Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 2:31 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 9:48 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 8:26 am It's pretty hard to talk about time without using spatial metaphors.

I'll be back in three hours.

That's not metaphysics, though you did in fact talk about movement. And it will be 'in' three hours. After some time has passed. Time often considered linear.

But must assertions about 'the fundamental nature of reality and being' (Merriam-Webster on metaphysics) be metaphorical - using non-literal language? Do metaphysicians produce only metaphors? Genuine questions - possibly with interesting implications.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 3:02 pm But must assertions about 'the fundamental nature of reality and being' (Merriam-Webster on metaphysics) be metaphorical - using non-literal language? Do metaphysicians produce only metaphors? Genuine questions - possibly with interesting implications.

Well, first I wanted to show that we do it, not that we must always do it. But I do think that much more of our language is metaphorical than we realize, dead metaphors and all. Also it can be hard to model/think of/talk about a lot of abstractions (etymology: to draw away) without using metaphors from what we directly experience. Dragging them out of the motor cortex and/or our visual experiences of what we can see. That's all of us, with lots of things, and stuff that is not directly experiencable or is directly experiencable or a facet of experience that is hard to separate out, well, metaphors might be necessary. I don't want to say we can never speak about such things without metaphors. I don't know how to determine that.
But let's look at some of the words in your response above....
Geniune - coming from the word for knee, the father acknowledging the child's non-bastardy by genuflecting.
Metaphysics - coming from after/behind the physical
Assertion - to join oneself to a particular view, coming from ad (to join, literal) and ser (to line up with)
Produce - move forward + lead
Foundation - base (as in a house's, for example) foundation
Implications - comes from the spatial in and plait (such as in plaited hair)
Possible - goes back to the word for strength

I don't think the fact that a model or an assertion is metaphorical rules out that it deals with geniune issue nor do I think metaphysics, even if it were plaited with metaphors, would then necessarily at all lack interesting or even useful implications.

Physics has used models and metaphors from everyday life for its models and hell they came up with all sorts of interesting implications and technology. And phyics has a lot of metaphysics, even though a lot of people seem to think that metaphysics means fluffy more or less new age bs we all grew out of or should have in the Enlightenment.

We build new ideas out of things we know well and our motor cortex is in a lot of that. That how we think, embodied as we are. I am not saying all the time, but I don't see metaphysics as being able to extricate itself from something a lot of very useful fields are also intertwined with and founded on.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 4:02 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 3:02 pm But must assertions about 'the fundamental nature of reality and being' (Merriam-Webster on metaphysics) be metaphorical - using non-literal language? Do metaphysicians produce only metaphors? Genuine questions - possibly with interesting implications.

Well, first I wanted to show that we do it, not that we must always do it. But I do think that much more of our language is metaphorical than we realize, dead metaphors and all. Also it can be hard to model/think of/talk about a lot of abstractions (etymology: to draw away) without using metaphors from what we directly experience. Dragging them out of the motor cortex and/or our visual experiences of what we can see. That's all of us, with lots of things, and stuff that is not directly experiencable or is directly experiencable or a facet of experience that is hard to separate out, well, metaphors might be necessary. I don't want to say we can never speak about such things without metaphors. I don't know how to determine that.
But let's look at some of the words in your response above....
Geniune - coming from the word for knee, the father acknowledging the child's non-bastardy by genuflecting.
Metaphysics - coming from after/behind the physical
Assertion - to join oneself to a particular view, coming from ad (to join, literal) and ser (to line up with)
Produce - move forward + lead
Foundation - base (as in a house's, for example) foundation
Implications - comes from the spatial in and plait (such as in plaited hair)
Possible - goes back to the word for strength

I don't think the fact that a model or an assertion is metaphorical rules out that it deals with geniune issue nor do I think metaphysics, even if it were plaited with metaphors, would then necessarily at all lack interesting or even useful implications.

Physics has used models and metaphors from everyday life for its models and hell they came up with all sorts of interesting implications and technology. And phyics has a lot of metaphysics, even though a lot of people seem to think that metaphysics means fluffy more or less new age bs we all grew out of or should have in the Enlightenment.

