Philosophy Now Forum

I might ask you if you read the topic, do you really think you can discuss this in a cross-disciplinary manner, this is not only babbling its insane.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:56 am Rather objectivity comes in degree depending on the credibility of the Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], in this case the scientific FSK.

Of course, the scientific FSK has its limitations and weaknesses [depending on which sub-scientific FSK], but what other FSKs [besides Mathematics] has better degree of objectivity than the best scientific FSK at present.

In what way is your FSK not just a subjective opinion?

I keep asking you to furnish a couple of these objective facts that you claim exist, but you are still yet to respond.

It's not looking good for you is it?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:56 am Rather objectivity comes in degree depending on the credibility of the Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], in this case the scientific FSK.

Of course, the scientific FSK has its limitations and weaknesses [depending on which sub-scientific FSK], but what other FSKs [besides Mathematics] has better degree of objectivity than the best scientific FSK at present.

In what way is your FSK not just a subjective opinion?

I keep asking you to furnish a couple of these objective facts that you claim exist, but you are still yet to respond.

It's not looking good for you is it?

A FSK, example, the scientific FSK is a Framework and System constructed and maintained by subjects [scientist] independent of any individual's opinions and belief, thus that objective, not subjective.
Scientific facts derived from the scientific FSK are objective, i.e. scientific objectivity.
There are degrees of objectivity depending on the credibility of the specific FSK.

Objective Moral Facts??
I wrote this in my earlier post;

My point:
1. Whatever is deemed objective [is a fact] must be conditioned upon a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].
2. All FSK are conditioned upon subjects inter-agreement under various conditions.
3. Because of these variations in conditions, what is objective comes in degrees in relation to the credibility of the FSK.

What I have is a moral FSK with its specific constitution, definitions, terms, principles, processes, limitation, etc.
ALL the major inputs into this moral FSK are from the scientific FSK.
Re point 1, thus, whatever is inferred from the moral FSK are Objective Moral Facts, e.g. the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' is an algorithm in the human brain that is supported by physical [objects] like neurons, neural correlates, algorithms, genes, DNA, atoms, quarks.

The 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' emerging from the Moral FSK is one objective moral fact, i.e. as algorithm in the human brain that is supported by physical [objects] like neurons, neural correlates, algorithms, genes, DNA, atoms, quarks.

As a matter of charity, I presumed you are not a psychopath, in that case, Objective Moral Facts, e.g. the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' exist in your brain as a matter of fact un_intact / unimpaired.

In fact, it is possible to turn you into a maniac killer but retuning that ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' algorithm in your brain via brainwashing. This is so evident. e.g. suicide-bombers and the likes. If it is not a matter-of-fact, there would be no physical basis to change one from a goody-two-shoes to a maniac killer.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:57 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:56 am Rather objectivity comes in degree depending on the credibility of the Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], in this case the scientific FSK.

Of course, the scientific FSK has its limitations and weaknesses [depending on which sub-scientific FSK], but what other FSKs [besides Mathematics] has better degree of objectivity than the best scientific FSK at present.

In what way is your FSK not just a subjective opinion?

I keep asking you to furnish a couple of these objective facts that you claim exist, but you are still yet to respond.

It's not looking good for you is it?

A FSK, example, the scientific FSK is a Framework and System constructed and maintained by subjects [scientist] independent of any individual's opinions and belief, thus that objective, not subjective.
Scientific facts derived from the scientific FSK are objective, i.e. scientific objectivity.
There are degrees of objectivity depending on the credibility of the specific FSK.

Objective Moral Facts??
I wrote this in my earlier post;

My point:
1. Whatever is deemed objective [is a fact] must be conditioned upon a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].
2. All FSK are conditioned upon subjects inter-agreement under various conditions.
3. Because of these variations in conditions, what is objective comes in degrees in relation to the credibility of the FSK.

