What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe the point is, that the objective reality is not experienced as is, but what it is to the body of a conscious subject.

You mean the objective-reality is not experienced as it is?

The point is, there is no "objective-reality" as it is, i.e. independent of the biology [human self] that experienced it.
There is no objective-reality pre-existing the biology and awaiting the human self to experience and discover it.
Now, whatever that objective-reality that is supposed to be independent and experienced by the human self a posteriori do not exist as it is. That objective reality that is experienced as independent by the biological human self a posteriori is ultimately independent but is part and parcel of the human self a priori.

There is no absolutely independent objective reality awaiting to be experienced by a biological self.
To insist there is such a real independent-objective-reality is chasing an illusion.
The apparent independent-objective-reality is ultimately subjective, i.e. intersubjective, i.e. emerge from a convergence of subjects a priori.

How energy is experienced as color, how energy as is, is experienced as sound, and how energy as is, is experienced as object. All these energies alter the physical body of a conscious subject, and what is experienced is how the body responds/reacts; be it color, sound, or object to differing forms of energy. You might call these energies simply energies, but to the conscious subject, they are its biological readout of what we call apparent reality, manifestations of biological reactions --- biological readout. A reality created by biology itself, where biology is the measure and meaning of all things.

Are you saying that energy is objective reality as it is?
Energy is actually a scientific reality which is conditioned upon the Science-Physics FSK which is ultimately intersubjective, not an absolutely independent objective reality.

Noted you are into Schopenhauer who believe what is objective-reality is the "WILL" that grounds all the 'biological readouts'.
Kant argued that such a 'Will' is illusory.

We can get tied up with semantics but what you are referring to as objective reality is what is also called ultimate reality, which is a place of no things. Scientists tell us that there is only energy, nothing else. So, in the same way, that we turn energy into sound or energy into color so we turn energy into object/s. What is considered our day-to-day reality or apparent reality is a biological readout. Apparent reality is how energy is experienced by a biological subject. This is the relation between subject and object which stand or fall together. To try a clarify, it is the organism that creates its own apparent reality out of the experiences of the alteration's energies make to the body of an organism, it is through this bodily process that we come to know a world without.

This Ultimate Reality aka Objective Reality when claimed as real is an illusion.
This illusion cannot be equated with the scientific reality of 'energy' E = MC2. Science never made any certain-claim that there is only energy and nothing else.

I have highlighted the thesis 2023 Nobel Prize of Physics proved there is no independent objective reality or ultimate reality.
You disagree with that?

[Skepdick]

It is a strawman.
You tried to be smart but actually you are ignorant and stupid in not representing facts correctly.

Show me which scientist and physicist in the world will not agree that this color is "red" in any of their experiments or statements? They will take it as this color is "red" without qualifying its wavelengths.
or any scientists in the past had not identify this this color is "red" as a fact.

The point is when scientists or physicists state this color is "red" as a fact they are mindful [or implied] of its reference to the specific wavelengths within the scientific-Physics FSK or model.
It is only when there is a dispute related the what the color really is that the question of wavelength is considered and verified.

It is only the ignorant like Peter Holmes and gang who do not recognize the concepts of FSK conditioned facts.

Do you need a lesson on history or something? Or a lesson on how anything which precedes an FSK cannot possibly be conditioned upon the FSK.

That color has been "red" for thousands of years.
This color was "red" way before we had a theory of light/colors.
This color was "red" before we had an FSK to condition it upon.

Humans evolved eons ago with a pattern-recognition algorithm, i.e. a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or "Model-dependent Realism".
That color has been 'red' for hundreds of thousands of years upon the human-being-cognitive-FSK with pattern-recognition FSK.
This pattern was necessary to identify the critical_ness human blood and ripen_ness of certain fruits to facilitate survival.

Other non-human living things do not have the same FSK of color recognition.

You seem confused. The word "red", and the common recognition of this color is not part of an FSK.

It's not part of any scientific theory; or a controlled vocabulary

[popeye1945]

Quantum physicists say that atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature. So, yes science does state that all is energy, and yes, I disagree with you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You seem confused. The word "red", and the common recognition of this color is not part of an FSK.

It's not part of any scientific theory; or a controlled vocabulary

My definition of a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK];

• A conceptual framework is an analytical tool with several variations and contexts. It can be applied in different categories of work where an overall picture is needed. It is used to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas. Strong conceptual frameworks capture something real and do this in a way that is easy to remember and apply.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_framework

While the above is very technical, human beings has evolved with some sort of informal Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] that enable groups to have shared knowledge to facilitate communications and therefrom survival.

The common recognition of this color with its specific word is part of a FSK.
Without a FSK, explicit nor implied there would be confusions.

[Skepdick]

You seem confused. The word "red", and the common recognition of this color is not part of an FSK.

