular facts into one general theory about something.'

So, the amoeba generalised complex events in the real world to the concepts that underlie them; it engaged in the induction of ideas or the synthesis of particular facts into one general theory about something.

Here's AI [wR] critique of your narrow view of what is abstraction.
Do you have any counter to it?
ABC = PH

Critiques of ABC's View of Abstraction
ABC's definition of abstraction, while encompassing elements of generalization and concept formation, is overly restrictive. Here are some key critiques:

1. Overemphasis on Conscious, Human-Like Processes
Anthropomorphizing the Amoeba: Attributing human-like cognitive processes such as "induction of ideas" or "synthesis of particular facts" to a single-celled organism is a significant overreach. It implies a level of conscious deliberation and conceptual understanding that is far beyond the capabilities of an amoeba.

Neglect of Implicit Learning: Many cognitive processes, including abstraction, occur implicitly and unconsciously. The amoeba's responses to stimuli are likely based on innate, genetically programmed behaviors rather than conscious reasoning.

2. Limited Scope of Abstraction
Focus on Events and Concepts: ABC's definition primarily concerns the abstraction of events into concepts. This is a narrow view of abstraction, which can also apply to objects, properties, relationships, and even abstract entities like numbers and mathematical symbols.
Ignoring Different Levels of Abstraction: Abstraction occurs at multiple levels of complexity. While an amoeba might exhibit basic forms of abstraction, human beings engage in far more sophisticated levels of abstract thought, such as philosophical and mathematical reasoning.

3. Neglect of Embodied Cognition
Ignoring the Role of Physical Interaction: Abstraction is often grounded in physical experience. For example, the concept of "hot" is derived from sensory interactions with the environment. ABC's definition overlooks the embodied nature of cognition.

4. Ignoring the Role of Culture and Language
Underestimating the Social Dimension: Human abstraction is heavily influenced by cultural, social, and linguistic factors. ABC's definition suggests a purely individualistic and innate process, ignoring the collective nature of human knowledge.

In essence, ABC's view of abstraction is overly simplistic and anthropocentric. While it captures some aspects of the concept, it fails to account for the complexity, variety, and embodied nature of abstraction as it occurs in both humans and other organisms.

Don't be that narrow minded and dogmatic with your primitive view.

[Peter Holmes]

P1 If any human framework and system [FSERC] can ground facts, then a human moral framework and system [FSERC] can ground moral facts.

This merely sets up the main premise.

P2 Any human framework and system [FSERC] can ground facts.

This is the main premise, and it's false. Astrology does not ground facts about human personality and destiny. Phrenology does not ground facts about human personality and psychology. A religion does not ground facts about the supernatural. So it's not the case that any human 'FSERC' can ground facts.

C Therefore, a human moral framework and system [FSERC] can ground FSERC-ed moral facts.

This is worthless.

Stripped down, the fallacy is this:

P Facts are human constructs.
C Therefore, humans can construct facts of any kind.

The premise is false, because it mistakes what (we humans) know and say about the way things are for the way things are. For example, the universe is not a human construct. But if it were, then humans are a human construct, as is human knowledge about the universe. A bottomless pit.

And as for VA's tedious quotations from AI - they merely uncritically regurgitate the very philosophical dogmas that I attack in my paper on identity, abstraction and concepts.

And anyway, VA can ignore what an AI 'authority' says when it suits, as follows:

VA: An amoeba abstracts from its environment.
AI: Anthropomorphizing the Amoeba: Attributing human-like cognitive processes such as "induction of ideas" or "synthesis of particular facts" to a single-celled organism is a significant overreach. It implies a level of conscious deliberation and conceptual understanding that is far beyond the capabilities of an amoeba.

When I wrote - 'So, the amoeba generalised complex events in the real world to the concepts that underlie them; it engaged in the induction of ideas or the synthesis of particular facts into one general theory about something' - I was trying to show the inapplicability of a concept/an expression.

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1 If any human framework and system [FSERC] can ground facts, then a human moral framework and system [FSERC] can ground moral facts.

This merely sets up the main premise.

P2 Any human framework and system [FSERC] can ground facts.

This is the main premise, and it's false. Astrology does not ground facts about human personality and destiny. Phrenology does not ground facts about human personality and psychology. A religion does not ground facts about the supernatural. So it's not the case that any human 'FSERC' can ground facts.

C Therefore, a human moral framework and system [FSERC] can ground FSERC-ed moral facts.

This is worthless.

Stripped down, the fallacy is this:

P Facts are human constructs.
C Therefore, humans can construct facts of any kind.

The premise is false, because it mistakes what (we humans) know and say about the way things are for the way things are. For example, the universe is not a human construct. But if it were, then humans are a human construct, as is human knowledge about the universe. A bottomless pit.

Strawman as usual.

I have explained my FSERC a 'million' times, yet you did not take that into account [not necessary agree with it].

You are arguing from your 'what is fact' which is grounded on an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
which is grounded on Philosophical Realism [absolute mind independence]
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

You have not countered the above convincingly.

Black or white thinking [Law of the Excluded Middle] is reserved for primitive thinking necessary for basic survival. For higher more complex philosophical issues of reality, the continuum basis is the most effective.

My sense of what is fact is;
Whatever is a fact is contingent upon a human-based [collective-of-subjects] FSERC.
In this case, what is fact is on a continuum with its degrees of credibility and objectivity.
With scientific facts from its FSERC as the gold standard, say at 100, astrology, phrenology, theism, would be rated at the other end of the continuum of fact at something like 0.1/100.

P Facts are human constructs.
C Therefore, humans can construct facts of any kind.

This is a very stupid strawman and the fact is you keep constructing such a strawman after
I have explained a 'million' times that is not my argument.
I'll say again, facts emerged and are realized as real before they are perceived, cognized and described.

And as for VA's tedious quotations from AI - they merely uncritically regurgitate the very philosophical dogmas that I attack in my paper on identity, abstraction and concepts.

And anyway, VA can ignore what an AI 'authority' says when it suits, as follows:

VA: An amoeba abstracts from its environment.
AI: Anthropomorphizing the Amoeba: Attributing human-like cognitive processes such as "induction of ideas" or "synthesis of particular facts" to a single-celled organism is a significant overreach. It implies a level of conscious deliberation and conceptual understanding that is far beyond the capabilities of an amoeba.

When I wrote - 'So, the amoeba generalised complex events in the real world to the concepts that underlie them; it engaged in the induction of ideas or the synthesis of particular facts into one general theory about something' - I was trying to show the inapplicability of a concept/an expression.

The above AI's "Anthropomorphizing the Amoeba" is correct.
You are thinking the amoeba as if the amoeba are abstracting from your human perspective.
The abstraction that is applicable to the amoeba is, it has the abstracting capability [instinctual] to generalize what is food or threat from the particulars that it is exposed to.
This is the generic abstraction process that is inherent in all living things to facilitate basis survival.
The intellectual, linguistic elements of the later abstraction [universals from particulars] in humans are merely add-on "apps".

What about the other critiques by AI of your version of what is abstraction?
The critiques are on target that your 'what is abstraction' is based on very narrow and shallow thinking which is a hindrance to philosophical knowledge.