Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Sep 12, 2025 5:08 pm**

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 4:59 pm That is not a law but a description of the way things have been up to now!

That would be, "Up until now, each time someone kicked a ball, the ball moved."

A very different statement.

Posted: **Fri Sep 12, 2025 6:55 pm**

I don't get it. Are you saying a statement that is false (yours) can't be shown to be false by other statements (mine) because mine are 'different' kinds of statements?

I am so totally lost here.

Posted: **Fri Sep 12, 2025 10:08 pm**

Your outside world is a subjective experience; you do not experience what is out there. You experience how whatever is out there alters your biology, giving you an experience not of what is out there but of your changed/altered biology. Your apparent reality is your body and its understanding of what it means to be played like an instrument; what is out there is plucking your strings and playing the very private melody you hear. Objectivity is the great void of meaningless energies, the fuel of consciousness. Consciousness is the emergence of the effects of energy on your biology; objectivity is unmanifested energy you do not experience. Nothing, read nothing, is objective to your subjective being.

Posted: **Fri Sep 12, 2025 10:56 pm**

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 4:20 pm Trees are none of that, yet they are objective.
In other words, an objective thing is a thing that can exist without minds existing. If we removed all minds from existence, objective things would still be there.

But in THIS case a human mind is necessary for the function to be defined (because one of the parameters requires it)

I think perhaps y.ou mean "objective" in the sense of its existence not dependent on being PERCEIVED by a human mind. As we would say the tree exists not dependent on a mind observing it OR even a mind that could observe it. But while the human moral code might exist without a human perceiving it, doesn't exist if non human around << well it's just like any other function that is "undefined" >>

Posted: **Fri Sep 12, 2025 11:39 pm**

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 10:56 pm
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 4:20 pm Trees are none of that, yet they are objective.
In other words, an objective thing is a thing that can exist without minds existing. If we removed all minds from existence, objective things would still be there.
But in THIS case a human mind is necessary for the function to be defined (because one of the parameters requires it)

I think perhaps y.ou mean "objective" in the sense of its existence not dependent on being PERCEIVED by a human mind. As we would say the tree exists not dependent on a mind observing it OR even a mind that could observe it. But while the human moral code might exist without a human perceiving it, doesn't exist if non human around << well it's just like any other function that is "undefined" >>

You are subjective beings through and through; for you, there is no perceivable objective reality. The objective is a great void of energies that play upon biological organisms as a musician plays his instrument, and the melody they play upon you is your apparent reality. These energies alter/change your biology, giving you an experience and thus knowledge, not about objects or energies, but about the changes of your body relative to its survival and well-being, the meanings of which you project outwardly onto a meaningless world. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; there is no other source of meaning in the world. Morality is a biological extension and expression of the nature of human life; a subjective creation projected outwardly into a meaningless world. Life bestows meaning where it otherwise does not exist.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2025 12:29 am**

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 10:56 pm I think perhaps y.ou mean "objective" in the sense of its existence not dependent on being PERCEIVED by a human mind. As we would say the tree exists not dependent on a mind observing it OR even a mind that could observe it.

That's not what I mean.

I am literally saying that if we removed all minds from existence that moral laws would continue to exist.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 10:56 pm But while the human moral code might exist without a human perceiving it, doesn't exist if non human around << well it's just like any other function that is "undefined" >>

1.

What about a law such as, "If a man kicks a ball, the ball will move."

Will that law cease to exist if we remove all men and all balls from existence?

Will the above statement cease to be true in that case?

2.

Consider a simple machine that maps the key pressed on a numpad to a text written on the screen. If the pressed key is an odd number, it shows the word "ODD" on the screen. Otherwise, if the pressed key is an even number, it shows the word "EVEN" on the screen. That law is implemented via a computer program stored in the memory of the machine.

Does that law cease to exist when no key is pressed?

Or does it cease to exist only when the computer program is erased or when the machine is destroyed?