We build new ideas out of things we know well and our motor cortex is in a lot of that. That how we think, embodied as we are. I am not saying all the time, but I don't see metaphysics as being able to extricate itself from something a lot of very useful fields are also intertwined with and founded on.

Thanks. Again - things to mull over here. My objection to metaphysics is not that it's fluffy or new age - but that it has no subject matter at all - that the 'beyond-the-physical' questions it tries to answer aren't about reality, but rather about the use of words. So the literal/metaphorical distinction may be, in a way, incidental or tangential. It just struck me that it may not be. More to be said!

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 5:22 pm Thanks. Again - things to mull over here. My objection to metaphysics is not that it's fluffy or new age - but that it has no subject matter at all - that the 'beyond-the-physical' questions it tries to answer aren't about reality, but rather about the use of words. So the literal/metaphorical distinction may be, in a way, incidental or tangential. It just struck me that it may not be. More to be said!

This is typical of your drive for dogmatism being stuck narrowly and shallowly in a subject matter.

Note the definition of what is metaphysics?

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility.[1] It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.[2]
The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after or behind or among [the study of] the natural". It has been suggested that the term might have been coined by a first century CE editor who assembled various small selections of Aristotle's works into the treatise we now know by the name Metaphysics (μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, meta ta physika, lit. 'after the Physics ', another of Aristotle's works).[3]

Metaphysics studies questions related to what it is for something to exist and what types of existence there are. Metaphysics seeks to answer, in an abstract and fully general manner, the questions:[4]

• What is there?
  What is it like?

Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

There is no issue when we qualify how we deal with Metaphysics in a rational sense re an entanglement with empirical within a credible FSK.

But the point is you are actually dealing with fluffy metaphysics without knowing it.
Your metaphysics of reality is woo woo in slightly better and similar shade to the typical woo woo of the supernaturals, pseudo-sciences, etc. To Kant, this is woo woo Empirical Idealism.

You believe in a reality that has features-of-reality and is independent of human conditions, i.e. facts which is the Metaphysical-Realist-Fact which is groundless and you have not provided any grounds to justify it.
Your groundless fact based on a reality of an external world is illusory-metaphysics.

OTOH, my metaphysics deal with the external world of non-realist-facts but is always entangled with the human conditions which is justifiable and verifiable via a credible [human entangled] FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 5:50 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 5:22 pm Thanks. Again - things to mull over here. My objection to metaphysics is not that it's fluffy or new age - but that it has no subject matter at all - that the 'beyond-the-physical' questions it tries to answer aren't about reality, but rather about the use of words. So the literal/metaphorical distinction may be, in a way, incidental or tangential. It just struck me that it may not be. More to be said!

This is typical of your drive for dogmatism being stuck narrowly and shallowly in a subject matter.

Note the definition of what is metaphysics?

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility.[1] It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.[2]
The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after or behind or among [the study of] the natural". It has been suggested that the term might have been coined by a first century CE editor who assembled various small selections of Aristotle's works into the treatise we now know by the name Metaphysics (μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, meta ta physika, lit. 'after the Physics ', another of Aristotle's works).[3]

Metaphysics studies questions related to what it is for something to exist and what types of existence there are. Metaphysics seeks to answer, in an abstract and fully general manner, the questions:[4]

• What is there?
  What is it like?

Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

There is no issue when we qualify how we deal with Metaphysics in a rational sense re an entanglement with empirical within a credible FSK.

But the point is you are actually dealing with fluffy metaphysics without knowing it.
Your metaphysics of reality is woo woo in slightly better and similar shade to the typical woo woo of the supernaturals, pseudo-sciences, etc. To Kant, this is woo woo Empirical Idealism.

You believe in a reality that has features-of-reality and is independent of human conditions, i.e. facts which is the Metaphysical-Realist-Fact which is groundless and you have not provided any grounds to justify it.
Your groundless fact based on a reality of an external world is illusory-metaphysics.

OTOH, my metaphysics deal with the external world of non-realist-facts but is always entangled with the human conditions which is justifiable and verifiable via a credible [human entangled] FSK.