What I have is a moral FSK with its specific constitution, definitions, terms, principles, processes, limitation, etc.
ALL the major inputs into this moral FSK are from the scientific FSK.
Re point 1, thus, whatever is inferred from the moral FSK are Objective Moral Facts, e.g. the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' is an algorithm in the human brain that is supported by physical [objects] like neurons, neural correlates, algorithms, genes, DNA, atoms, quarks.

The 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' emerging from the Moral FSK is one objective moral fact, i.e. as algorithm in the human brain that is supported by physical [objects] like neurons, neural correlates, algorithms, genes, DNA, atoms, quarks.

As a matter of charity, I presumed you are not a psychopath, in that case, Objective Moral Facts, e.g. the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' exist in your brain as a matter of fact un_intact / unimpaired.

In fact, it is possible to turn you into a maniac killer but retuning that ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' algorithm in your brain via brainwashing. This is so evident. e.g. suicide-bombers and the likes. If it is not a matter-of-fact, there would be no physical basis to change one from a goody-two-shoes to a maniac killer.

You keep saying the same thing.
Any example of an "objective moral fact" includes a range of exceptions.
All you seem to want to say here is that some people do not want to kill whilst others do. that is laughable
Exceptions disqualify them from being objective.

And still you cannot bring yourself to actually commit to a single unimpeachable moral objective fact.

The longer you avoid this key issue the more ridiculous you appear.

It's not looking good for you, is it?

Some psychopaths like to kill, others do not.

Some who are not psychopaths like to kill, whilst others do not..

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:57 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:10 pm

In what way is your FSK not just a subjective opinion?

I keep asking you to furnish a couple of these objective facts that you claim exist, but you are still yet to respond.

It's not looking good for you is it?

A FSK, example, the scientific FSK is a Framework and System constructed and maintained by subjects [scientist] independent of any individual's opinions and belief, thus that objective, not subjective.
Scientific facts derived from the scientific FSK are objective, i.e. scientific objectivity.
There are degrees of objectivity depending on the credibility of the specific FSK.

Objective Moral Facts??
I wrote this in my earlier post;

My point:
1. Whatever is deemed objective [is a fact] must be conditioned upon a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].
2. All FSK are conditioned upon subjects inter-agreement under various conditions.
3. Because of these variations in conditions, what is objective comes in degrees in relation to the credibility of the FSK.

What I have is a moral FSK with its specific constitution, definitions, terms, principles, processes, limitation, etc.
ALL the major inputs into this moral FSK are from the scientific FSK.
Re point 1, thus, whatever is inferred from the moral FSK are Objective Moral Facts, e.g. the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' is an algorithm in the human brain that is supported by physical [objects] like neurons, neural correlates, algorithms, genes, DNA, atoms, quarks.

The 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' emerging from the Moral FSK is one objective moral fact, i.e. as algorithm in the human brain that is supported by physical [objects] like neurons, neural correlates, algorithms, genes, DNA, atoms, quarks.

As a matter of charity, I presumed you are not a psychopath, in that case, Objective Moral Facts, e.g. the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' exist in your brain as a matter of fact un_intact / unimpaired.

In fact, it is possible to turn you into a maniac killer but retuning that ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' algorithm in your brain via brainwashing. This is so evident. e.g. suicide-bombers and the likes. If it is not a matter-of-fact, there would be no physical basis to change one from a goody-two-shoes to a maniac killer.

You keep saying the same thing.
Any example of an "objective moral fact" includes a range of exceptions.
All you seem to want to say here is that some people do not want to kill whilst others do. that is laughable
Exceptions disqualify them from being objective.
And still you cannot bring yourself to actually commit to a single unimpeachable moral objective fact.
The longer you avoid this key issue the more ridiculous you appear.
It's not looking good for you, is it?

Some psychopaths like to kill, others do not.
Some who are not psychopaths like to kill, whilst others do not..

Strawman as usual. You should condemn your own ignorance.

