Is there evidence for objective morality?

[MikeNovack]

Just as there is no color or sound in the natural world in the absence of a conscious subject, so too nothing in the world has meaning in and of itself except in relation to a conscious subject. All systems of morality are expressions of the self-interests of those humans who have created them.

That is only if you human beings were so greedy and/or selfish to actually create a system of 'morality' of only your own 'self-interests'. But, that system would obviously not be a 'system of morality', itself. 'That system' would just be another system create by you adult human beings in and for your own self-interests.

Objectivity is a meaning thus necessarily dependent upon biological consciousness.

Is there any other word and/or meaning that is not necessarily dependent upon biological consciousness?

And, also, is there even a 'consciousness', which is not biological?

This is beginning to go off topic, but what is the reason You consider a "function" (something in the realm of mathematics) to be dependent on the sort of "hardware" that is emulation the evaluation of that function. Yes of course, the HARDWARE underlying the neural net that is our brain is biological. The nodes of the net are neurons, connected to other neurons by axons. Each axon stores a "multiplier value" (modifies the signal strength) and each neuron stores a firing threshold (determine if incoming results in outgoing). This neural net has some axons arriving from outside and sends some outside (so it can receive signals and send signals).

BUT -- is the neural net "biological"? Could I have not instead implemented by emulation by a computer program?

[MikeNovack]

That is only if you human beings were so greedy and/or selfish to actually create a system of 'morality' of only your own 'self-interests'. But, that system would obviously not be a 'system of morality', itself. 'That system' would just be another system create by you adult human beings in and for your own self-interests.

But THAT impossible in terms of "intuitive morality" learned as a child growing up in some SUCCESSFUL culture. And since our cultures competitive in an evolutionary sense, only the successful ones survive.

So I would argue that the "intuitive morality" tool set WILL include "dealing with parasites". How the group enforces cooperation. The learning we receive as children not just being taught be adults but also mutual training by our playmates and training by children just a few years older than ourselves.

Remember, we are talking now only about how we humans have lived for the last few million years and NOT about our large scale societies of today. Once our groups became large enough to contain sub-groups an entirely different kettle of fish. But that's just the last ten thousand years or so.

Think about this question for yourselves. What has to be in the "intuitive morality" rules learned by a child growing up in a SUCCESSFUL group of humans? What is impossible to be in the rules? The group in this case a band of ~50 hunter-gatherers surrounded by other such groups.

[Age]

Just as there is no color or sound in the natural world in the absence of a conscious subject, so too nothing in the world has meaning in and of itself except in relation to a conscious subject. All systems of morality are expressions of the self-interests of those humans who have created them.

That is only if you human beings were so greedy and/or selfish to actually create a system of 'morality' of only your own 'self-interests'. But, that system would obviously not be a 'system of morality', itself. 'That system' would just be another system create by you adult human beings in and for your own self-interests.

Objectivity is a meaning thus necessarily dependent upon biological consciousness.

Is there any other word and/or meaning that is not necessarily dependent upon biological consciousness?

And, also, is there even a 'consciousness', which is not biological?

This is beginning to go off topic,

Okay, then let 'us' stay on topic. The topic of this thread is, 'Is there evidence for objective morality'?

So, firstly, how are 'you' defining the words 'evidence', 'objective', and 'morality', exactly?

Only after 'you' provide 'your definitions', then 'we' can 'stay on topic', here.

Until then,

but what is the reason You consider a "function" (something in the realm of mathematics) to be dependent on the sort of "hardware" that is emulation the evaluation of that function.

Did I even use the 'function' word?

Yes of course, the HARDWARE underlying the neural net that is our brain is biological. The nodes of the net are neurons, connected to other neurons by axons. Each axon stores a "multiplier value" (modifies the signal strength) and each neuron stores a firing threshold (determine if incoming results in outgoing). This neural net has some axons arriving from outside and sends some outside (so it can receive signals and send signals).

BUT -- is the neural net "biological"?

Have 'you' forgotten that it was 'I' who said and asked 'you', 'Is there even a consciousness, which is not biological?'

And, 'I' asked 'you' that question because you said and claimed, that 'some thing is necessarily dependent upon biological consciousness'.

So, 'I' am still waiting to ascertain, from 'you', if, 'to you', there is even a 'consciousness' that is or could be 'non biological'.

Could I have not instead implemented by emulation by a computer program?

I do not know. To you, could you have?

[Age]

That is only if you human beings were so greedy and/or selfish to actually create a system of 'morality' of only your own 'self-interests'. But, that system would obviously not be a 'system of morality', itself. 'That system' would just be another system create by you adult human beings in and for your own self-interests.

