Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:47 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:28 am In summary:

1. realism is a default from our evolution.

2. morality is a default from our evolution.

3. realism may be mistaken, and therefore not an objective fact.

4. morality likewise may not be objective.

The above 1, 3 and 4 is only applicable to a philosophical realists who assumed everything is absolutely independent of the mind [human conditions].

One of the reasons I have no idea what you're talking about is, you're the one who said all this. I didn't invent 1 and 3, you did. I'm not the one coming up with these ideas.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:35 am So people's brains who have no empathy for other humans, who desire to seek personal gain no matter the harm it causes to others - that stuff should be there? Because that's what we find in that person's brain?

Mirror neurons and their potential for empathy exist in ALL humans.
When a person lack empathy it is because it is due to the inactivity of the related specific set of mirror neurons in their brain or due to damage in the neurons or the connectivity of the mirror neurons.

Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to place oneself in another's position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another.[1][2][3]
Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting.
Such [mirror] neurons have been directly observed in human[4] and primate species,[5] and in birds.[6]

In humans, brain activity consistent with that of mirror neurons has been found in the premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area, the primary somatosensory cortex, and the inferior parietal cortex.

Based on the above mirroring features of mirror neurons and definition of empathy, it is inferred;

In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.

Note the linkage between Mirror Neurons and Empathy

Mirror neurons are one of the most important discoveries in the last decade of neuroscience. These are a variety of visuospatial neurons which indicate fundamentally about human social interaction. Essentially, mirror neurons respond to actions that we observe in others. The interesting part is that mirror neurons fire in the same way when we actually recreate that action ourselves. Apart from imitation, they are responsible for myriad of other sophisticated human behavior and thought processes.
Defects in the mirror neuron system are being linked to disorders like autism.

Basically autism is characterized by two neuropsychiatric abnormalities. First is the defect in the social-cognitive domain which presents as mental aloneness, a lack of contact with the external world and lack of empathy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3510904/

Such [mirror] neurons have been directly observed in human[4] and primate species,[5] and in birds.[6]
-wiki

The existence of mirror neurons in humans are embedded in the DNA of ALL humans.
However, its potential is not necessary highly expressed in all humans.
Analogical, all humans are programmed with the intellect function but there is a range [normal curve] of intelligence [IQ] within all humans - same with Empathy.
Also, defects in the set of mirror neurons caused Autism and a lack of empathy.

The existence of mirror neurons are basically dealt within the human-based science-biological-FSK, and when imputed into the neuroscience-FSK, it is a human-based neuroscience-FSK, the neuro-psychological -FSK, the neuro-psychiatric-FSK and so on.
Thus when the human-based science-biological-FSK of mirror neurons is imputed into a human-based moral FSK, it would be regarded as a human-based moral-FSK fact that is objective [by definition].

It is a fact about humans that they mostly have mirror neurons. I wouldn't call that fact "objective morality". I would call that "an objective fact about most humans that underpins their view of morality", but that's distinct from objective morality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:16 am The existence of mirror neurons are basically dealt within the human-based science-biological-FSK, and when imputed into the neuroscience-FSK, it is a human-based neuroscience-FSK, the neuro-psychological -FSK, the neuro-psychiatric-FSK and so on.

I have to say, this is an absolute travesty of a sentence. I think you've taken the fsk thing too far.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:19 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:16 am The existence of mirror neurons are basically dealt within the human-based science-biological-FSK, and when imputed into the neuroscience-FSK, it is a human-based neuroscience-FSK, the neuro-psychological -FSK, the neuro-psychiatric-FSK and so on.

I have to say, this is an absolute travesty of a sentence. I think you've taken the fsk thing too far.

It is very rational. You need to explain why if you think otherwise.

It is a fact about humans that they mostly have mirror neurons. I wouldn't call that fact "objective morality". I would call that "an objective fact about most humans that underpins their view of morality", but that's distinct from objective morality.

We have to define what is objectivity.

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
My point here is,
All facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a human-based FSK which by definition is objective, i.e. dependent on collective consensus, not individual's belief.

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
The existence of mirror neurons is a human-based science-biological-FSK fact.
When imputed into the neuroscience-FSK, it is a human-based neuroscience-FSK.
This is scientific objectivity.
Do you dispute the above?

