What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

Does anyone think there are noumena - thing-in-themselves? I don't, and I have no idea what they could be.

Great. So you don't think there are no noumena.

In which case there's no need for an "if" in your question.

If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

There are no noumena.
`
Then what are the phenomena we call values and morals phenomena of?

[Veritas Aequitas]

A. And I keep pointing out that your model or explanation is patently incorrect and self-defeating. Those babies exist, as does the physical environment around them, to which they react - and that reaction is a physical process which exists: the maturation of babies into adults.

B. They are physical processes - features of reality - which natural scientists are increasingly able to describe. And what sort of grounding do you think they need?

C. Nope. Your explanations are nothing more than physical evidence for physical processes. In a word, facts.

I want to show you why YOUR model is self-defeating and illusory.

Read this [..quoted many times] carefully;
[note 'mind' in this case refer to 'modern-mind' not re Descartes' Dualism]

1. Philosophical Realism is .. about a certain kind of thing .. is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

2. This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.

3. [Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.

4. Philosophers who profess [Philosophical] realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.

5. [Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.

6. In some contexts, [Philosophical] realism is contrasted with [Philosophical] idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

From what you have posted about facts, i.e. feature of reality as just-is, being-so and that is the case, independent of individuals' opinion, beliefs and judgments, it is obvious your stance will agree with 1, 2 and 3.
Confirm, yes?

You have denied you agree with the Correspondence Theory of Truth or the mirroring of reality.
But your point B "which natural scientists are increasingly able to describe" implied this is a correspondence theory of truth or mirroring of reality.
In other words, your philosophical realism would agree with 4 as well regardless of your denial.

Your point B "increasingly able to describe" also correspond with 5 above.

Note point 6 above,
6. In some contexts, [Philosophical] realism is contrasted with [Philosophical] idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
It said here the Philosophy of Science is anti-Physical_Realism which is very true.
As I had been arguing, all facts are conditioned within a human-based FSK [thus anti-realism] of which the science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.

Scientific facts [human based] are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

You may be a Philosophical Realist like Einstein, Carroll, FH [here] but you cannot force Science to be realist in essence.

So, in my case;
"Those babies exist, as does the physical environment around them, to which they react - and that reaction is a physical process which exists: the maturation of babies into adults."
But the above are human-based-FSK facts of which the most credible and reliable are from the human-based-science FSK.

Your bare claim;
PH: C. "Nope. Your explanations are nothing more than physical evidence for physical processes. In a word, facts."
without qualification and justification is illusory, noumenal, mystical woo, meaningless, empty and non-sensical.

What is your counter to the above?

[Peter Holmes]

1 A description is always contextual and conventional. Therefore, a factual assertion - with a truth-value - is always contextual and conventional. For example, the factual assertion water is H2O makes sense only given the way those signs are used in the science of chemistry.

2 But a description is not the described. For example, the feature of reality described by the chemistry assertion water is H2O doesn't exist 'within' the science of chemistry. Its existence has nothing to do with any kind of description - nothing to do with language at all.

3 Though it's necessary for communication, agreement on the use of signs in factual assertions does not constitute what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity. For example, we may agree on the use of words in the factual assertion there are pink unicorns on the moon.

4 By the same argument, though it's necessary for communication, agreement on the use of words in moral assertions does not constitute so-called moral facts and, therefore moral objectivity. The 'that's-how-we use-these-words' argument for moral objectivity is fallacious, as it would be for objectivity of any other kind.

VA's argument is that what we call facts are always 'within' or 'conditioned upon' what he calls a framework and system of knowledge - and that, since those are human products, so are what we call facts. VA talks about the entanglement of reality with 'the human conditions'.

VA agrees that the substance dualism that informed the dichotomy between mind-dependence and mind-independence is outmoded. But the physicalist replacement - brain-dependence and brain-independence - is hard to maintain, for several reasons. Hence the vague and never explained entanglement with the human conditions.

VA's claim is ontological: there is no reality outside or beyond what humans perceive, know and describe as reality, with which we are entangled. And I think that claim is false, or at least not shown to be true.

[Skepdick]

2 But a description is not the described.

Nobody is saying the description is the described.

