Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 9:01 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 4:14 am In my case, these moral principles or facts are grounded on DNA, genes, brain and body which are verifiable and justifiable within the science-FSK.
These moral principles and facts are inherent in ALL humans, thus universal.

Realism is as close to universal as the moral principles you've often listed. In fact there are many people who ignore the oughtness not to kill. Compared to them there are very few antirealists. Yet, realism is primitive.

Are the neural patterns in the brains objective authorites or not?

Analogy:
As programmed in ALL humans there is a potential of an 'oughtness to manifest puberty' in a certain phase of life, usually around 10-12 years of age.

There are many people who do not manifest puberty;

• Kallmann syndrome (KS) is a genetic disorder that prevents a person from starting or fully completing puberty. Kallmann syndrome is a form of a group of conditions termed hypogonadotropic hypogonadism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kallmann_syndrome#

At present in the transgender situations, children are given certain hormones, etc. to suppress their puberty potential.

This does not infer that not all humans are programmed with a potential of an 'oughtness to manifest puberty'.
The fact is this 'oughtness to manifest puberty' as a potential is represented by certain physical genes and DNA and thus are science-biological FSK-ed facts.

Similarly the "oughtness-not-to-kill" which is evident the majority of human do not go about killing humans arbitrarily, is a potential that is represented by certain physical genes and DNA and thus are human-based science-biological FSK-ed facts.

It is not that some people ignored "oughtness-not-to-kill" potential which is inherent in them.
Rather, their "oughtness-not-to-kill" potential did not activate accordingly due to various reasons, e.g. under-development, damage to mechanisms that activate this potential, psychopathy, etc.
But despite this, there is no denial, "oughtness-not-to-kill" potential is exists as real and represented by certain physical genes and DNA and thus are human-based science-biological FSK-ed facts.

The above facts when inputted into a credible human-based moral FSR-FSK enables the emergence and realization of moral FSR-FSK facts which are objective, thus human based morality is objective.

Analogy:
The inherent potential of puberty is a human based science-biological fact.
When it is inputted into the human-based transgenderism FSR-FSK, it becomes a transgenderism FSR-FSK fact that is useful and applied in reality.

Not once did you address the issue of realism vs. oughtness not to kill. Both are present in human brains as neuronal patterns. With one the presence in the brain you take as evidence of objectivity. With the other you take it as barbaric and morally wrong.

Philosophical Realism is an ideology clung on by philosophical realists upon a natural evolutionary default of the mode of externalness.
The mode [sense] of external-ness has its origin from 3 billion years ago to facilitate and enable basic survival for all organism. This is embedded in the nervous system and subsequently as neuronal patterns.
Since humans are evolved from LUCA 3 billion years ago, the basic algorithm of this mode of external_ness is embedded in the human nervous system neuronally with refinements.

1. ALL humans are programmed to survive as long as possible till the inevitable.
2. Any threat to survival is triggered with terrible subliminal pains to avoid death.
3. The mode of external_ness facilitates survival.

4. Philosophical realists cling to this mode of externalness as an ideology which assures them of survival [at least till the inevitable].
5. Since philosophical realism is an ideology, any opposition to this ideology is a threat to survival which trigger terrible subliminal pains.
6. This subliminal pains will drive p-realists to get rid of the threat to survival.
7. P-realists [most] will resort to all ways to get rid of the threat and for some, to the extreme of violence or killing those who oppose them.
8. Because the p-realists action are driven by ideology grounded on very primal impulses, their actions are considered primal, primitive, proto- and barbaric.

9. Because of 8, see OP
Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity
viewtopic.php?t=40094

Both "oughtness not to kill" and the ideological "philosophical-realism" are represented by neuronal patterns, both are objective within their respective human-based FSK.

Morality is basically good vs evil.
"oughtness not to kill" is a neuronal pattern with the potential for good to overcome,
barbaric "philosophical realism" is a neural pattern which has a potential for evil.