It's not part of any scientific theory; or a controlled vocabulary

My definition of a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK];

• A conceptual framework is an analytical tool with several variations and contexts. It can be applied in different categories of work where an overall picture is needed. It is used to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas. Strong conceptual frameworks capture something real and do this in a way that is easy to remember and apply.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_framework

While the above is very technical, human beings has evolved with some sort of informal Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] that enable groups to have shared knowledge to facilitate communications and therefrom survival.

The common recognition of this color with its specific word is part of a FSK.
Without a FSK, explicit nor implied there would be confusions.

Oh boy. Here we go with the definitions again...

Precisely the point. You are trying to make it "very technical" e.g you are trying to synthesize a controlled vocabulary.

Despite me having pointed out to you that common language emerges organically and informally e.g NOT by design.

And in any case, it's not entirely clear to me how your "conceptual framework" is any different to what sociologists call Framing

[Veritas Aequitas]

Quantum physicists say that atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature. So, yes science does state that all is energy, and yes, I disagree with you.

I asked;

I have highlighted the thesis 2023 Nobel Prize of Physics proved there is no independent objective reality or ultimate reality.
You disagree with that?
Not disagree with me, but rather the thesis of the 2023 Nobel Prize of Physics.

..............
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nothing- ... d-djurisic

“If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr

[Thus even QM claimed "all is energy" - that cannot be absolutely and independently real]

Fortunately, many scientists have already taken the leap, and have already questioned the meaning and implications of what we’ve discovered with quantum physics. One of these potential revelations is that “the observer creates the reality.”

A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the OBSERVER CREATES THE REALITY. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the UNIVERSE IS "MENTAL CONSTRUCTION" .

Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005)

“Space is just a construct that gives the illusion that there are separate objects” Dr. Quantum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X93XMwOG66E

[Peter Holmes]

Here are two sentences, from the end and the beginning of a paragraph, quoted elsewhere by VA to support his claim that what we call facts don't exist.

'There is reality, to be sure, and there are entities in reality that we are able to name, but...'

'...we have no good reason to accept facts in our catalog [sic] of the world, on the major metaphysical theories of facts known to us.'

This kind of postmodernist crap has been passing for serious philosophy since at least the 1950s or 1960s. And VA thinks it supports an argument for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts. The contradiction and cognitive dissonance is mind-boggling.

[popeye1945]

There is no objective reality, in the sense that what is called ultimate reality is a place of no things. If all is energy then obviously what we consider objective reality, the place of objects, is brought about in the same way that sound or color is brought about through a biological readout of the energies that surround us. Objective reality is what the energies present mean to a conscious biological subject.

[Peter Holmes]

There is no objective reality, in the sense that what is called ultimate reality is a place of no things. If all is energy then obviously what we consider objective reality, the place of objects, is brought about in the same way that sound or color is brought about through a biological readout of the energies that surround us. Objective reality is what the energies present mean to a conscious biological subject.

Premise: Ultimate reality is a place of no things. (Essentialist mysticism. Is energy more real than matter?)
Conclusion: Therefore, to perceive and describe things is to create a reality. (Unsound inference.)

Premise: Only conscious beings can perceive and describe reality.
Conclusion: Therefore, conscious beings create reality. (Non sequitur. Mistaking what we know and say about things for the way things are.)

[Belinda]

There is no objective reality, in the sense that what is called ultimate reality is a place of no things. If all is energy then obviously what we consider objective reality, the place of objects, is brought about in the same way that sound or color is brought about through a biological readout of the energies that surround us. Objective reality is what the energies present mean to a conscious biological subject.

If objective reality is a process of becoming, but not a fixed once and for all thing, then change is intrinsic to ultimate reality. We already know change is intrinsic to temporal reality and that biological subjects' experiences are possible only as changes from one experience to another.

Undifferentiated experience is possible only when quiddity consciousness does not intervene to stop it.

[popeye1945]

There is no objective reality, in the sense that what is called ultimate reality is a place of no things. If all is energy then obviously what we consider objective reality, the place of objects, is brought about in the same way that sound or color is brought about through a biological readout of the energies that surround us. Objective reality is what the energies present mean to a conscious biological subject.

If objective reality is a process of becoming, but not a fixed once and for all thing, then change is intrinsic to ultimate reality. We already know change is intrinsic to temporal reality and that biological subjects' experiences are possible only as changes from one experience to another.
Undifferentiated experience is possible only when quiddity consciousness does not intervene to stop it.

All things are processes and changes are indeed intrinsic to ultimate reality, things or objects come into being for various periods of time and go back into that soup of the cosmos/space. The last statement is very interesting, I'll have to ponder that one awhile.

[Belinda]

There is no objective reality, in the sense that what is called ultimate reality is a place of no things. If all is energy then obviously what we consider objective reality, the place of objects, is brought about in the same way that sound or color is brought about through a biological readout of the energies that surround us. Objective reality is what the energies present mean to a conscious biological subject.