This may seem irrelevant but I insist that it very much is.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2025 2:18 am**

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 3:13 am
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:09 pm Imagine a drawer with 4 balls in it. Imagine that two of those are black and two are white. What's the truth value of the statement "All balls in that drawer are black"? It's "false" in binary language and "50% true" in non-binary centenary language. It's not either / or. Both descriptions are accurate.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 4:18 am There are many options to claim what is reality [true or false] of a proposition, it depends the human-based FSK one is adopting.
In your 4 balls example, each statement is true or false depending on its specific human based FSK i.e. [binary or non-binary] and the stipulated or implied conditions.
Because it is human-based, it follows, the resultant conclusion of the reality cannot be mind-independent.
1.
The truth value of that statement ( "All balls in the drawer are black" ) is the same regardless of what language we use to express it.
"False" and "50% true" have the same meaning. They are synonymous terms, two different ways of expressing one and the same truth value.
It simply isn't the case that the statement is either true or false depending on the FSK that one is using ( whatever FSK actually is. )
The truth value of a statement has absolutely nothing to do with the method we're using to determine or express its truth value.
You're confusing what's true with what people think it's true.

You missed my point. It is not about different language but different cognitive perspectives and abilities.

One thing which is obvious is,
"All balls in the drawer are black" would be totally different between species from bacteria to human because they all have different Framework and System of cognition.

Within humans ""All balls in the drawer are black" would be totally different due to different cognitive perspective and abilities.

Some tribal people from some jungles may not perceive 'ball', 'drawers' and 'blackness'. To them wooden drawers are merely pieces of wood based on their sight and touch.

From the common sense perspective, yes, we cognize 'ball', 'drawers' and 'blackness'.
Even then, with colors there is no absolute consensus;
"The dress was a 2015 online viral phenomenon centered on a photograph of a dress. Viewers disagreed on whether the dress was blue and black, or white and gold. The phenomenon revealed differences in human colour perception and became the subject of scientific investigations into neuroscience and vision science."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress

You may argue the color wavelength are the same, but that is conditioned upon the science-physics FS and nowhere else. The science-FS has its specific constitution of principles and assumptions.

Within the science-chemistry FS, ball', 'drawers' are clusters of molecules, atoms and are particles and quarks within Science-Physics.

With the QM perspective, whatever is the ultimate substance of 'ball', 'drawers', the could be either particle or wave based on the Wave-Function Collapse.

So, what is true has to be conditioned to some human-based FS.
There is no such truth which is unconditional from the human conditions.

2.

If something is mind-independent, it means it can exist without minds. That is to say, if we remove all minds from existence, it will still be there.

Jsut because something is based on humans, it does not follow it's mind-dependent.

There are paintings that are based on humans, for example. You are not telling us that they would cease to exist in the case all minds ceased to exist?

But most importantly, the number of balls in a drawer is not even based on humans. The perception of it is created by humans by employing human methods of reasoning. Still, the number of balls ( the territory ) is not the same as the perception of that number ( the map. ) And that's what you're confusing.

[MA] "if we remove all minds from existence, it will still be there."
"Who" said that?
On what authority is the truth of the above statement.
The truth of the above statement is ultimately grounded upon a specific human condition.

If you say, logic, rationality, whatever..
Again that is conditioned upon some human-based FS.

3.
I am not sure you even realize what you're saying by denying philosophical realism. You're basically saying that the entire galaxies would cease to exist in the case all minds ceased to exist.

One point is you are not digging into the nuances of the above.
You are driven by primal psychology and intuition which you need to understand.
The cognitive dissonance therefrom is very painful but you have to overcome it with deep philosophy.

Watch this.
Reality is not real
The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong | Quantum Weirdness Made Simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSQov1K0bIg
Therein, Einstein claimed 'the moon is still there even if no one is looking [cognizing] at it" and Einstein was proven wrong.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2025 2:53 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 2:18 am Some tribal people from some jungles may not perceive 'ball', 'drawers' and 'blackness'. To them wooden drawers are merely pieces of wood based on their sight and touch.

That does not mean there are no balls, drawers and blackness out there.

It merely means that some tribal people aren't able to perceive those ( or at least, correctly map them using English language. )

That there are people out there who are not able to perceive X has never been a valid argument against the existence of X.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 2:18 am Within humans ""All balls in the drawer are black" would be totally different due to different cognitive perspective and abilities.

What would be totally different? The perceived truth value of the statement or its truth value? If the former, I agree. If the latter, I disagree.

"People disagree" has never been a valid argument for truth relativism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 2:18 am You may argue the color wavelength are the same, but that is conditioned upon the science-physics FS and nowhere else. The science-FS has its specific constitution of principles and assumptions.

The word "color" denotes the type of surface an object has.