I stated the oughtness to kill and the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans exists physically as a fact in ALL humans without exceptions.

It is like the Visual Cortex that is function for sight is present in ALL humans without exceptions.
Whether one can see or not, or how clear one can see will depend on the functional capability of the existing visual cortex.

The oughtness to kill algorithm is present physically in ALL humans.
This oughtness to kill is modulated by the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans inhibitor in ALL humans.
Where the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans inhibitor is not strong or is damaged, then the person is more likely to kill.
The ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans inhibitor is relatively weaker in psychopaths and for some psychopath [the benign ones] the weakness is not great enough to drive them to kill humans.

In general, a certain % of the general population has weak ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans, thus even if they are not psychopathic by definition, they will kill human under certain conditions.

The fact is the physical ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans inhibiting algorithm exists in ALL humans [without exceptions] in various strengths as a feature of human nature.
Because this fact can be verified and justified scientifically and empirically, this is a scientific-biological fact and when input into the moral FSK, it is an objective moral fact.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:56 am
Rather objectivity comes in degree depending on the credibility of the Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], in this case the scientific FSK.
Of course, the scientific FSK has its limitations and weaknesses [depending on which sub-scientific FSK], but what other FSKs [besides Mathematics] has better degree of objectivity than the best scientific FSK at present.

In what way is your FSK not just a subjective opinion?
I keep asking you to furnish a couple of these objective facts that you claim exist, but you are still yet to respond.
It's not looking good for you is it?

Veritas,
Knowing that all meaning is the property of a conscious subject and never the property of the object or the world as an object, how does your system of objectivity deal with this Truism? The concepts you're playing with are all the property of a conscious subject and meaning can only be bestowed upon an in-and-of-itself meaningless world. There is only meaning for biology, the measure and meaning of all things

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:22 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:56 am
Rather objectivity comes in degree depending on the credibility of the Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], in this case the scientific FSK.
Of course, the scientific FSK has its limitations and weaknesses [depending on which sub-scientific FSK], but what other FSKs [besides Mathematics] has better degree of objectivity than the best scientific FSK at present.

In what way is your FSK not just a subjective opinion?
I keep asking you to furnish a couple of these objective facts that you claim exist, but you are still yet to respond.
It's not looking good for you is it?

Veritas,
Knowing that all meaning is the property of a conscious subject and never the property of the object or the world as an object, how does your system of objectivity deal with this Truism? The concepts you're playing with are all the property of a conscious subject and meaning can only be bestowed upon an in-and-of-itself meaningless world.

As meaning is the property of a a conscious subject, i.e. very realistically there would be >8 billion unique subjective meanings to deal with.

Looks like you would,
if I ask for a meaning of X, to be most realistic, you will have to list 8 billions meanings of X to deal with.

Obviously, if you are rational and intelligent you would look at what is the most common meaning that is shared within the majority, i.e. an objective meaning that is independent of any individual subject.

In this case, to be effective in communication of reality and in the most optimal approach, the best approach is to obtain an objective meaning via intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus conditioned upon a credible FSK, e.g Science.

We can generate objectivity via intersubjective consensus because all human beings shared many generic features.

If you insist on your truism, we will all be burdened and paralyzed with 8 billion subjective meanings of X without anyone giving in and insisting their meaning of X is the right one.

As such to be practical and optimal, we have give up that truism and turn to objectivity via intersubjectivity so that we can progress in knowledge which would contribute to the progress of humanity.

Your truism [the ultimate is subjective] is nevertheless useful in certain conditions where theists and philosophical realists insist there is absolute independent objectivity of things existing absolutely independent of the subject.
Example is where theists insist there is a God existing an absolute independent entity from the subject; this culminate in a God that commands theists to kill non-believers and promoting all sort of evils.

In the case of Peter Holmes and gang, they as Philosophical Realists insist in an uncompromising absolute sense;

Philosophical Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

In this case, I will counter the philosophical realist with the truism, whatever is of reality it is never independent of the subject and subjectiveness.
I will argue, there is no moon if there is no subject cognizing a moon.