The description is related to the described and this relationship is conventional and contextual.

There is a conventional and contextual relationship between the expression "red" and the various things to which the expression does and doesn't apply to.
There is a conventional and contextual relationship between the expression "wrong" and the various things to which the expression does and doesn't apply to.

To ask "What or where is the wrongness of a wrong thing?" is exactly like asking "What or where is the redness of red things?"

If you aren't perceiving redness; or wrongness - you may be missing the necessary hardware.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are engaging with your own strawman[s].
Whether you agree with 'Philosophical Realism' or not, can you confirm you agree with points 1-3 above and 4-6 above?
viewtopic.php?p=637492#p637492

1 A description is always contextual and conventional. Therefore, a factual assertion - with a truth-value - is always contextual and conventional. For example, the factual assertion water is H2O makes sense only given the way those signs are used in the science of chemistry.

I have already stated a 'million' times a description is not the-described.

I have already argued there are two senses of 'what is fact'.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587 i.e.
1. PH -what is fact which is illusory
2. VA- Human-based FSK fact.
You have not defended your 'what is fact' at all, other than insisting your fact is a feature of reality, that is just-is, being-so but not supported by valid and sound arguments.

I on the other hand, I argued my facts are as in;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
example human based scientific FSK facts.

2 But a description is not the described. For example, the feature of reality described by the chemistry assertion water is H2O doesn't exist 'within' the science of chemistry. Its existence has nothing to do with any kind of description - nothing to do with language at all.

The "million+1" times, yes, "description is not the described."

Your ignorance here is, when you mentioned 'within the science of chemistry', you are ignorant it is conditioned by a science-chemistry FSK, that has a realization process that is conditioned upon a 13 billion years since BB, plus 4 billion year of organic evolution and a >200K of human evolution.
The reality of whatever is concluded as H20 has to be realized via the above complexity before it is perceived, known and described.

Say, here is a very crude example;
It is a human-based biology-science-psychology FSK fact that an adult male would wake up with an erection, then it is perceived by him, then known and described to say a psychologist of which can be verified and justified empirically via the relevant FSK.
Obviously there must be a prior emergent and realization process of the erection [brain, body and organs] before it is perceived, known and described. Surely you cannot deny this?
WHY the emergence and realization?
It is because, he is entangled and conditioned upon a 200k human evolution, 4 billion years of organic evolution and a 13 billions years of inorganic forces from the Big Bang.
You just cannot deny this human-based cosmological, physics, chemistry, biology FSK facts.

To you, when asked of the fact of the erection, you will just say, it is a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so or that is the case, blah blah but totally ignorant and ignoring the complex variables and events that are human-based FSK-facts.

The point is. the human-based FSK fact of an erection in the morning as emergent, realized then perceived, known and described is the same as any other human-based FSK facts, i.e. 'water is H20 as a science-chemistry FSK fact. It is just the prior complex processes are not so obvious.

3 Though it's necessary for communication, agreement on the use of signs in factual assertions does not constitute what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity. For example, we may agree on the use of words in the factual assertion there are pink unicorns on the moon.

"there are pink unicorns on the moon." can be a 'factual' assertion but we must analyze whether the human-based FSK it is relied upon in this case is reliable or not.
It is obvious this human-based FSK 'fact' is not credible thus low objectivity; but for rigor sake, it must be grounded on its 13+ billion history back to the Big Bang. We can also infer there is something wrong with this human-based FSK that could have happened recently in the mother's womb or epigenetics or environmental causes that triggered on to arrive at such a factual assertion.

4 By the same argument, though it's necessary for communication, agreement on the use of words in moral assertions does not constitute so-called moral facts and, therefore moral objectivity. The 'that's-how-we use-these-words' argument for moral objectivity is fallacious, as it would be for objectivity of any other kind.

Your above is a narrow, shallow and dogmatic view.
I have agreed moral opinions of right or wrong cannot be objective.
But objective moral facts - emerging and realized from a credible human-based FSK that are conditioned back to 200K years of human evolution, 4 billion years of organic evolution and 13 billions years of inorganic forces from the BB- are objective human-based moral FSK facts.