This science-biological-FSK fact of mirror neurons are inputted into the neuro-psychological -FSK, the neuro-psychiatric-FSK in their deliberation of empathy. Thus mirror neurons as a basis of empathy would be a neuro-psychological fact.
It is obvious the subject of psychology and psychiatry has to be confined within their Framework and Systems constituted by their various Associations as their authority, if not how else.
Do you dispute the above?

I don't see how the points your raised can be an issue?

Thus when the science-biological-FSK fact of mirror neurons are inputted into a human-based moral FSK, then mirror-neurons as a basis of empathy is an objective moral fact.
So, morality is objective in this sense.

Btw, it is not just empathy an element of morality that is a moral fact, but rather all elements of morality must be traceable to something ultimately physical and empirical which can be verified and justified as scientifically objective within the human-based scientific-FSK. In this case, morality is objective overall.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 2:53 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:19 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:16 am The existence of mirror neurons are basically dealt within the human-based science-biological-FSK, and when imputed into the neuroscience-FSK, it is a human-based neuroscience-FSK, the neuro-psychological -FSK, the neuro-psychiatric-FSK and so on.

I have to say, this is an absolute travesty of a sentence. I think you've taken the fsk thing too far.

It is very rational. You need to explain why if you think otherwise.

What does it express that can't be expressed by the following:

Mirror neurons are studied by biologists and neuroscientists.

And why does it need saying at all? Of course neurons are studied in those fields.

It just seems like you're awkwardly shoehorning your fsk vocabulary into everything you can. You know you don't have to say all those words right?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 2:53 am This science-biological-FSK fact of mirror neurons are inputted into the neuro-psychological -FSK, the neuro-psychiatric-FSK in their deliberation of empathy. Thus mirror neurons as a basis of empathy would be a neuro-psychological fact.
It is obvious the subject of psychology and psychiatry has to be confined within their Framework and Systems constituted by their various Associations as their authority, if not how else.
Do you dispute the above?

We accept this for the sake of argument and mirror it in relation to aggression...

This science-biological-FSK fact of neuronal patterns related to aggression and violence are inputted into the neuro-psychological -FSK, the neuro-psychiatric-FSK in their deliberation of aggression and violence. Thus aggression/violence related neurons are a basis of aggression and violence would be a neuro-psychological fact.
It is obvious the subject of psychology and psychiatry has to be confined within their Framework and Systems constituted by their various Associations as their authority, if not how else.
Does VA dispute the above? (he acknowledges that there is an oughtness to kill)

Thus when the science-biological-FSK fact of mirror neurons are inputted into a human-based moral FSK, then mirror-neurons as a basis of empathy is an objective moral fact.
So, morality is objective in this sense.

We accept this also and use it to mirror for aggression/violence...

Thus when the science-biological-FSK fact of neurons associated with aggression/violence are inputted into a human-based moral FSK, then the neurons are a basis of aggression/violence is an objective moral fact.
So, morality is objective in this sense.

Does VA dispute this?

Btw, it is not just empathy an element of morality that is a moral fact, but rather all elements of morality must be traceable to something ultimately physical and empirical which can be verified and justified as scientifically objective within the human-based scientific-FSK. In this case, morality is objective overall.

We accept this and use it as a mirror for aggression/violence...

Btw, it is not just aggression/violence is an element of morality that is a moral fact, but rather all elements of morality must be traceable to something ultimately physical and empirical which can be verified and justified as scientifically objective within the human-based scientific-FSK. In this case, morality is objective overall.

Now we note something that VA does not take up....

Current brains have these two sets of neuronal patterns, those for empathy and those for aggression/violence.
They are in specific ratios of influence. This is an objective fact. An objective moral fact, based on the neuroscience FSK.

For some reason VA wants to change the amount of influence, the ratio of influence of these neuronal patterns.

This is going against the objective moral fact of the presence of these two neuronal patterns in the brain in the degrees of influence they currently have over attitudes and behavior.

To enhance one, but not the other, would be going against the objective fact (neuroscience FSK) of their current degrees of influence and thus the objective moral fact of their relative strengths in human behavior and attitude.

On what ground does he want to go against the objective moral fact of their degrees of influence (neuroscience FSK)????????