If objective reality is a process of becoming, but not a fixed once and for all thing, then change is intrinsic to ultimate reality. We already know change is intrinsic to temporal reality and that biological subjects' experiences are possible only as changes from one experience to another.
Undifferentiated experience is possible only when quiddity consciousness does not intervene to stop it.

All things are processes and changes are indeed intrinsic to ultimate reality, things or objects come into being for various periods of time and go back into that soup of the cosmos/space. The last statement is very interesting, I'll have to ponder that one awhile.

If you could help me with the matter or that last sentence I'd be grateful, as I have difficulty with it myself. It's not hard for me to believe what I wrote, to believe it makes sense within reason, but it is very hard to try to see the view from eternity. I wonder if anyone can actually experience that view, and I doubt it.

[popeye1945]

If objective reality is a process of becoming, but not a fixed once and for all thing, then change is intrinsic to ultimate reality. We already know change is intrinsic to temporal reality and that biological subjects' experiences are possible only as changes from one experience to another.
Undifferentiated experience is possible only when quiddity consciousness does not intervene to stop it.

All things are processes and changes are indeed intrinsic to ultimate reality, things or objects come into being for various periods of time and go back into that soup of the cosmos/space. The last statement is very interesting, I'll have to ponder that one awhile.

If you could help me with the matter or that last sentence, I'd be grateful, as I have difficulty with it myself. It's not hard for me to believe what I wrote, to believe it makes sense within reason, but it is very hard to try to see the view from eternity. I wonder if anyone can actually experience that view, and I doubt it.

The only thing I can think of is undifferentiated experience would be, a blur or utter darkness, as a consistent color with no variation in shade or intensity. One might ask why blind people experience darkness, and why not have no experience or perhaps it's the same thing. Organisms with no eyes find differentiation through tactical means. As a consistent condition it is to be without consciousness, for without a world as fuel for said consciousness it ceases to be along with the world.

[Belinda]

All things are processes and changes are indeed intrinsic to ultimate reality, things or objects come into being for various periods of time and go back into that soup of the cosmos/space. The last statement is very interesting, I'll have to ponder that one awhile.

If you could help me with the matter or that last sentence, I'd be grateful, as I have difficulty with it myself. It's not hard for me to believe what I wrote, to believe it makes sense within reason, but it is very hard to try to see the view from eternity. I wonder if anyone can actually experience that view, and I doubt it.

The only thing I can think of is undifferentiated experience would be, a blur or utter darkness, as a consistent color with no variation in shade or intensity. One might ask why blind people experience darkness, and why not have no experience or perhaps it's the same thing. Organisms with no eyes find differentiation through tactical means. As a consistent condition it is to be without consciousness, for without a world as fuel for said consciousness it ceases to be along with the world.

To be sure, a mental picture of eternity would not differentiate between self and not-self. Also, causation would become absolute in the sense of what we had been thinking of as differentiated events would be viewed as items in a subjective analysis of some whole, such that if you knew everything there is to know about a differentiated thing or event you would know the integrated whole.

If that is true then morality , as the good, the true, is what links the temporal and the eternal.

[popeye1945]

If you could help me with the matter or that last sentence, I'd be grateful, as I have difficulty with it myself. It's not hard for me to believe what I wrote, to believe it makes sense within reason, but it is very hard to try to see the view from eternity. I wonder if anyone can actually experience that view, and I doubt it.

The only thing I can think of is undifferentiated experience would be, a blur or utter darkness, as a consistent color with no variation in shade or intensity. One might ask why blind people experience darkness, and why not have no experience or perhaps it's the same thing. Organisms with no eyes find differentiation through tactical means. As a consistent condition it is to be without consciousness, for without a world as fuel for said consciousness it ceases to be along with the world.

To be sure, a mental picture of eternity would not differentiate between self and not self. Also, causation would become absolute in the sense of what we had been thinking of as differentiated events would be viewed as items in a subjective analysis of some whole, such that if you knew everything there is to know about a differentiated thing or event you would know the integrated whole.
If that is true then morality, as the good, the true, is what links the temporal and the eternal.

Actually, wholeness I think although making perfect sense to our everyday world is not a realistic foundation for the quest of understanding the world of frequencies and vibrations. I prefer to think in terms of un-totality for there are no naturally closed systems and where one is created its duration is only as long as it limited source of energy. It also lends itself to the imagination, to the contemplation of eternity as being totally open and never-ending. I started a thread on it but it is not very popular, the un-totality. It is the process of experience that creates a self as in owning the experience, one doesn't even have to have a more elaborate identity than an anonymous self; that which is alive. Only when it is embraced in society is it clothed in context identity. The fact that there are no closed systems really underlines the fact that there are no wholes, no independent existents. Manifestations are temporary; the source is eternal un-totality.