Note your ignorance and counter why you are not ignorant of the above complexities involved.

VA's argument is that what we call facts are always 'within' or 'conditioned upon' what he calls a framework and system of knowledge - and that, since those are human products, so are what we call facts. VA talks about the entanglement of reality with 'the human conditions'.

VA agrees that the substance dualism that informed the dichotomy between mind-dependence and mind-independence is outmoded. But the physicalist replacement - brain-dependence and brain-independence - is hard to maintain, for several reasons. Hence the vague and never explained entanglement with the human conditions.

Note my explanation of the complex processes involved that are prior to a human-based FSK fact being subsequently perceived, known and described.

VA's claim is ontological: there is no reality outside or beyond what humans perceive, know and describe as reality, with which we are entangled. And I think that claim is false, or at least not shown to be true.

Strawman again.
As I had stated, my approach is TOP DOWN which focuses on the empirical and dug down as far and the empirical evidences can support it.
There is no ontological substance involved.

And I think that claim is false, or at least not shown to be true.

Don't just think, provide your counter.

When I start with experiences and the empirical which is to be verified and justified by a human-based FSK, .e.g. the credible and reliable human-based scientific FSK, where can I go blatantly wrong?

On the other hand, what is fact to you, ultimately, is merely noumenal, mystical illusory, empty, meaningless and nonsensical.
How do you know what you subsequently perceived, known, and described on a first person basis is precisely that fact [the described], the feature of reality, just-is, being-so, that is the case or even if it exist at all?
You cannot deny you are engaging in mirroring in this case.

[Peter Holmes]

But - you think that which is perceived, known and described doesn't exist - and nor do the perceivers, knowers and describers. Empirical evidence is nothing but an illusion entertained by an illusion. It's all quantum foam.

So whither moral facts?

[Skepdick]

But - you think that which is perceived, known and described doesn't exist

Which property of the described does the linguistic term "exists" refer to?

There you are. Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes.

What would be different about you if you if we changed the description "Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes exists" to "Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes doesn't exist" ?

[Peter Holmes]

When I start with experiences and the empirical which is to be verified and justified by a human-based FSK, .e.g. the credible and reliable human-based scientific FSK, where can I go blatantly wrong?

Experiences of what? Empirical evidence of what? You deny that any of the things we experience are real - that the laptop I'm typing on is real - that experiences are real - that you and I exist at all. Where can you go wrong?! Please.

[henry quirk]

Well that ain't right.



This...

9C6ED8EB-A3DF-4321-8DA1-798B3B7DC46A.jpeg

...is right.

The external world exists independently of the mind (hence, realism)
And we perceive the external world directly (hence, direct)

[Veritas Aequitas]

When I start with experiences and the empirical which is to be verified and justified by a human-based FSK, .e.g. the credible and reliable human-based scientific FSK, where can I go blatantly wrong?

Experiences of what? Empirical evidence of what? You deny that any of the things we experience are real - that the laptop I'm typing on is real - that experiences are real - that you and I exist at all. Where can you go wrong?! Please.

Strawman!!

(note: mind = modern mind not Descartes's dualism)

I stated objects of experience [TOP-DOWN] which can be verified and justified empirically via human-based FSK are real, where the scientific FSK realizes the most realistic reality.
This object of experience [e.g. the moon] is the object is entangled, emerged and realized within a human-based FSK [physics, cosmology], which is then perceived [biology, psychology], known [epistemology] and described [linguistic].

On the other hand, you are claiming 'the moon' pre-existed before there were humans and the moon exists whether there are humans 'looking' at it or not.
This is your Philosophical Realism ideology which insist mind-independent existence of things which is delusional in the ultimate sense.

that experiences are real - that you and I exist at all.

this pose a dilemma for you!

Yes, for me, you and I exists on the basis of anti-philosophical realism which is conditioned to the human conditions. So, if no human conditions, there is no you or I.

On the other hand, your ideology is things [including you & I] exist independent of the human conditions, i.e. things [including you & I] exist regards whether humans exist or not.
Logically, by the above principle, 'you' still exists if there are no humans [which include you as human].

This is your dilemma if you believe in things [reality] exist on the basis of independence from human conditions, i.e. that independent fact, as feature of reality, that is just-is, being-so and that is the case.