The dress in question has a particular surface, and thus a particular color, regardless of what anyone thinks. ( The dress is blue. I can perceive it as yellow too but that's an optical illusion. )

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 2:18 am So, what is true has to be conditioned to some human-based FS.

That does not follow.

There are trees out there even when noone is looking at them.

Those trees would exist even if every living being died.

Whether you realize it or not, what you're claiming is that, if we removed all minds from existence, the entire galaxies would cease to exist.

How are you going to prove that?

"People have different opinions" is not a proof.

"Perception is language laden" is not a proof.

"People use different languages to map reality" is not a proof.

QM is not a proof.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 2:18 am You are driven by primal psychology and intuition which you need to understand.
The cognitive dissonance therefrom is very painful but you have to overcome it with deep philosophy.

There you go again with the ad hominems.

I can say the same about you. And maybe even worse. But how constructive would that be?

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2025 4:22 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 2:18 am
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 3:13 am
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:09 pm Imagine a drawer with 4 balls in it. Imagine that two of those are black and two are white. What's the truth value of the statement "All balls in that drawer are black"? It's "false" in binary language and "50% true" in non-binary centenary language. It's not either / or. Both descriptions are accurate.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 4:18 am There are many options to claim what is reality [true or false] of a proposition, it depends the human-based FSK one is adopting.
In your 4 balls example, each statement is true or false depending on its specific human based FSK i.e. [binary or non-binary] and the stipulated or implied conditions.
Because it is human-based, it follows, the resultant conclusion of the reality cannot be mind-independent.
1.
The truth value of that statement ( "All balls in the drawer are black" ) is the same regardless of what language we use to express it.
"False" and "50% true" have the same meaning. They are synonymous terms, two different ways of expressing one and the same truth value.
It simply isn't the case that the statement is either true or false depending on the FSK that one is using ( whatever FSK actually is. )
The truth value of a statement has absolutely nothing to do with the method we're using to determine or express its truth value.
You're confusing what's true with what people think it's true.
You missed my point. It is not about different language but different cognitive perspectives and abilities.

One thing which is obvious is,
"All balls in the drawer are black" would be totally different between species from bacteria to human because they all have different Framework and System of cognition.

Within humans ""All balls in the drawer are black" would be totally different due to different cognitive perspective and abilities.

Some tribal people from some jungles may not perceive 'ball', 'drawers' and 'blackness'. To them wooden drawers are merely pieces of wood based on their sight and touch.

From the common sense perspective, yes, we cognize 'ball', 'drawers' and 'blackness'.
Even then, with colors there is no absolute consensus;
"The dress was a 2015 online viral phenomenon centered on a photograph of a dress. Viewers disagreed on whether the dress was blue and black, or white and gold. The phenomenon revealed differences in human colour perception and became the subject of scientific investigations into neuroscience and vision science."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress

You may argue the color wavelength are the same, but that is conditioned upon the science-physics FS and nowhere else. The science-FS has its specific constitution of principles and assumptions.

Within the science-chemistry FS, ball', 'drawers' are clusters of molecules, atoms and are particles and quarks within Science-Physics.

With the QM perspective, whatever is the ultimate substance of 'ball', 'drawers', the could be either particle or wave based on the Wave-Function Collapse.

So, what is true has to be conditioned to some human-based FS.
There is no such truth which is unconditional from the human conditions.

2.

If something is mind-independent, it means it can exist without minds. That is to say, if we remove all minds from existence, it will still be there.

Jsut because something is based on humans, it does not follow it's mind-dependent.

There are paintings that are based on humans, for example. You are not telling us that they would cease to exist in the case all minds ceased to exist?

But most importantly, the number of balls in a drawer is not even based on humans. The perception of it is created by humans by employing human methods of reasoning. Still, the number of balls ( the territory ) is not the same as the perception of that number ( the map. ) And that's what you're confusing.
[MA] "if we remove all minds from existence, it will still be there."
"Who" said that?
On what authority is the truth of the above statement.
The truth of the above statement is ultimately grounded upon a specific human condition.

If you say, logic, rationality, whatever..
Again that is conditioned upon some human-based FS.

3.
I am not sure you even realize what you're saying by denying philosophical realism. You're basically saying that the entire galaxies would cease to exist in the case all minds ceased to exist.
One point is you are not digging into the nuances of the above.
You are driven by primal psychology and intuition which you need to understand.
The cognitive dissonance therefrom is very painful but you have to overcome it with deep philosophy.

