The 'Marmite' of Objective Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ok, I am not a biologist with knowledge of our inner workings but keep in mind that all knowledge, all meanings and all perceptions are biologically dependent. I'll leave you to it.

I totally agree with you and that has always been my mantra; this is also in a way correlate with Kant's Copernican Revolution.

[CPR-Bxvii]
If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the Objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.

'Faculty of Intuition' in the above is generally our human biology.

Even with Kant the above must be subsequently linked to the practical to optimize survival where we have to refer to empirical reality [Kant's Empirical Realism], i.e. the objective.

Point is, whilst subjectivity is fundamental and keeping that in mind, we must operate in parallel and shift perspective to objectivity where it is necessary to optimize the related constraints.
Improvements and progress are ineffective if there is no objective standard to strive towards due to a lack of a controlled-feedback-system.

Thus, there is a need to shift from subjective-pseudo-morality to objective-morality-proper to expedite and optimize the well being of individuals and humanity in the future [not now].

All man-made creations, all meanings and understandings which might be used in human creativity are biological extensions, biological expressions of human nature. It is only with the acquired knowledge/experience/meanings that the conscious subject can then bestow that knowledge and those meanings upon a meaningless world. In the absence of a conscious subject, there is neither object nor consciousness - in other words, there is nothing.

As far as Kant's thing in itself goes, it could only be energy. What may be seen as an object is but the energy in and of itself, object is energy conditioned by perception and understanding, it is otherwise simply energy, just as vibrations remain vibrations if not conditioned by the ear and the understanding to give us sound. There are a great many vibrational frequencies we do not sense and they remain just frequencies and do not manifest for us as anything but vibrational frequencies.

Kant's thing-in-itself cannot be energy.
It is just an idea invented by pure reason and cannot be represented by anything empirical.
It is something like postulating a square-circle which can be thought of but it is impossible to exists as real at all.

So, ultimately what is real is conditioned by biology including whatever illusory ideas that is thought of.

Point is, whenever 'what is real' is to be 'transacted' and communicated between humans, that thing must be objective.

[popeye1945]

Kant's thing-in-itself cannot be energy.
It is just an idea invented by pure reason and cannot be represented by anything empirical.
It is something like postulating a square-circle which can be thought of but it is impossible to exist as real at all.
So, ultimately what is real is conditioned by biology including whatever illusory ideas that is thought of.
The point is, whenever 'what is real' is to be 'transacted' and communicated between humans, that thing must be objective.

If what you say is true, Kant created a bit of nonsense, according to modern physics there is only energy/s. Again, objects tend to be considered objective and through our common biology we tend to have pretty common experiences of apparent reality. I quote, to the individual truth is experience, to the group/society truth is an agreement of the collective experience. We know in the absence of a conscious subject that there is no object/s, the old saying goes, subject and object stand or fall together, thus reality/apparent reality is their unity. It is my belief that ultimate reality is the energies present and they serve as the raw materials of objects. for it is only when those energies alter the biology of an organism that there is then an object, but without the conscious biology present, there are no objects. "Things must be objective to be communicated." I would say, our common biologizes must agree with the others of our common biology, the basis of your challenge is function and function tends to be the same across the board. We know objects, as common experience goes by the alteration they affect upon our bodies or as Spinoza stated, the body is the first idea of the mind, it is through the body that the mind knows an apparent reality or knows object.

[Sculptor]

I admit I make the mistake of stating ALL those who taste marmite will find it delicious; I was relying on the fact that marmite contain UMAMI which is universal savoriness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umami

When UMAMI is added to one's favored food, it will make it more delicious. That was my intended point to demonstrate the objectivity of taste, i.e. it is grounded on the physical taste receptors.

Your brain is a cesspit.
THere is no substance umami that you can add to anything.
You are just not thinking things through every clearly.
Umami is an idea to describe a class of taste sensation. You don't get a jar of it to add to food.
Marmite gets its umani as a by product is dead brewers yeast, ans salt.
Taste is NOT objective. It is the very essence of subjectivity.

That not everyone likes Marmite genetically is not because of the UMANI but other secondary ingredients [the yeast effects, smell, etc.] in the Marmite.

Prove it is "genetic" - you cannot. People from the same family vary in their choices for marmite. Preference for such things as Marmite and blue cheese are socially constructed.
My reasons for liking them both is due to being fed them from an early age by my grandmother. People who apprehend them in later life a s less likely to appreciate them.
Person A can both like umami and dislike umami, because it depands on things other than umami. In the same way people can love something sweet like chocolate but hate something also sweet like meringue.

But this fact still serves my purpose of an analogy for objective morality.

Except that, as usual you are wrong because you are too deperate to demonstrate that your personal opinions are objective and every other person's in the world are subjective.
My Vino in Veritas is the only person on earth who speaks the truth.

Your view is that of an ignorant bastard.

I have already referenced in the OP:

Marmite is high in umami flavor, as it's fermented with yeast, while oyster sauce is umami-rich, as it's made with boiled oysters or oyster extract, which are high in glutamate.
[Link]

Read this again, again and again!

Umami or savoriness, is one of the five basic tastes.[1] It has been described as savory and is characteristic of broths and cooked meats.