How do you resolve the above quandary and dilemma?

Note:
This is what theists as philosophical realists believe, i.e. their physical soul still exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is why Jihadists would not press the button to exterminate the human species with WMDs because they are so sure, they [you, I and them] will exist in paradise with 72 virgins.

[Peter Holmes]

When I start with experiences and the empirical which is to be verified and justified by a human-based FSK, .e.g. the credible and reliable human-based scientific FSK, where can I go blatantly wrong?

Experiences of what? Empirical evidence of what? You deny that any of the things we experience are real - that the laptop I'm typing on is real - that experiences are real - that you and I exist at all. Where can you go wrong?! Please.

Strawman!!

(note: mind = modern mind not Descartes's dualism)

I stated objects of experience [TOP-DOWN] which can be verified and justified empirically via human-based FSK are real, where the scientific FSK realizes the most realistic reality.
This object of experience [e.g. the moon] is the object is entangled, emerged and realized within a human-based FSK [physics, cosmology], which is then perceived [biology, psychology], known [epistemology] and described [linguistic].

On the other hand, you are claiming 'the moon' pre-existed before there were humans and the moon exists whether there are humans 'looking' at it or not.
This is your Philosophical Realism ideology which insist mind-independent existence of things which is delusional in the ultimate sense.

that experiences are real - that you and I exist at all.

this pose a dilemma for you!

Yes, for me, you and I exists on the basis of anti-philosophical realism which is conditioned to the human conditions. So, if no human conditions, there is no you or I.

On the other hand, your ideology is things [including you & I] exist independent of the human conditions, i.e. things [including you & I] exist regards whether humans exist or not.
Logically, by the above principle, 'you' still exists if there are no humans [which include you as human].

This is your dilemma if you believe in things [reality] exist on the basis of independence from human conditions, i.e. that independent fact, as feature of reality, that is just-is, being-so and that is the case.

How do you resolve the above quandary and dilemma?

Note:
This is what theists as philosophical realists believe, i.e. their physical soul still exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is why Jihadists would not press the button to exterminate the human species with WMDs because they are so sure, they [you, I and them] will exist in paradise with 72 virgins.

Honestly. Trying to explain the silliness of your arguments is wearisome business. I'm going to wait for something worth addressing. But others can always respond - and please do.

[Skepdick]

Experiences of what? Empirical evidence of what? You deny that any of the things we experience are real - that the laptop I'm typing on is real - that experiences are real - that you and I exist at all. Where can you go wrong?! Please.

I reject the idea that you are real and that you exist. It seems to me that you are not real and you do not exist.

The fact that I've changed the description yet nothing has changed about the described is all the evidence necessary to demonstrate that Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's "realness" and "existence" are not features of reality.

e.g they are not facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Experiences of what? Empirical evidence of what? You deny that any of the things we experience are real - that the laptop I'm typing on is real - that experiences are real - that you and I exist at all. Where can you go wrong?! Please.

Strawman!!

(note: mind = modern mind not Descartes's dualism)

I stated objects of experience [TOP-DOWN] which can be verified and justified empirically via human-based FSK are real, where the scientific FSK realizes the most realistic reality.
This object of experience [e.g. the moon] is the object is entangled, emerged and realized within a human-based FSK [physics, cosmology], which is then perceived [biology, psychology], known [epistemology] and described [linguistic].

On the other hand, you are claiming 'the moon' pre-existed before there were humans and the moon exists whether there are humans 'looking' at it or not.
This is your Philosophical Realism ideology which insist mind-independent existence of things which is delusional in the ultimate sense.

that experiences are real - that you and I exist at all.

this pose a dilemma for you!

Yes, for me, you and I exists on the basis of anti-philosophical realism which is conditioned to the human conditions. So, if no human conditions, there is no you or I.

On the other hand, your ideology is things [including you & I] exist independent of the human conditions, i.e. things [including you & I] exist regards whether humans exist or not.
Logically, by the above principle, 'you' still exists if there are no humans [which include you as human].

This is your dilemma if you believe in things [reality] exist on the basis of independence from human conditions, i.e. that independent fact, as feature of reality, that is just-is, being-so and that is the case.