Watch this.
Reality is not real
The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong | Quantum Weirdness Made Simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSQov1K0bIg
Therein, Einstein claimed 'the moon is still there even if no one is looking [cognizing] at it" and Einstein was proven wrong.

So, is what you wrote, here, "veritas aequitas" 'reality' or 'not reality'?

Also, do not forget that just because some one so-called 'won' some so-called 'prize', which has been given the name and the label, 'the nobel prize', never necessarily means that what they thought or claimed is irrefutable. It was just at 'that moment', in history, some others thought that 'their idea, or belief', was just 'better', at 'that time'.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2025 4:42 am**

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 5:02 pm A law is a command and instruction for action issued by an anthropomorphote (language using human)!

Deleted. My error.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2025 4:44 am**

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 2:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 2:18 am You are driven by primal psychology and intuition which you need to understand.
The cognitive dissonance therefrom is very painful but you have to overcome it with deep philosophy.
There you go again with the ad hominems.

I can say the same about you. And maybe even worse. But how constructive would that be?

LOL 'This' coming from 'the one' who calls an/other, 'arrogant moron', 'retard', among other things.

And, how constructive was you doing 'that'?

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2025 5:05 am**

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 4:44 am LOL 'This' coming from 'the one' who calls an/other, 'arrogant moron', 'retard', among other things.

You will excuse me but at no point did I call Veritas Aequitas a name.

And you're not Veritas Aequitas.

And I'm not Age.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2025 5:08 am**

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 4:42 am Therefore 'that law', itself, only existed when some so-called 'anthropomorphote' exists. Which then also means 'that law' only exists when what you call 'minds' exist, as well. Thus, 'it' is actually dependent upon "minds", and not independent of "minds" as you believe and claim, here.

Mr. Promethean '75 never actually claimed that moral laws are mind independent. That was my claim. And just as I am not Martin Peter Clarke, I am also not Mr. Promethean '75.

You have quite a bit of a difficulty figuring out who's who.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2025 5:10 am**

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 5:05 am
Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 4:44 am LOL 'This' coming from 'the one' who calls an/other, 'arrogant moron', 'retard', among other things.
You will excuse me but at no point did I call Veritas Aequitas a name.

LOL I never ever thought, nor said, you did.

So, why did you just say and write what you did, here?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 5:05 am And you're not Veritas Aequitas.

'This' is very observant of 'you'.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 5:05 am And I'm not Age.

I know.

Did you have 'a point', here?

If yes, then what is 'it', exactly?\

Also noted is your continual refusal to just answer, and clarify, clarifying questions posed, and asked, to you.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2025 5:27 am**

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 13, 2025 12:29 am 2.

Consider a simple machine that maps the key pressed on a numpad to a text written on the screen. If the pressed key is an odd number, it shows the word "ODD" on the screen. Otherwise, if the pressed key is an even number, it shows the word "EVEN" on the screen. That law is implemented via a computer program stored in the memory of the machine.

Does that law cease to exist when no key is pressed?

Or does it cease to exist only when the computer program is erased or when the machine is destroyed?

This may seem irrelevant but I insist that it very much is.

The law in this example, beside being manmade, mutable and mind-independent, is also tied to specific entities, namely, to a specific numpad and to a specific screen. This means that, if one or both of these entities were removed from existence, the law itself would be removed as well. In a sense, one can say that the law is numpad-dependent and screen-dependent. So there are multiple way one can get rid of it: remove the numpad, remove the screen, remove the computer program, disturb the connection between the numpad and the machine, disturb the connection between the machine and the screen, destroy the machine, etc. But not all laws are like that, of course.

On the other hand, the law determines what's on the screen based on the pressed key. The keys must be there for the law to exist but must there be a key that is pressed? Must it exist? If there are no pressed keys anywhere in the universe, does the law cease to exist? Of course not.

Specific laws apply to specific portions of reality. The above is an example of a specific law. There are other examples. For example, "If you greet this particular person, he will smile." Remove that person from existence and you also remove this law.

But there are also general laws that apply to many instances. An example would be, "If any human being A greets any other human being B, human being B will smile." Remove all human beings from existence and the existence of this law will remain unaffected -- if it existed, it will continue to exist.

Philosophy Now Forum

Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Morality is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]