People taste umami through taste receptors that typically respond to glutamates and nucleotides, which are widely present in meat broths and fermented products.

Since umami has its own receptors rather than arising out of a combination of the traditionally recognized taste receptors, scientists now consider umami to be a distinct taste.
In 1985, the term umami was recognized as the scientific term to describe the taste of glutamates and nucleotides at the first Umami International Symposium in Hawaii.[17]

Umami represents the taste of the amino acid L-glutamate and 5'-ribonucleotides such as guanosine monophosphate (GMP) and inosine monophosphate (IMP).[14]
It can be described as a pleasant "brothy" or "meaty" taste with a long-lasting, mouthwatering and coating sensation over the tongue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umami

Here is a taste test for all the 20 amino acid by a Chemist;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edSaOl08Cqs

You can buy the amino acids taste testing kit to confirm the above conclusions;
https://www.the-odin.com/amino-acid-tas ... astronomy/


Glutamate is one of the 20 necessary amino acids for humans.

Glutamate: a truly functional amino acid
John T Brosnan 1, Margaret E Brosnan

Abstract
Glutamate is one of the most abundant of the amino acids. In addition to its role in protein structure, it plays critical roles in nutrition, metabolism and signaling. Post-translational carboxylation of glutamyl residues increases their affinity for calcium and plays a major role in hemostasis. Glutamate is of fundamental importance to amino acid metabolism, yet the great bulk of dietary glutamate is catabolyzed within the intestine. It is necessary for the synthesis of key molecules, such as glutathione and the polyglutamated folate cofactors. It plays a major role in signaling. Within the central nervous system, glutamate is the major excitatory neurotransmitter and its product, GABA, the major inhibitory neurotransmitter.

Glutamate interaction with specific taste cells in the tongue is a major component of umami taste.

The finding of glutamate receptors throughout the gastrointestinal tract has opened up a new vista in glutamate function. Glutamate is truly a functional amino acid.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22526238/

What is objective is, ALL humans has receptors in their tongue for intercepting glutamate [umami]. In this sense, taste is objective besides the common understanding taste is very subjective.

It is the same for the majority of ignorant bastards like you who are dogmatic and insisting Morality is solely subjective but is ignorant of its objective physical aspects which can be verified and justified.

My claimed that morality is objective as linked to the brain, neurons, genes, DNA and is natural is not based on any arbitrary subjective opinions but it is gleaned from extensive research on the subject.

Btw, you have not quoted any references [if any is very rare] at all in your views, thus truly your views are very subjective and that's from your brain which is a cesspit.

FUCK OFF .. ignorant dickhead!

You are just doubling down on your stupidity.

[Advocate]

Marmite is not Only umami, and it's objectively disgusting to any normal human without broken taste receptors.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant's thing-in-itself cannot be energy.
It is just an idea invented by pure reason and cannot be represented by anything empirical.
It is something like postulating a square-circle which can be thought of but it is impossible to exist as real at all.
So, ultimately what is real is conditioned by biology including whatever illusory ideas that is thought of.
The point is, whenever 'what is real' is to be 'transacted' and communicated between humans, that thing must be objective.

If what you say is true, Kant created a bit of nonsense, according to modern physics there is only energy/s. Again, objects tend to be considered objective and through our common biology we tend to have pretty common experiences of apparent reality. I quote, to the individual truth is experience, to the group/society truth is an agreement of the collective experience. We know in the absence of a conscious subject that there is no object/s, the old saying goes, subject and object stand or fall together, thus reality/apparent reality is their unity. It is my belief that ultimate reality is the energies present and they serve as the raw materials of objects. for it is only when those energies alter the biology of an organism that there is then an object, but without the conscious biology present, there are no objects. "Things must be objective to be communicated." I would say, our common biologizes must agree with the others of our common biology, the basis of your challenge is function and function tends to be the same across the board. We know objects, as common experience goes by the alteration they affect upon our bodies or as Spinoza stated, the body is the first idea of the mind, it is through the body that the mind knows an apparent reality or knows object.

Energy cannot exists by itself, i.e. unconditionally.
It is always energy-by-Physics.
If there is no Physics [its Framework and System] then there is no energy, i.e. energy-by-Physics. Note:

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]
The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.

Since 'energy' is a reality from Physics, there is not true energy by itself but only the 'energy' that is conditioned by Physics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.........
Btw, you have not quoted any references [if any is very rare] at all in your views, thus truly your views are very subjective and that's from your brain which is a cesspit.

FUCK OFF .. ignorant dickhead!

You are just doubling down on your stupidity.

Again .. as usual
you have not quoted any references [if any is very rare] at all in your views, thus truly your views are very empty and unsubstantiated and that's from your brain which is a cesspit.

FUCK OFF .. ignorant dickhead!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Marmite is not Only umami, and it's objectively disgusting to any normal human without broken taste receptors.

Unlike chocolate covered bacon, or doughnut burgers...

[Sculptor]

.........
Btw, you have not quoted any references [if any is very rare] at all in your views, thus truly your views are very subjective and that's from your brain which is a cesspit.