How do you resolve the above quandary and dilemma?

Note:
This is what theists as philosophical realists believe, i.e. their physical soul still exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is why Jihadists would not press the button to exterminate the human species with WMDs because they are so sure, they [you, I and them] will exist in paradise with 72 virgins.

Honestly. Trying to explain the silliness of your arguments is wearisome business. I'm going to wait for something worth addressing. But others can always respond - and please do.

You are complaining? especially when you have NEVER [as far as I have seen] given a single references to support your points?

It is more like you do not have the philosophical competence to counter my points and being aware you are stuck in a quandary.
As I had always been accusing you of being a philosophical gnat with shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking.
I suggest you research and read more widely and deeply so that you have reasonable references to support your views.

For a start, do research on philosophical realism versus anti-philosophical-realism, [the very contentious Anglo-American versus Continental Philosophy] this is very basic philosophy driven by evolutionary forces.

[Peter Holmes]

Strawman!!

(note: mind = modern mind not Descartes's dualism)

I stated objects of experience [TOP-DOWN] which can be verified and justified empirically via human-based FSK are real, where the scientific FSK realizes the most realistic reality.
This object of experience [e.g. the moon] is the object is entangled, emerged and realized within a human-based FSK [physics, cosmology], which is then perceived [biology, psychology], known [epistemology] and described [linguistic].

On the other hand, you are claiming 'the moon' pre-existed before there were humans and the moon exists whether there are humans 'looking' at it or not.
This is your Philosophical Realism ideology which insist mind-independent existence of things which is delusional in the ultimate sense.


this pose a dilemma for you!

Yes, for me, you and I exists on the basis of anti-philosophical realism which is conditioned to the human conditions. So, if no human conditions, there is no you or I.

On the other hand, your ideology is things [including you & I] exist independent of the human conditions, i.e. things [including you & I] exist regards whether humans exist or not.
Logically, by the above principle, 'you' still exists if there are no humans [which include you as human].

This is your dilemma if you believe in things [reality] exist on the basis of independence from human conditions, i.e. that independent fact, as feature of reality, that is just-is, being-so and that is the case.

How do you resolve the above quandary and dilemma?

Note:
This is what theists as philosophical realists believe, i.e. their physical soul still exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is why Jihadists would not press the button to exterminate the human species with WMDs because they are so sure, they [you, I and them] will exist in paradise with 72 virgins.

Honestly. Trying to explain the silliness of your arguments is wearisome business. I'm going to wait for something worth addressing. But others can always respond - and please do.

You are complaining? especially when you have NEVER [as far as I have seen] given a single references to support your points?

It is more like you do not have the philosophical competence to counter my points and being aware you are stuck in a quandary.
As I had always been accusing you of being a philosophical gnat with shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking.
I suggest you research and read more widely and deeply so that you have reasonable references to support your views.

For a start, do research on philosophical realism versus anti-philosophical-realism, [the very contentious Anglo-American versus Continental Philosophy] this is very basic philosophy driven by evolutionary forces.

I'll wait for a valid and sound argument for the existence of moral facts. Nothing so far. You don't seem to understand how to construct one. Just throwing labels and insults about won't do.

[Peter Holmes]

VA says I'm a philosophical realist, which means I must believe there is a mind-independent reality.

Just to clarify my position.

Pending evidence for the existence of abstract or non-physical things, belief that they exist is delusional. Lack of evidence may not mean a claim is false, but it does mean that to believe it's true is irrational.

And among the invented abstract or non-physical things - that have been the stuff of philosophical lucubration - is the mind, containing mental things and events. I think 'mentalist' talk is and has always been metaphorical - a way of describing our selves and our experience.

For example, that's why we can change our minds, or be in two minds, or be of the same mind, or share our thoughts, and so on. The myth of the mind is very ancient and potent. It's woven inextricably into our everyday talk.

And here are some physicalist questions: how could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? Or how could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?

(An appeal to magic is a childish superstition. Abstract or non-physical things are remarkably like supernatural things.)

From this, it follows that talk of mind-dependence and mind-independence is incoherent.