What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

To repeat, there is no evidence for the existence of the mind or any other abstract or non-physical thing.

There is no evidence that "evidence" is a non-abstract physical thing either, but maybe I am wrong.

Change my mind. Show me an evidence.

[Peter Holmes]

Command: Show me an evidence. What - you can't? Ha. So there are abstract or non-physical things. QED.

Behold the nomenclaturist delusion at work.

Way out: 1 Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean. 2 Outside language, the existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language - with names and descriptions.

Let's put our thinking hats on and think very, very hard about the implications of these facts.

[Skepdick]

Command: Show me an evidence. What - you can't? Ha. So there are abstract or non-physical things. QED.

Behold the nomenclaturist delusion at work.

Way out: 1 Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean. 2 Outside language, the existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language - with names and descriptions.

Let's put our thinking hats on and think very, very hard about the implications of these facts.

I have already agreed to both of your points!

1. Words do mean only what we use them to mean!
2. The existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language - nothing to do with names and descriptions!

Enough with the words now! Enough with linguistics!

Show me what physical thing you are refering to when you use the word "evidence".
Show us an evidence (like you show an apple) outside of language!

Or explain why you can't.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the mind and mental phenomena as abstract or non-physical things. But the myth of abstract things runs deep and continues to rot our reasoning.

So, since there's no separate mind, there's no mind-body or mind-matter distinction and supposed problem. And talk of mind-dependence and mind-independence is incoherent nonsense.

There are only brains, which are physical things, along with all the other physical things that compose what we call reality. So now your claim is that all physical things depend, in some mystical way, on human brains.

And that's rubbish.

If there is no mind as a collection of brain functions and processes,
then along the same thinking, to be more precise there is no brains as well.
What the 'brain' precisely [to be exact] is, is a collection of neurons and various matters.
then,
there are no neurons and other 'brain' matters;
They are merely a cluster of molecules;
There are no true molecules but a cluster of atoms;
There are no true atoms but a bunch of electrons and protons;
There are no true electrons and protons, there are only a collection of particles or wave;
but particles or waves depend on human participation and observations [Wave Collapse Function].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

As such, if you recognize there are brains, then you have a accept there is mind that is in complementary with the brain and all other physical thing.

Note;
1. The whole of reality comprised of particles or wave depending on human participation and observations [Wave Collapse Function]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

2. Human participation and observations means the activity of the mind [of the brain].

3. Therefore the whole of reality is interdependent with the mind, i.e. mind-interdependent.

There's nothing non-physical in your reduction from the brain down to quantum events. But you smuggle in 'the mind' in 2 and 3, perhaps hoping that no one will notice. Nul point.

To repeat, there is no evidence for the existence of the mind or any other abstract or non-physical thing. So there's no mind-dependence, mind-independence or mind-interdependence. You're stuck with a substance dualism for which there's absolutely no empirical evidence. It's embarrassingly unscientific.

And it follows that you're actually claiming that every physical thing in the universe depends on one kind of physical thing: the human brain. It's laughable.

And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality.

You seem to miss out what I have explained.

Note I even changed the OP from
Paper: No Mind-Independent Facts
to
Paper: No Mind [brain, human]-Independent Facts

Thus, when you see me using 'mind-independent' [understood by most] it should mean human_brain-independent for you.

I wrote somewhere my use of mind-independent has nothing to do with Descartes Mind-Body dualism.

And it follows that you're actually claiming that every physical thing in the universe depends on one kind of physical thing: the human brain. It's laughable.

And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality.

Note this;

Facts [Moral ] are Human-Brain-Linked
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39557

When I use dependent or interdependent it mean emergence of reality in entanglement with the human conditions.
No things can exists by itself, i.e. no thing-in-itself, whatever is the real thing, it has some entanglement with the human conditions.
As I had already stated a "1000" times already, this Human-Brain_linked is supported by the thesis that won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.

[Peter Holmes]

So. The physical existence of the human brain is 'linked to' or 'depends on' or 'emerges from' the physical existence of the human brain. Our brains create reality, which includes our brains. Our brains create our brains. But our brains aren't real - they don't exist independently from our brains.

I need to have a lie down.

And, meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality.

[Skepdick]

So. The physical existence of the human brain is 'linked to' or 'depends on' or 'emerges from' the physical existence of the human brain. Our brains create reality, which includes our brains. Our brains create our brains. But our brains aren't real - they don't exist independently from our brains.

I need to have a lie down.

And, meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality.

Here's a brain.

Can you show me which freature or property of this brain is its "physical existence"? Point at it; or circle it or something. I don't know what you are talking about.

[Belinda]

So. The physical existence of the human brain is 'linked to' or 'depends on' or 'emerges from' the physical existence of the human brain. Our brains create reality, which includes our brains. Our brains create our brains. But our brains aren't real - they don't exist independently from our brains.

I need to have a lie down.

And, meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality.

There is a best and most up to date, scientific, way to solve the problem of relationship of mind and brain. We refer to brain-mind. Brain-mind is one entity but viewed respectively from 'outside' like an anatomist does, or viewed from 'inside' like a psychiatrist does.

[Peter Holmes]

So. The physical existence of the human brain is 'linked to' or 'depends on' or 'emerges from' the physical existence of the human brain. Our brains create reality, which includes our brains. Our brains create our brains. But our brains aren't real - they don't exist independently from our brains.

I need to have a lie down.

And, meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality.

There is a best and most up to date, scientific, way to solve the problem of relationship of mind and brain. We refer to brain-mind. Brain-mind is one entity but viewed respectively from 'outside' like an anatomist does, or viewed from 'inside' like a psychiatrist does.