Thanks. Now take any one of those words that supposedly name the things that metaphysics deals with, and form a supposedly profound question about reality: what is causation? what is existence? what is possibility? what is the fundamental nature of reality?

What information does metaphysics deal with that physics (science) doesn't or can't deal with? For example, what can metaphysics tell us about causation that's different from an explanation of the ways we use the word 'cause', its cognates and related words, such as 'effect? Or: what can metaphysics tell us about the fundamental nature of reality that physics can't?

The delusion is and has always been that abstract nouns are the names of things that can be described in ways analogous to the ways we describe real things - for example, scientifically. So a meta-physical description is like a physical description, only different.

And it's no surprise that metaphysics and supernaturalism go hand in hand. Supposed abstract things - the stuff of metaphysics - are remarkably like supposed supernatural things. Pending evidence, belief in the existence of either is irrational.

Meanwhile, your recent mumbo-mantra, 'entangled with the human conditions', does nothing to consolidate your argument. It's just flak.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 7:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 5:50 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 5:22 pm Thanks. Again - things to mull over here. My objection to metaphysics is not that it's fluffy or new age - but that it has no subject matter at all - that the 'beyond-the-physical' questions it tries to answer aren't about reality, but rather about the use of words. So the literal/metaphorical distinction may be, in a way, incidental or tangential. It just struck me that it may not be. More to be said!

This is typical of your drive for dogmatism being stuck narrowly and shallowly in a subject matter.

Note the definition of what is metaphysics?

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility.[1] It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.[2]
The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after or behind or among [the study of] the natural". It has been suggested that the term might have been coined by a first century CE editor who assembled various small selections of Aristotle's works into the treatise we now know by the name Metaphysics (μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, meta ta physika, lit. 'after the Physics ', another of Aristotle's works).[3]

Metaphysics studies questions related to what it is for something to exist and what types of existence there are. Metaphysics seeks to answer, in an abstract and fully general manner, the questions:[4]

• What is there?
  What is it like?

Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

There is no issue when we qualify how we deal with Metaphysics in a rational sense re an entanglement with empirical within a credible FSK.

But the point is you are actually dealing with fluffy metaphysics without knowing it.
Your metaphysics of reality is woo woo in slightly better and similar shade to the typical woo woo of the supernaturals, pseudo-sciences, etc. To Kant, this is woo woo Empirical Idealism.

You believe in a reality that has features-of-reality and is independent of human conditions, i.e. facts which is the Metaphysical-Realist-Fact which is groundless and you have not provided any grounds to justify it.
Your groundless fact based on a reality of an external world is illusory-metaphysics.

OTOH, my metaphysics deal with the external world of non-realist-facts but is always entangled with the human conditions which is justifiable and verifiable via a credible [human entangled] FSK.

Thanks. Now take any one of those words that supposedly name the things that metaphysics deals with, and form a supposedly profound question about reality: what is causation? what is existence? what is possibility? what is the fundamental nature of reality?

What information does metaphysics deal with that physics (science) doesn't or can't deal with? For example, what can metaphysics tell us about causation that's different from an explanation of the ways we use the word 'cause', its cognates and related words, such as 'effect? Or: what can metaphysics tell us about the fundamental nature of reality that physics can't?

The delusion is and has always been that abstract nouns are the names of things that can be described in ways analogous to the ways we describe real things - for example, scientifically. So a meta-physical description is like a physical description, only different.

And it's no surprise that metaphysics and supernaturalism go hand in hand. Supposed abstract things - the stuff of metaphysics - are remarkably like supposed supernatural things. Pending evidence, belief in the existence of either is irrational.

Meanwhile, your recent mumbo-mantra, 'entangled with the human conditions', does nothing to consolidate your argument. It's just flak.

You are dogmatic as usual.

Any FSK is "entangled with the human conditions" how come you are so ignorant of this and thus question it like a kindergarten matter.
Surely you understand whatever the FSK, model, etc., it has to involve humans establishing, operating and sustaining it, entangled with the human conditions literally.