Nb: not all p-realists' potential for evil will be triggered, but nevertheless remained an embedded potential for evil in them.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 4:59 am Philosophical Realism is an ideology clung on by philosophical realists upon a natural evolutionary default of the mode of externalness.
The mode [sense] of external-ness has its origin from 3 billion years ago to facilitate and enable basic survival for all organism. This is embedded in the nervous system and subsequently as neuronal patterns.
Since humans are evolved from LUCA 3 billion years ago, the basic algorithm of this mode of external_ness is embedded in the human nervous system neuronally with refinements.

This whole paragraph is filled to the brim with realist assumptions. You must be a danger to humanity.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 4:59 am Philosophical Realism is an ideology clung on by philosophical realists upon a natural evolutionary default of the mode of externalness.
The mode [sense] of external-ness has its origin from 3 billion years ago to facilitate and enable basic survival for all organism. This is embedded in the nervous system and subsequently as neuronal patterns.
Since humans are evolved from LUCA 3 billion years ago, the basic algorithm of this mode of external_ness is embedded in the human nervous system neuronally with refinements.

This whole paragraph is filled to the brim with realist assumptions. You must be a danger to humanity.

You have to read the above with the following from post #2.

• 1. Philosophical Realism specifically adopts the view that reality, truths, knowledge and objectivity are mind-independent.
  
  2. Most* philosophical realists insist all of morality is subjective or relative, i.e. not mind-independent. * some are moral nihilists.
  
  3. So, there are no mind-independent moral facts, truths and objectivity.
  
  4. Since there is no moral objectivity, it is "to each their own"; who is to say who is right or who is wrong; the resulting mode is tolerance of the views of others; there is no moral objectivity such as the universal 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' inhibiting evil acts.
  
  5. With no moral objective of 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' and with the easy access to WMDs in the future, there is the very likelihood* of the extermination of the human species.
  
  *It is most likely from Islam, where Mutual Assured Destruction [MAD] do not work as a deterrent at all, since it is a win-win for them even if all humans are killed because as Muslims they are assured of eternal life in Paradise with their '72 virgins'.

Re 2, people like PH and gang insist upon their ideology of philosophical realism, there are no objective moral facts.
To them morality is absolutely subjective, thus it is a free for all.
As such, p-realists will respective the subjectivity of the genocidal acts of Hitler and his like as in the past and even in the future.

Without human-based FSR-FSK_ed objective moral facts there are no fixed goals to strive upon to increase the average morality of humanity to facilitate moral progress in the future.

So because you believe p-realist sort of things, like the scientific narrative of abiogenesis, that means you "respective the subjectivity of the genocidal acts of Hitler and his like as in the past and even in the future."

Whatever that means.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:39 am So because you believe p-realist sort of things, like the scientific narrative of abiogenesis, that means you "respective the subjectivity of the genocidal acts of Hitler and his like as in the past and even in the future."

Whatever that means.

Typo mistake, should read,

• As such, p-realists [some not all] will respect the subjectivity of the genocidal acts of Hitler and his like as in the past and even intended genocides in the future.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 9:06 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:39 am So because you believe p-realist sort of things, like the scientific narrative of abiogenesis, that means you "respective the subjectivity of the genocidal acts of Hitler and his like as in the past and even in the future."

Whatever that means.

Typo mistake, should read,

• As such, p-realists [some not all] will respect the subjectivity of the genocidal acts of Hitler and his like as in the past and even intended genocides in the future.

People who believe in objective moral facts have killed a lot of people.
Veritas Aequitas believes there are objective moral facts.
Veritas Aequitas and other people who have believed in objective moral facts are birds of a feather.
Therefore some people like Veritas Aequitas will kill some moral antirealists.
And because Veritas Aequitas believes in objective moral facts, he is more likely to kill people that Peter Holmes who is a moral antirealist.
Peter, be careful what you say to VA.

This is the kind of logic you have been using to smear realists.