FUCK OFF .. ignorant dickhead!

You are just doubling down on your stupidity.

Again .. as usual
you have not quoted any references [if any is very rare] at all in your views, thus truly your views are very empty and unsubstantiated and that's from your brain which is a cesspit.

FUCK OFF .. ignorant dickhead!

[Advocate]

[quote=vegetariantaxidermy post_id=615361 time=1671953972 user_id=8006]
[quote=Advocate post_id=615294 time=1671900994 user_id=15238]
Marmite is not Only umami, and it's objectively disgusting to any normal human without broken taste receptors.
[/quote]

Unlike chocolate covered bacon, or doughnut burgers...

[img] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... burger.jpg [/img]
[/quote]

The more exciting metaphysical question is; could we still have doughnuts if no one ever invented the hole?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Marmite is not Only umami, and it's objectively disgusting to any normal human without broken taste receptors.

Why do you insist on remaining ignorant?
It is not an issue of broken taste receptors; if it is broken [literally damaged] they will not taste anything.

I posted this earlier:

https://www.prima.co.uk/diet-and-health ... 22hater%22.
Here are some interesting facts from the above article;

It's a cliché for good reason: you really do either love or loathe Marmite.
And, no matter which side of the metaphorical toast you fall on, it looks like science may finally have found the reason why people react so strongly to the yeast spread: it's down to your genes.
A new study on more than 260 British adults has revealed that your preference for the delicious (in our opinion, anyway) breakfast staple could be linked to genetics, the Evening Standard reports.
After wondering why Marmite is so polarising, the brand decided to team up with DNAFit, one of the UK's biggest genetic testing centres, to try and work out why in The Marmite Gene Project.

And they found 15 genes linked to either loving or hating Marmite...

Here is the published paper;
https://www.dnafit.com/downloads/Marmit ... _Final.pdf

Surely those without 'anti-marmite' genes would find marmite delicious when effected by its high umami content.

Regardless of whether some people like Marmite or hate it, it is down to their genes.
Therefore there is objectivity supported by physical facts underlying preferences of likes or dislikes.

This principle of objectivity can be transposed onto so called 'moral' preferences.
I believe there are generic moral facts , e.g. 'human ought not to kill humans' which are objectively supported by its specific genes and neural algorithm.

Those who 'like' to kill humans are deviants from the norm; however, they nevertheless have that objective moral factual genes and neural algorithm [biological program] of 'not to kill humans' except it is damaged.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Marmite is not Only umami, and it's objectively disgusting to any normal human without broken taste receptors.

Unlike chocolate covered bacon, or doughnut burgers...

The more exciting metaphysical question is; could we still have doughnuts if no one ever invented the hole?

Your obsession with 'holes' is most likely supported by evolutionary factors and genes.

[Advocate]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=615520 time=1672018892 user_id=7896]
[quote=Advocate post_id=615393 time=1671973782 user_id=15238]
[quote=vegetariantaxidermy post_id=615361 time=1671953972 user_id=8006]


Unlike chocolate covered bacon, or doughnut burgers...

[img] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... burger.jpg [/img]
[/quote]

The more exciting metaphysical question is; could we still have doughnuts if no one ever invented the hole?
[/quote]
Your obsession with 'holes' is most likely supported by evolutionary factors and genes.
[/quote]

I mention it once and you call it an obsession. I defer to all the arguments against rhetoric and hyperbole and poetry as lying since the ancient Greeks.

[CIN]

Marmite is not Only umami, and it's objectively disgusting to any normal human without broken taste receptors.

Unlike chocolate covered bacon, or doughnut burgers...

The more exciting metaphysical question is; could we still have doughnuts if no one ever invented the hole?

Almighty God Himself created the hole in the doughnut: that's where the word 'holy' comes from.

If you have been fantasising about doughnuts without holes — or worse still, actually eating them — then you are clearly a moral pervert and have sold your soul to Satan.

(Actually I like the custard ones. They don't have holes. Now I have to go to confession.)

BTW, Satan created Marmite in order to introduce discord into the world, setting each man against his brother. The serpent put Marmite on the apple before he gave it to Eve.

[Advocate]

[quote=CIN post_id=617035 time=1672703567 user_id=23094]
[quote=Advocate post_id=615393 time=1671973782 user_id=15238]
[quote=vegetariantaxidermy post_id=615361 time=1671953972 user_id=8006]


Unlike chocolate covered bacon, or doughnut burgers...

[img] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... burger.jpg [/img]
[/quote]

The more exciting metaphysical question is; could we still have doughnuts if no one ever invented the hole?
[/quote]
Almighty God Himself created the hole in the doughnut: that's where the word 'holy' comes from.

If you have been fantasising about doughnuts without holes — or worse still, actually eating them — then you are clearly a moral pervert and have sold your soul to Satan.

(Actually I like the custard ones. They don't have holes. Now I have to go to confession.)

BTW, Satan created Marmite in order to introduce discord into the world, setting each man against his brother. The serpent put Marmite on the apple before he gave it to Eve.
[/quote]

You're so silly. Putting cream in the hole doesn't make it less holy. Haven't you heard of creamng the holy hole?