Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Sat May 28, 2022 1:08 pm
You can't even realise you are asking the same question in two different threads.
You can ask it a million times - the problems with your question persist.
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
It is you making the claims.
How much justification do you need? There's nothing "extraordinary" about this - it's obvious to any non-idiot. Why isn't it obvious to you?
you:No other existing thing depends on bein' aware of itself to be.
It does not seem to me you (a mind) have a mind-independent existence from yourself (a mind).I'm pretty sure I have a mind independent existence in some form
It's not about your preference (a subjective assessment), it's about you, the preferer, the assessor. You exist independent of all minds save one.I don't see how the non mind independent parts of me such as my shoe preferences are objective
Again: your assessment of a color is subjective, an opinion, but you are not subjective, you exist and yet your existence is utterly dependent on a mind.My completely mind-dependent favourite colour would be far from objective.
At the moment, I'm not talkin' about what is or isn't fact (if the conversation goes anywhere we'll get to all that). What I am talkin' about is you -- real, seemingly mind-independent, objective -- bein' dependent, quite obviously, on a mind for your existence.The distinction between facts and values is there because of this stuff.
I don't understand what you are trying to say Henry, it's got too much mystical woo for me to follow.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 3:10 pm me:you:No other existing thing depends on bein' aware of itself to be.It does not seem to me you (a mind) have a mind-independent existence from yourself (a mind).I'm pretty sure I have a mind independent existence in some form
It's not about your preference (a subjective assessment), it's about you, the preferer, the assessor. You exist independent of all minds save one.I don't see how the non mind independent parts of me such as my shoe preferences are objective
Again: your assessment of a color is subjective, an opinion, but you are not subjective, you exist and yet your existence is utterly dependent on a mind.My completely mind-dependent favourite colour would be far from objective.
At the moment, I'm not talkin' about what is or isn't fact (if the conversation goes anywhere we'll get to all that). What I am talkin' about is you -- real, seemingly mind-independent, objective -- bein' dependent, quite obviously, on a mind for your existence.The distinction between facts and values is there because of this stuff.
Will you acknowledge there's sumthin' peculiar about you, sumthin' unique, that sets you apart from, say, an apple, or a car, or a cat?
Non sequitur.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 1:34 pmHow much justification do you need? There's nothing "extraordinary" about this - it's obvious to any non-idiot. Why isn't it obvious to you?
There was morality before you were born.
There will be morality after you die.
That's because morality is independent of you and your mind.
wrong. See above
There was morality before I was born.
There will be morality after I die.
That's because morality is independent of me and my mind.
Wrong. See above
There was morality before any given individual was born.
There will be morality after any given individual dies.
Where is morality?
That's because morality is independent of any given individual and their mind.
If you have gone full retard and you want to reject the existence of morality - please inform us. It will save us time.
No, there's no woo there.I don't understand what you are trying to say Henry, it's got too much mystical woo for me to follow.
Ok. I'm afraid that whatever you are trying to say about mind indepent existence, or some sort of impossibility thereof, is indecipherable at this moment.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 6:46 pmNo, there's no woo there.I don't understand what you are trying to say Henry, it's got too much mystical woo for me to follow.
Agreed.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 1:18 amOk. I'm afraid that whatever you are trying to say about mind indepent existence, or some sort of impossibility thereof, is indecipherable at this moment.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 6:46 pmNo, there's no woo there.I don't understand what you are trying to say Henry, it's got too much mystical woo for me to follow.
But do bear in mind that the point of mind-indpendence and objectivity is for there to be an actual reference point against which answers to questions can be validated and by virtue of that competing answers can be demonstrated wrong. You guys' attempts at fancy diversions around the objectivity thing are continually delivering a substandard product that does not support this, the only required feature.
In the above, you are so rhetorical that you are check-mating yourself into nihilism.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 7:49 amAgreed.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 1:18 amOk. I'm afraid that whatever you are trying to say about mind indepent existence, or some sort of impossibility thereof, is indecipherable at this moment.
But do bear in mind that the point of mind-indpendence and objectivity is for there to be an actual reference point against which answers to questions can be validated and by virtue of that competing answers can be demonstrated wrong. You guys' attempts at fancy diversions around the objectivity thing are continually delivering a substandard product that does not support this, the only required feature.
But just a thought. If we forget the mind - as a non-physical thing evidence for the existence of which there's zilch - we're left with all we ever really had: the brain.