All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
Re 'causation' whatever is scientific causation is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
Thus whatever is a scientific fact, it cannot stand alone by itself, there is no such thing as fact-by-itself, ultimately whatever is fact must be entangled with the human conditions.

As I had presented, even with scientific facts as the most credible fact, it is ultimately at best merely polished conjectures [Popper].

This is where 'metaphysics' is necessary to expound, say 'what is causation' [being, existence, consciousness, etc.] to what it really is, i.e. there is no causation-in-itself except that it is entangled with the human conditions.
Can you deny this?

It is the same with reality, i.e. all-there-is including the physical and everything else possible, even human thoughts and concepts. We need metaphysics to dig deep into and establish the various grounds and to qualify them where necessary.

What is you are doing is merely claim, this is it! because my daddy said so, without any grounding. That is why you have been doing all the same!

But, when you resort to science to ground and justify what is fact and what is real, note you are conditioning it upon a specific FSK which is commonly accepted as credible based on agreed criteria of reliability.
There is no reality without its entanglement and emergence to a FSK and note the human-self itself as a FSK.

Thus IN PRINCIPLE [note this] you have no reason to reject any moral facts or reality where it is conditioned upon a credible moral FSK as long as it is verifiable and justifiable within the scientific FSK and emerging from a credible moral FSK.

You may be driven to think otherwise, but that is your personal human psychological issue [someday the 'know thyself' penny will drop for you on this] and that is a non-starter as far as a realistic-reality is concern.

We are beating a dead horse here, morality is first subjective a property of consciousness and through reaction to the physical world it is made manifest in the world as object-- read objectivity.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 7:49 am We are beating a dead horse here, morality is first subjective a property of consciousness and through reaction to the physical world it is made manifest in the world as object-- read objectivity.

Your use of the term 'consciousness' which so contentious at present is too shaky as a ground to justify your point.
Whatever that you conclude from such as shaky ground is at most flimsical.

Philosopher David Chalmers writes that even once we have solved all such problems about the brain and experience, the hard problem will still persist.[3]
The existence of a "hard problem" is controversial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_prob ... sciousness

If there is no consensus, there will be no objectivity, rather it will be subjective in respect of the contentious parties.

The use of 'psychology' and 'biology' are more secured terms as the grounding for morality.

Another point is philosophy is not mere mental masturbation but must be translated to productive actions and solutions which should be net-positive in the present or future for humanity which is so in my claims.

Veritas,
If you have doubts that you are conscious, you should not be posting here,

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 9:04 am Veritas,
If you have doubts that you are conscious, you should not be posting here,

How can you use that term 'conscious' with such certainty and confidence when the term 'consciousness' is so contentious.

What is "certain" [note in " "] to me is "I AM" or "I EXISTS" without the need to use the term 'conscious' at all.

I EXISTS such that I can post here and I can read yours and other responses.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 7:37 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 7:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 5:50 am
This is typical of your drive for dogmatism being stuck narrowly and shallowly in a subject matter.

Note the definition of what is metaphysics?



There is no issue when we qualify how we deal with Metaphysics in a rational sense re an entanglement with empirical within a credible FSK.

But the point is you are actually dealing with fluffy metaphysics without knowing it.
Your metaphysics of reality is woo woo in slightly better and similar shade to the typical woo woo of the supernaturals, pseudo-sciences, etc. To Kant, this is woo woo Empirical Idealism.

You believe in a reality that has features-of-reality and is independent of human conditions, i.e. facts which is the Metaphysical-Realist-Fact which is groundless and you have not provided any grounds to justify it.
Your groundless fact based on a reality of an external world is illusory-metaphysics.

OTOH, my metaphysics deal with the external world of non-realist-facts but is always entangled with the human conditions which is justifiable and verifiable via a credible [human entangled] FSK.

Thanks. Now take any one of those words that supposedly name the things that metaphysics deals with, and form a supposedly profound question about reality: what is causation? what is existence? what is possibility? what is the fundamental nature of reality?