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 7:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 2:53 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:19 am
I have to say, this is an absolute travesty of a sentence. I think you've taken the fsk thing too far.

It is very rational. You need to explain why if you think otherwise.

What does it express that can't be expressed by the following:

Mirror neurons are studied by biologists and neuroscientists.

And why does it need saying at all? Of course neurons are studied in those fields.

It just seems like you're awkwardly shoehorning your fsk vocabulary into everything you can. You know you don't have to say all those words right?

As we dig deeper into the discussion of any topic, it is critical to make the implicit, explicit.

Surely you are familiar with the Philosophy of Science where every bit of activities of science made by scientists are made explicit.
As for scientists doing actual science they don't give a damn about what philosophers talked about science.

Since we are doing philosophy here, there should NOT be restraints in how far, wide and deep we need to analyze the workings of a particular subject.

It is a fact [human-based] everything in the universe is deliberated within a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and Reality [FSR].
I need to emphasize this to support my point that morality as with all others field of knowledge and reality is also dealt within a human-based FSK.

Philosophical Realists like you and PH prefer to ignore this human-based FSK basis and claim reality is independent of the human conditions. This cannot be in the ultimate sense.

I'm not gonna lie, the wordy boilerplate you feel you have to wrap everything in to say the most obvious little things is honestly just obnoxious. It took you 34 words to express the obvious and well known idea that mirror neurons are studied in the fields of biology and neuro science. My eyes are starting to glaze over reading these incredibly long sentences that convey very little meaning.

Did you know English is supposed to be one of the most meaning-dense languages on the planet? Second only I believe to mandarin Chinese. I think that's a strength, I love that about English.

Everyone knows that when a human being talks about neuro science, they're talking about a framework of knowledge developed by human beings. "The human based neuro science fsk" expresses the same amount of information as just saying "neuro science". They mean the same thing.

Lean into the meaning-density of your language. It's beautiful.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 7:21 am
Philosophical Realists like you and PH...claim reality is independent of the human conditions. This cannot be in the ultimate sense.

I don't know how, if at all, FJ self-identifies philosophically. And labels are often misleading anyway - the silly name 'anti-realist' being an example. It's the evidence and arguments that count, not the labels.

You claim that reality is not independent [from] the human conditions - or that reality is dependent on the human conditions. And this is an extraordinary ontological claim - a claim about what exists. (And this means what exists physically, unless you think non-physical things exist - which is a separate and controversial claim.) And this claim incurs a burden of proof, which here means demonstration. (I think it's trivially easy to demolish this ontological claim.)

By contrast, I claim that we humans have to perceive, know and describe what we call reality - including our selves - in human ways. And I think this is not (except trivially) an ontological claim. But this claim also incurs a burden of proof - which I think is easily met. To me, it seems self-evident, though you may disagree.

Now, your claim requires an explanation of what dependence on the human conditions means. In what way is what we call reality dependent on the human conditions? Is it a physical dependence - which would need evidence - or a metaphorical dependence - which would also need explanation?

If your answer is that reality is what we perceive, know and describe it to be - if that's what 'dependent on the human conditions' means - then that is a realist ontological claim - and one that I'm not bold enough to make. And I'm also not bold enough to claim that reality is not what we perceive, know and describe it to be.

In other words, you want to pigeon-hole and label my position as 'philosophical/ontological realism', because you want an absolutist or essentialist target to shoot at. Sorry, no can do.

The trick works by asserting that really-real-reality would be some indescribable metaphysical thing known only to God. The distinction becomes silly when you abandon that weirdness because reality is the stuff you see when you look around, not some shadow realm recreation of that stuff.

@flanneljesus .... in his defence, this is about his eighth language.
But he has openly boasted that he spent years learning Arabic for the sole purpose of making his own translation of the Quran... and specifically in order to perform that translation into an Excel spreadsheet where he has categorised every passage according to an excruciating taxonomy of 'evilness'. And that information should really fill in all the gaps.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 7:21 am
Philosophical Realists like you and PH...claim reality is independent of the human conditions. This cannot be in the ultimate sense.

I don't know how, if at all, FJ self-identifies philosophically. And labels are often misleading anyway - the silly name 'anti-realist' being an example. It's the evidence and arguments that count, not the labels.