And then we're talking about brain-dependence and brain-independence: do the existence and nature of rocks depend on the existence of a brain or brains? And: do moral rightness and wrongness exist as things at all, let alone things that may be independent from a brain or brains?
That's just another of those aforementioned fancy diversions with a substandard end product that offers no form of verification, and no way to differentiate fact from fiction.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 8:42 amIn the above, you are so rhetorical that you are check-mating yourself into nihilism.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 7:49 amAgreed.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 1:18 am
Ok. I'm afraid that whatever you are trying to say about mind indepent existence, or some sort of impossibility thereof, is indecipherable at this moment.
But do bear in mind that the point of mind-indpendence and objectivity is for there to be an actual reference point against which answers to questions can be validated and by virtue of that competing answers can be demonstrated wrong. You guys' attempts at fancy diversions around the objectivity thing are continually delivering a substandard product that does not support this, the only required feature.
But just a thought. If we forget the mind - as a non-physical thing evidence for the existence of which there's zilch - we're left with all we ever really had: the brain.
And then we're talking about brain-dependence and brain-independence: do the existence and nature of rocks depend on the existence of a brain or brains? And: do moral rightness and wrongness exist as things at all, let alone things that may be independent from a brain or brains?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
In any talk of mind-independence it is implied that humans and the person exist as real entities with agency.
This is why I always relate the opposite of mind-independence with 'entanglement with the human conditions' rather than stating 'mind-dependence'.
What a conceptual mess!Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 8:42 amIn the above, you are so rhetorical that you are check-mating yourself into nihilism.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 7:49 amAgreed.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 1:18 am
Ok. I'm afraid that whatever you are trying to say about mind indepent existence, or some sort of impossibility thereof, is indecipherable at this moment.
But do bear in mind that the point of mind-indpendence and objectivity is for there to be an actual reference point against which answers to questions can be validated and by virtue of that competing answers can be demonstrated wrong. You guys' attempts at fancy diversions around the objectivity thing are continually delivering a substandard product that does not support this, the only required feature.
But just a thought. If we forget the mind - as a non-physical thing evidence for the existence of which there's zilch - we're left with all we ever really had: the brain.
And then we're talking about brain-dependence and brain-independence: do the existence and nature of rocks depend on the existence of a brain or brains? And: do moral rightness and wrongness exist as things at all, let alone things that may be independent from a brain or brains?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
In any talk of mind-independence it is implied that humans and the person exist as real entities with agency.
This is why I always relate the opposite of mind-independence with 'entanglement with the human conditions' rather than stating 'mind-dependence'.
So it is not that reality is dependent on humans, minds and brains, rather it is that reality emerges spontaneously in entanglement with humans, minds, brains and all else.
It is your ignorance and failure to understand [not necessary agree with] emergence and emergentism that you keep insisting on imposing your narrow dogmatic view on those who anti-realists [against mind-, human-, language independence].
No matter how much you deny, you are fundamentally a metaphysical realist or an external realist.
Hilary Putnam listed three principles or credo of who is a metaphysical realist, i.e.You seem to be banking on the Truth-maker Theory.
- 1. Credo in Independence
2. Credo in Correspondence or Truth-maker Theory
3. Credo in Cartesianism
You are not sure where you stand and you are rejecting the Correspondence Theory, but note Tim Button [limit of realism];
According to Tim Button, the truth-maker theory [weaker] is easier to trash via Hilary Putnam's arguments.
- As it happens, though, the choice between truth-maker and correspondence theory will make almost no difference to our subsequent considerations.
(If anything, it makes External Realism marginally more difficult to attack, if it adheres to a correspondence theory rather than a mere truth-maker theory.)
So it will do no harm to assume that the External Realist accepts the Correspondence Principle.
You talk of fact as a feature of reality.
Implicit in this is an independent [absolute] external reality regardless of your denial that your realist-facts has nothing to do with reality.
I agree moral opinion and beliefs which are descriptive and prescriptive cannot be moral facts BUT
the moral potential [oughtness] existing as physical neural correlates which can be verified and justified within the scientific FSK can emerge as moral facts within a credible moral FSK. [note emerge and emergentism].
I anticipate you will be very blind and blurr to the above and therefrom will only make more noises until the penny drop for you.
No, but you do.do the existence and nature of rocks depend on the existence of a brain or brains?
Moral fact extends out of a fact about man: it is not independent of him (in the same way fire is not independent of oxygen, heat, and fuel).And: do moral rightness and wrongness exist as things at all, let alone things that may be independent from a brain or brains?