What information does metaphysics deal with that physics (science) doesn't or can't deal with? For example, what can metaphysics tell us about causation that's different from an explanation of the ways we use the word 'cause', its cognates and related words, such as 'effect? Or: what can metaphysics tell us about the fundamental nature of reality that physics can't?

The delusion is and has always been that abstract nouns are the names of things that can be described in ways analogous to the ways we describe real things - for example, scientifically. So a meta-physical description is like a physical description, only different.

And it's no surprise that metaphysics and supernaturalism go hand in hand. Supposed abstract things - the stuff of metaphysics - are remarkably like supposed supernatural things. Pending evidence, belief in the existence of either is irrational.

Meanwhile, your recent mumbo-mantra, 'entangled with the human conditions', does nothing to consolidate your argument. It's just flak.

You are dogmatic as usual.

Any FSK is "entangled with the human conditions" how come you are so ignorant of this and thus question it like a kindergarten matter.
Surely you understand whatever the FSK, model, etc., it has to involve humans establishing, operating and sustaining it, entangled with the human conditions literally.

All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
Re 'causation' whatever is scientific causation is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
Thus whatever is a scientific fact, it cannot stand alone by itself, there is no such thing as fact-by-itself, ultimately whatever is fact must be entangled with the human conditions.

As I had presented, even with scientific facts as the most credible fact, it is ultimately at best merely polished conjectures [Popper].

This is where 'metaphysics' is necessary to expound, say 'what is causation' [being, existence, consciousness, etc.] to what it really is, i.e. there is no causation-in-itself except that it is entangled with the human conditions.
Can you deny this?

It is the same with reality, i.e. all-there-is including the physical and everything else possible, even human thoughts and concepts. We need metaphysics to dig deep into and establish the various grounds and to qualify them where necessary.

What is you are doing is merely claim, this is it! because my daddy said so, without any grounding. That is why you have been doing all the same!

But, when you resort to science to ground and justify what is fact and what is real, note you are conditioning it upon a specific FSK which is commonly accepted as credible based on agreed criteria of reliability.
There is no reality without its entanglement and emergence to a FSK and note the human-self itself as a FSK.

Thus IN PRINCIPLE [note this] you have no reason to reject any moral facts or reality where it is conditioned upon a credible moral FSK as long as it is verifiable and justifiable within the scientific FSK and emerging from a credible moral FSK.

You may be driven to think otherwise, but that is your personal human psychological issue [someday the 'know thyself' penny will drop for you on this] and that is a non-starter as far as a realistic-reality is concern.

1 Here is your non sequitur fallacy.

Premise: We necessarily perceive, know and describe what we call reality in a human way.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality - the existence and nature of things - is 'entangled with the human conditions'; and we can never know what reality really is.

2 You misunderstand the aim of metaphysics, which is precisely to describe reality as it really is - 'the fundamental nature of reality'. And given this, you should oppose metaphysical realism just as much as you oppose physical realism.

3 To repeat, 'a credible moral framework and system of knowledge' is your own question-begging invention. It's a chateau de sable que les vagues vont detruire.

Veritas,

We know the body is the interface with the physical world, it is the physical world's effects on our physical biology in a reactionary sense. This coupled with the processes of the understanding which in all probability is also the result of a compound or chain reaction which is then projected as apparent physical reality. This is consciousness. Consciousness is the possession of meaning which is then bestowed upon a meaningless world. The projection of meaning onto the world is making meaning objective.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 10:26 am 1 Here is your non sequitur fallacy.

Premise: We necessarily perceive, know and describe what we call reality in a human way.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality - the existence and nature of things - is 'entangled with the human conditions'; and we can never know what reality really is.

Your above is a strawman and I have never argued in the above manner.
You're the real beggar!

Your "what we call reality in a human way" is exactly the same as the geocentrists claim of what we [geocentrists] call reality in a human way.
It is also the same with theists claiming 'what they call god given reality in a human way'.

You are begging the question that reality exists are real in a human way without providing any justifications that there is such a real reality as yours.

Your "what we call reality in a human way" also a give-away that imply there is some sort of human dependence or entanglement in some way.