It's only people like biggy who can protect us from the big bad objectivists.

But who will protect us from biggy?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 3:56 pm It's only people like biggy who can protect us from the big bad objectivists.

But who will protect us from biggy?

Not who, what: sense of humor, the 'foe' function at PN, the sheer pleasure of pointing out stuff.

P-Realism has the problem of doubts, skepticism, dualism raised as with Descartes, evil demon, matrix, correspondence theory of truth, others and worst of all - an independent God [theism].

PH wrote:Meanwhile.
1 Reality is all there is. (You agree.)
2 We humans are part of that reality, and in no way separate from it. (You agree.)
3 We humans have to perceive, know and describe that reality in human ways. (You agree.)
4 That reality can be perceived, known and described in different - for example non-human - ways. (If you disagree, please explain why. Why can reality be perceived, known and described only by humans?)
5 There is no reason to think that there is or can be no reality outside the ways we humans perceive, know and describe it. (This follows from 1 to 4.)

Metaphysical anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

You are very deceptive in the above.

PH: 1 Reality is all there is. (You agree.)
We have to be precise here.
1. Reality [sense 1 - FSERC] is all there is. (I agree.)
1. Reality [sense 2 - p-realism] is all there is. (I do not agree.)

To me, your argument above is a sham to start with.

Your 'two senses of reality' merely begs the question. How can reality be 'all there is', if it's nothing more than we humans perceive, know and say about it? We haven't been around for long, and we needn't have evolved at all. Would reality - 'all there is' - then be nothing?

You are conflating the two senses, that is why you see it as begs the question.
Based on your illusory view, you assumes there is something out there absolutely independent of what you perceive, know and say about it.
This assumption create a Reality-GAP between that-something and your perception, knowing and saying about it, which can never be bridged eternally.

This is where the problem of doubts, skepticism, dualism are raised as with Descartes, evil demon, matrix, correspondence theory of truth, others and worst of all - an independent God [theism].
so, obviously your p-realist view has loads of problems from grounding on an assumption, thus illusory.

If there were no humans, would there have been and be no universe? Cos that's what your theory entails.
But that's silly. What you're actually saying is this: we humans can have no non-human perspective on reality. And that is an ordinary, realist claim about the human condition, with no anti-realist entailment - and no 'absolute conception of reality' entailment, which is and has always been your straw man criticism of philosophical realism.

Anti-realists aren't 'anti' (opposed to) reality - because what on earth could that mean? Instead, anti-realists are opposed to the idea that there is or can be an absolute, essential, complete or perfect conception and so description of reality - as though there could be such a thing. It's shadow-boxing - tilting at windmills.

As explained above p-realists ASSUME reality and thus create a REALITY-GAP that can never be bridged eternally.

Antirealists [Kantian] ground the emergence and realization of reality on what is empirical, observable [directly and indirectly] experienced and possible to be experienced as reality [all there is] and it is verifiable and justifiable via a human-based FSERC -science the most credible and objective.
In this case, what is reality is entangled with the human self individually and collectively.
As such, there is no need to ASSUME there is something beyond all the above.

In addition, there is no need affirm what is speculated as 'there something before there were humans' is the real deal.
Antirealists [Kantian] accept whatever is speculated or inferred is part and parcel of the reality that emerged and is realized.

So, yes, if there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe!
So, what!!

Will reality -all there is - just disappear if we hold the above belief?
No! what emerged and is realized via the evolved FSERC will be there regardless of our beliefs, i.e. whether
1. - if there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe! or
2. - the universe existed and exists regardless of humans.

That you insist upon belief 2 [p-realist] and reject 2 [FSERC] is due to desperate psychology, bugged by 'ex nihilo fit' and avoiding cognitive dissonances from an existential crisis.

Point is belief 2, i.e. p-realism is full of holes as grounded on an illusion, while 1 [FSERC] is more realistic, pragmatic, involves no assumption, no reality-Gap and facilitate humanity's progress more effectively.