But out of that basic subjectiveness, there is nevertheless objectivity based on intersubjectivity that will facilitate progress of knowledge and humanity.

Apparently you are on a one track mind and not being able to switch paradigm accordingly for the sake of progress of humanity.

No. The whole point of facts - and therefore objectivity - is independence from opinion, individual or collective. The fact that water is H2O has nothing to do with the intersubjective consensus opinion - expert or otherwise - that water is H2O. Not to recognise this is not to recognise the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity. And it's to mistake what we say about things for the way things are - an ancient but obviously persistent philosophical delusion.

So, if there are moral facts, they would have nothing to do with anyone's opinion on the matter.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 6:42 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:57 am
A FSK, example, the scientific FSK is a Framework and System constructed and maintained by subjects [scientist] independent of any individual's opinions and belief, thus that objective, not subjective.
Scientific facts derived from the scientific FSK are objective, i.e. scientific objectivity.
There are degrees of objectivity depending on the credibility of the specific FSK.

Objective Moral Facts??
I wrote this in my earlier post;

My point:
1. Whatever is deemed objective [is a fact] must be conditioned upon a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].
2. All FSK are conditioned upon subjects inter-agreement under various conditions.
3. Because of these variations in conditions, what is objective comes in degrees in relation to the credibility of the FSK.

What I have is a moral FSK with its specific constitution, definitions, terms, principles, processes, limitation, etc.
ALL the major inputs into this moral FSK are from the scientific FSK.
Re point 1, thus, whatever is inferred from the moral FSK are Objective Moral Facts, e.g. the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' is an algorithm in the human brain that is supported by physical [objects] like neurons, neural correlates, algorithms, genes, DNA, atoms, quarks.

The 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' emerging from the Moral FSK is one objective moral fact, i.e. as algorithm in the human brain that is supported by physical [objects] like neurons, neural correlates, algorithms, genes, DNA, atoms, quarks.

As a matter of charity, I presumed you are not a psychopath, in that case, Objective Moral Facts, e.g. the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' exist in your brain as a matter of fact un_intact / unimpaired.

In fact, it is possible to turn you into a maniac killer but retuning that ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' algorithm in your brain via brainwashing. This is so evident. e.g. suicide-bombers and the likes. If it is not a matter-of-fact, there would be no physical basis to change one from a goody-two-shoes to a maniac killer.

You keep saying the same thing.
Any example of an "objective moral fact" includes a range of exceptions.
All you seem to want to say here is that some people do not want to kill whilst others do. that is laughable
Exceptions disqualify them from being objective.
And still you cannot bring yourself to actually commit to a single unimpeachable moral objective fact.
The longer you avoid this key issue the more ridiculous you appear.
It's not looking good for you, is it?

Some psychopaths like to kill, others do not.
Some who are not psychopaths like to kill, whilst others do not..

Strawman as usual. You should condemn your own ignorance.

I stated the oughtness to kill and the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans exists physically as a fact in ALL humans without exceptions.

Yes. As predicted you face a challenge and respond with a childish attack because deep down you know you have nothing to offer here.
Everyone here tells you that, yet you persist with your insane dogma, rejecting anyone who objects to the slightest thing.
You are not an objectivist you are a megalomaniac. ANyone you feel is outside your personally defined norm is an exception to be rejected out of hand.

This completely disqualifies you to say anything about morality.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:22 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:56 am
Rather objectivity comes in degree depending on the credibility of the Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], in this case the scientific FSK.
Of course, the scientific FSK has its limitations and weaknesses [depending on which sub-scientific FSK], but what other FSKs [besides Mathematics] has better degree of objectivity than the best scientific FSK at present.

In what way is your FSK not just a subjective opinion?
I keep asking you to furnish a couple of these objective facts that you claim exist, but you are still yet to respond.
It's not looking good for you is it?