Your argument can be presented in another way which is acceptable, i.e.;

• Premise 1: We necessarily perceive, know and describe what we call reality in a human way.
  Premise 2: Human way means entangled with humans.
  Conclusion: Therefore, reality - the existence and nature of things - is 'entangled with the human conditions'; and we can never know 'what reality really is' without any human entanglement.

Point is there is no absolute independent reality-in-itself or reality-by-itself and no reality is an "island-by-itself".
Reality is always entangled with the human conditions in some ways.

What is really real is the reality that emerges with the human conditions within the human FSK and realized as facts [non-realists] within other specific FSK.

Kant had already called for a shift in paradigm of understanding what is reality with his Copernican Revolution; unfortunately his call was too advance for his time.

Why you are the beggar of your supposed independent reality is because you and all humans are necessarily hardwired for that via evolution. But such a view of independent reality is only optimal for the past but not the future.
We have to shift paradigm to understand reality as it is, i.e. entangled with the human conditions to face impending future global and galactic threats to humanity.

2 You misunderstand the aim of metaphysics, which is precisely to describe reality as it really is - 'the fundamental nature of reality'. And given this, you should oppose metaphysical realism just as much as you oppose physical realism.

Yes, metaphysics is to be critical and understand reality as it really is, which is entangled with the human conditions.

What you are thinking of "reality as it really is" is based on some ancient evolutionary impulse which was necessary and optimal for the evolutionary past: but towards the future there is a gradual turning to what is really realistic. i.e. reality as it really is is entangled with the human conditions.

For 3.5 billion years since our single-celled ancestors to the current phase of evolution it was necessary for humans to view reality "outward" as independent from the human conditions and it is still necessary in some ways, e.g. Newtonian Physics and the likes.
But to deal with future global and galactical threats humanity need to gravitate to the more realistic view of reality, i.e. reality as entangled with the human conditions.
I have discussed the pros of this view that is outweighing the past views.

3 To repeat, 'a credible moral framework and system of knowledge' is your own question-begging invention. It's a chateau de sable que les vagues vont detruire.

Strawman.

I have argued the most credible facts are the scientific facts from the scientific FSK [also the mathematical FSK] based on acceptable criteria.
My proposed moral FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts will be of near equivalence to the scientific FSK.
My moral FSK as credible is valid in principle and I agree I will have to justify this near-equivalence.

Note I have mentioned this a 000s times already, my moral facts are not based on individuals or groups opinions or beliefs on moral issues,
but rather they are moral facts emerging from the moral FSK are based on a matter-of-fact of moral potentiality as justified by science and are represented by physical neural correlates in the brain and body.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 8:45 pm Veritas,

We know the body is the interface with the physical world, it is the physical world's effects on our physical biology in a reactionary sense. This coupled with the processes of the understanding which in all probability is also the result of a compound or chain reaction which is then projected as apparent physical reality. This is consciousness. Consciousness is the possession of meaning which is then bestowed upon a meaningless world. The projection of meaning onto the world is making meaning objective.

In general all humans are "conscious" where the term "conscious" is used very loosely. Note,

• 1. All humans are conscious
  2. Morality is related to humans
  3. Therefore morality is driven by consciousness.

Because the term "consciousness" is such a loose term and is so contentious you cannot use it to secure a sound conclusion like the above syllogism.

It would be easier to explain and understand morality-proper without the term 'conscious' since it is so ubiquitous and so contentious.

What is appropriate for the term conscious and consciousness would be;
what is normal waking consciousness,
what is sleep consciousness
what is dream consciousness,
is a person in coma conscious
consciousness in hallucination,
cosmic consciousness
altered states of consciousness
to resolve the hard-problem of consciousness,
etc, etc.

Because the term "consciousness" is such a loose term and is so contentious you cannot use it as the main driver of morality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 5:09 am

• 1. All humans are conscious
  2. Morality is related to humans
  3. Therefore morality is driven by consciousness.

............ a sound conclusion like the above syllogism.

All humans have feet (this is just as true as all humans being conscious is)
headaches are related to humans
therefore headaches occur in the foot


Some of your worst logic yet you ignorant fucknut.
It's a false syllogism by the way.