The term 'anti-realist' is a very common general term within the philosophical community which is self-evident, i.e. having an opposite belief to that of the realist [philosophical realist].
But on a serious note, there is a need to give a detailed specification of one's beliefs because a realist can be an idealist or vice-versa.

You claim that reality is not independent [from] the human conditions - or that reality is dependent on the human conditions. And this an extraordinary ontological claim - a claim about what exists. (And this means what exists physically, unless you think non-physical things exist - which is a separate and controversial claim.) And this claim incurs a burden of proof, which here means demonstration. (I think it's trivially easy to demolish this ontological claim.)

We need to be very specific. I have never claimed that "reality is dependent on the human conditions"
rather, reality is entangled with the human conditions.
As I had argued,
reality is all-there-is,
All-there-is encompasses all humans therein,
Thus, reality is entangled with the human conditions.

By contrast, I claim that we humans have to perceive, know and describe what we call reality - including our selves - in human ways. And I think this is not (except trivially) an ontological claim. But this claim also incurs a burden of proof - which I think is easily met. To me, it seems self-evident, though you may disagree.

What you have been claiming is,
a fact, a feature of reality, i.e. just-is, being-so, that is the case, is independent of the individual human's opinion, beliefs and judgment.

That is precisely what Philosophical Realism is, i.e.

Philosophical realism .. is about a certain kind of thing .. is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism) which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The main criteria of philosophical realism is 'mind-independence'.

"mind" in the above is not re Descartes' Dualism buts refer to modern-mind, i.e. human conditions.
There is no mentioned of essence in the above definition.

Thus your reality is beyond what can be known, perceived and describe.
Show me the proofs of the existence of that feature of reality that is just-is or being-so?

Now, your claim requires an explanation of what dependence on the human conditions means. In what way is what we call reality dependent on the human conditions? Is it a physical dependence - which would need evidence - or a metaphorical dependence - which would also need explanation?

As stated, it is not 'dependent' but entangled and realized.
As I had stated many times, the human conditions is the culmination of a 4 billion years old evolution and a 200K human evolution embedded within the human self [brain and body] that enable human-based reality to emerge and be realized that is subsequently perceived, known and described.

If your answer is that reality is what we perceive, know and describe it to be - if that's what 'dependent on the human conditions' means - then that is a realist ontological claim - and one that I'm not bold enough to make. And I'm also not bold enough to claim that reality is not what we perceive, know and describe it to be.

My version of a realized reality is one that is entangled with the human conditions, it cannot be a realist [philosophical realist] claim.
Being entangled, as I had claim elsewhere, humans are the co-creator of the reality they are part of.

In other words, you want to pigeon-hole and label my position as 'philosophical/ontological realism', because you want an absolutist or essentialist target to shoot at. Sorry, no can do.

I did not categorize your sense of reality as essentialist.
Not sure what you meant by absolutist here.
But what you claim of reality is something just-is and being-so out there independent [absolutely] of the human conditions [awaiting discovery] that can only be known, perceive, describe.
As such, your ultimate stance is, the moon pre-existed before there were humans.

If I had wrongly described your version of independent reality, do give clearer clarification.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:50 am @flanneljesus .... in his defence, this is about his eighth language.
But he has openly boasted that he spent years learning Arabic for the sole purpose of making his own translation of the Quran... and specifically in order to perform that translation into an Excel spreadsheet where he has categorised every passage according to an excruciating taxonomy of 'evilness'. And that information should really fill in all the gaps.

I don't know what of this is meant as a joke, and what might be true

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:07 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:50 am @flanneljesus .... in his defence, this is about his eighth language.
But he has openly boasted that he spent years learning Arabic for the sole purpose of making his own translation of the Quran... and specifically in order to perform that translation into an Excel spreadsheet where he has categorised every passage according to an excruciating taxonomy of 'evilness'. And that information should really fill in all the gaps.

I don't know what of this is meant as a joke, and what might be true

Yeah, that's always a problem with me

It might not be 8 languages, but English and Arabic are second and third languages for him.
He really did learn Arabic for exactly the reason I described and he does actually have that spreadsheet.
He won't show you the spreadsheet though, it's proprietary and he thinks you would steal his scholarly masterwork.

It's admirable definitely that someone takes the time to learn other languages to that level.