But THAT impossible in terms of "intuitive morality" learned as a child growing up in some SUCCESSFUL culture.

Was the 'is' word meant to be in-between the 'THAT' word, and, the 'impossible' word, here?

If yes, then, to you,

What is 'THAT' in reference to, exactly?

What is 'intuitive morality', exactly, and how does 'intuitive morality' differ from just 'morality', exactly?

What even is a so-called 'SUCCESSFUL culture', exactly?

And since our cultures competitive in an evolutionary sense, only the successful ones survive.

The very reason why the whole of humanity is a downhill spiral of decline is because some of you adult human beings believe that competitiveness is 'human nature', along with greed and selfishness, as well, of all things.

So I would argue that the "intuitive morality" tool set WILL include "dealing with parasites".

And, 'I' will note that 'I' have no clue at all as to what 'you' are even talking 'about', here.

How the group enforces cooperation.

For 'those' who do not yet know, 'enforces cooperation' is an oxymoron.

The learning we receive as children not just being taught be adults but also mutual training by our playmates and training by children just a few years older than ourselves.

Which all came from observing adults, anyway.

Remember, we are talking now only about how we humans have lived for the last few million years and NOT about our large scale societies of today.

When did 'we' start talking about 'this'?

1. Some people believe that humans have not lived for that long.

2. For those of 'us' who accept 'you' human beings have been around for some million years, then 'we' can talk about how you human beings have lived for the last few million years.

Once our groups became large enough to contain sub-groups an entirely different kettle of fish. But that's just the last ten thousand years or so.

By using the word 'groups', the first time you just did in that sentence, you have already implied that there already existed 'sub-groups'. So, why say and claim that one 'groups' of human beings became 'large enough' to only then contain 'sub-groups'?

And, what are the words, 'an entirely different kettle of fish', being in reference to, exactly?

Also, why only in just the last ten thousand years or so?

Think about this question for yourselves. What has to be in the "intuitive morality" rules learned by a child growing up in a SUCCESSFUL group of humans?

'I' will be able to think about 'this question', from a much more enlightened and informed perspective, if 'you' answered my questions above about what even is 'intuitive morality' and a 'SUCCESSFUL culture', to 'you', exactly.

What is impossible to be in the rules?

What 'rules' are you even talking about and referring to, now, exactly?

The group in this case a band of ~50 hunter-gatherers surrounded by other such groups.

To me anyway, 'you' speak in very vague terms.

To me, there is not just 'evidence' for 'objective morality' but there is 'proof' for 'objective morality'. Which quite simply, obviously, means that 'objective morality' exists, and which no one could refute.

[popeye1945]

There is no evidence of an objective world; that is not a subjective evaluation. What science tells us is that there are energies, frequencies, and vibrations like sound and color, subjectively interpreted. What I believe is that there are energy forms which we call things, but this is due to the relations between energy forms; the body is altered by these energies, and biological consciousness gives them a form relative to its life's functioning form.

[Age]

There is no evidence of an objective world; that is not a subjective evaluation.

So, if there is actually no evidence of some so-called 'objective world', then, 'this' in and of itself, implies that there is no 'objective observer', as well. Which ultimately would mean that there are only 'subjective observers', and thus only 'subjective evaluations', alone.

However, 'now', and 'quite conveniently', the view and evaluation that 'there is no evidence of an objective world' is, laughingly, supposedly 'not a subjective evaluation', at all.

What science tells us is that there are energies, frequencies, and vibrations like sound and color, subjectively interpreted.

'Science', itself, does not 'tell' any one any thing. However, the people who do 'science', that is who study what is not yet known, and thus 'those' who do not 'look at' what is actually True and Right, in Life, have 'told' 'this one' that there are 'things', which are 'subjectively interpreted'. Which is an obvious Fact that I thought no one would have need 'telling'. But anyway.

Now, so there are 'things', which are 'subjectively interpreted', but that, 'There is no evidence of an objective world', was not 'subjectively interpreted', and thus not a 'subjective evaluation' as well. Well supposedly to 'this one', anyway.

What I believe is that there are energy forms which we call things, but this is due to the relations between energy forms; the body is altered by these energies, and biological consciousness gives them a form relative to its life's functioning form.

So, well to 'this one' anyway,

1. There are 'things', but they are in no way at all 'evidence of an objective world'. And, 'that' is 'not a subjective evaluation'.

2. 'Energy forms' are due to 'the relations' between 'energy forms'. Now, if others can not see 'circular reasoning', here, then so be it.

3. 'The body' is altered by 'these energies', which are not of an 'objective world' because there is no evidence for an 'objective world'.

4. And, it is 'biological consciousness' that gives 'these energies' 'a form', relative to 'their own' now so-called 'life functioning form'.