Veritas,
Knowing that all meaning is the property of a conscious subject and never the property of the object or the world as an object, how does your system of objectivity deal with this Truism? The concepts you're playing with are all the property of a conscious subject and meaning can only be bestowed upon an in-and-of-itself meaningless world. There is only meaning for biology, the measure and meaning of all things

He cannot answer your question because he thinks that his own thought are necessarily objective, like any tinpot tyrant.
These are the people who are the most danger to the human race.
He'll be telling you next that a raped woman has no right to her own body.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:15 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:22 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:10 pm

In what way is your FSK not just a subjective opinion?
I keep asking you to furnish a couple of these objective facts that you claim exist, but you are still yet to respond.
It's not looking good for you is it?

Veritas,
Knowing that all meaning is the property of a conscious subject and never the property of the object or the world as an object, how does your system of objectivity deal with this Truism? The concepts you're playing with are all the property of a conscious subject and meaning can only be bestowed upon an in-and-of-itself meaningless world. There is only meaning for biology, the measure and meaning of all things

He cannot answer your question because he thinks that his own thought are necessarily objective, like any tinpot tyrant.
These are the people who are the most danger to the human race.
He'll be telling you next that a raped woman has no right to her own body.

Yep. People who claim there are moral facts always, funnily enough, claim to know what those moral facts are - and are often happy - or plan - to impose the consequences of those invented facts on everyone else.

VA is quick to deny wanting to impose anything - but wants to manipulate the human brain to make us inclined to 'behave morally' - which is even more sinister.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:54 pm VA is quick to deny wanting to impose anything - but wants to manipulate the human brain to make us inclined to 'behave morally' - which is even more sinister.

Precisely. We are surrounded by moral realists, some problematic, from my perspective and preferences, some not. Likewise the moral anti-realists or don't give a S people include some that are problematic, some not.

But VA is the specific kind that sees future technological advances giving us ways to 'guide' and change brains....

With the Human Connectome Project [you are ignorant of] humanity will in the FUTURE [very possible] be able to identify the specific neural correlates and develop this neural inhibitor to be more effective in the majority or in all normal persons to the extent their inherent primal impulse to kill humans is effectively inhibited.

It would be lovely if he took a course in dystopian films and novels, to get a sense of how good intentions can lead to horrific realities. But then, of course, there are people in those to-me-horrific realities that think they are the best of all possible worlds.

I can see the neuronally inhibited goodness smile even from decades away.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:20 am The fact that water is H2O has nothing to do with the intersubjective consensus opinion - expert or otherwise - that water is H2O.

Antirepresentationalists need to insist that detrminacy is not what is in question - neither does thought determine reality nor, in the sense intended by the realist, does reality determine thought. It is no truer that "atoms are what they are because we use 'atom' as we do" than that "we use
'atom' as we do because atoms are as they are." Both of these claims, the antirepresentationlist
says, are entirely empty. Both are pseudo-explanations. It is particularly important that the
antirepresentationalist insist that the latter claim is a pseudo-explanation.

So you have no argument. Nothing makes water "H20" except the vocabulary which we call "chemistry".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:38 pm Precisely. We are surrounded by moral realists, some problematic, from my perspective and preferences, some not. Likewise the moral anti-realists or don't give a S people include some that are problematic, some not.

More than that - we are surrounded by "problem realists".

What or where is a "problem" and what makes it a "problem"?

The judgment of "problemacy" with respect to anything is the same kind of linguistic expression as the judgment of "wrongness" with respect to murder. A judgment is a judgment is a judgment is a moral judgment.

The double standards of Philosophers together with their apologetics are simply tiresome. Burn the entire "tradition" to tge ground!

To use Rorty's words on pragmatism: there is no epistemological difference between truth about what ought to be and truth about what is, nor any metaphysical difference between facts and values, nor any methodological difference between morality and science.