There is no 'problem' to be solved, because the mind as an abstract or non-physical thing doesn't exist. There's only the brain. So the 'psyche' that psychologists and psychiatrists study and treat is an ancient and elaborate fiction. Talk of minds containing mental things and events has only ever been metaphorical.

It's like the miasma theory of disease. We know better now.

[Skepdick]

There is no 'problem' to be solved, because the mind as an abstract or non-physical thing doesn't exist. There's only the brain. So the 'psyche' that psychologists and psychiatrists study and treat is an ancient and elaborate fiction. Talk of minds containing mental things and events has only ever been metaphorical.

It's like the miasma theory of disease. We know better now.

Wants to be a materialist. Rejects the existence of the mind; and mental constructs.
Wants to be a moralist. Doesn't reject the existence of morality (which is a mental construct).



Idiot philosoper is an idiot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So. The physical existence of the human brain is 'linked to' or 'depends on' or 'emerges from' the physical existence of the human brain. Our brains create reality, which includes our brains. Our brains create our brains. But our brains aren't real - they don't exist independently from our brains.

I need to have a lie down.

And, meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality.

Strawman again and your thinking is very narrow and shallow.
You are actually insulting your own stupidity and dogmatism.

When I used the term 'mind-independent' which has a very complex meaning which I elaborated [see below], you strawman it to Mind-Body Dualism.
To avoid your own confusion I used the term 'human-brain independent' and its opposite 'human-brain linked'.
The above are mere terms to cater for your kindergarten brain.
Thus when you insult the use of these terms from your kindergarten perspective, you are insulting your own intelligence.

My actual position is as below and I have posted many times.
"When I use dependent or interdependent it mean emergence of reality in entanglement with the human conditions.
No things can exists by itself, i.e. no thing-in-itself, whatever is the real thing, it has some entanglement with the human conditions."

'Human conditions' mean the whole complex of human nature via evolution since 4 billion years ago.

Humans conditions is not merely 'the brain' but the whole human self as the individual person.
Are you Peter Holmes just a brain?
The way you argued above indicate you think Peter Holmes is merely a brain which is very stupid.

The fact is you Peter Holmes is a complex living entity emerging and culminating from a 4-billion-years process of evolution where you and the whole process of evolution is intricately part and parcel of reality - all-there-is.

Whatever is reality to you or any human is intricately linked the above complex living entity emerging and culminating from a 4-billion-years process of evolution.

I never claimed our brains create reality which includes our brain. That is your stupid rhetoric.

What I claim is, whatever is reality, a real brain of mine or yours [or any thing] do not exist independently by itself, but rather has to be linked to the human[s] emerging and culminating from a 4-billion-years process of evolution.

There is no thing-by-itself or thing-in-itself, i.e. like the saying "no thing is an island".

[Peter Holmes]

Here's an argument.

Premise: Humans create all facts.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are moral facts.

The premise is false. But even if it were true, the conclusion doesn't follow, because the existence of specifically moral facts is the issue. VA's excursion into quantum mechanics is down yet another blind alley.

And a moral conclusion, such as 'Therefore, X is morally wrong' - obviously doesn't and can't follow.

[Skepdick]

Here's an argument.

Premise: Humans create all facts.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are moral facts.

Here's an argument.

Premise: There are moral facts.

The end!

The premise is false.

Justify this claim. It's not obvious to me. In fact, I am being too modest.

What or where is a "fact"? Show me one. Don't tell me one.

And a moral conclusion, such as 'Therefore, X is morally wrong' - obviously doesn't and can't follow.

Here's how PH claims arguments are supposed to work like.

Premise: ????
Conclusion: Therefore, this color is red.

What a blithering fucking idiot!

Premise: this color is red.

The end!

Premise: murder is wrong.

The end!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's an argument.

Premise: Humans create all facts.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are moral facts.

The premise is false. But even if it were true, the conclusion doesn't follow, because the existence of specifically moral facts is the issue. VA's excursion into quantum mechanics is down yet another blind alley.

And a moral conclusion, such as 'Therefore, X is morally wrong' - obviously doesn't and can't follow.

Strawman again!! this is the "millionth" time.

My argument is this;
1. All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
2. All FSKs are managed and sustained by humans.
3. The most credible and reliable FSK is the scientific FSK which is Objective.
4. The science-QM FSK clearly demonstrated the necessity of the human conditions.

As such there are no facts [PH's] that are independent of the human conditions.

5. There is the moral FSK which general moral facts [1 & 2]
6. My proposed moral FSK has near credibility to the scientific FSK [because the majority of its input into the system are scientific facts.
7. Thus are objective moral facts and so, morality is objective. [OP -QED]

[Peter Holmes]

Here's an argument.

Premise: Humans create all facts.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are moral facts.

The premise is false. But even if it were true, the conclusion doesn't follow, because the existence of specifically moral facts is the issue. VA's excursion into quantum mechanics is down yet another blind alley.

And a moral conclusion, such as 'Therefore, X is morally wrong' - obviously doesn't and can't follow.

Strawman again!! this is the "millionth" time.

My argument is this;
1. All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
2. All FSKs are managed and sustained by humans.
3. The most credible and reliable FSK is the scientific FSK which is Objective.
4. The science-QM FSK clearly demonstrated the necessity of the human conditions.

As such there are no facts [PH's] that are independent of the human conditions.

5. There is the moral FSK which general moral facts [1 & 2]
6. My proposed moral FSK has near credibility to the scientific FSK [because the majority of its input into the system are scientific facts.
7. Thus are objective moral facts and so, morality is objective. [OP -QED]

Points 1 and 4-7 are false, so this argument is useless.

[Skepdick]

Points 1 and 4-7 are false

Justify this assertion.

If false means not-true, please provide your sufficiency criteria for truthfulness; and explain why each point fails to satisfy those criteria.

Thank you kindly.