What could make morality objective?

[Terrapin Station]

You know brains exist as objects.You know brains are 'active' or 'inactive'. Mind is the subjective experience of activated brain state.

And? There's no reason to think 'the subjective experience of activated brain state' is anything abstract or non-physical.

Minds surely by definition are not physical ; mental implies not -physical, if you are talking within the common FSK of modern science , and the common FSB of substance ontology.
You and I experience activated brain states both as objective observers of others and also as subjects of our own experiences.

Oh no! Veritas, aka Fisky Fiskerton, is infecting other people. You're using the "FSK" terminology!

At any rate, re defining mentality as nonphysical, would you say that it we were to define a coffee maker as nonphysical, it's thus nonphysical? Or would it maybe be that it would make more sense to define coffee makers as physical, since they're made out of plastic and metal and such?

[Peter Holmes]

You know brains exist as objects.You know brains are 'active' or 'inactive'. Mind is the subjective experience of activated brain state.

And? There's no reason to think 'the subjective experience of activated brain state' is anything abstract or non-physical.

Minds surely by definition are not physical ; mental implies not -physical, if you are talking within the common FSK of modern science , and the common FSB of substance ontology.
You and I experience activated brain states both as objective observers of others and also as subjects of our own experiences.

'Minds surely by definition are not physical.' But we can't define things into or out of existence. They either do or don't exist. And there's no evidence, to my knowledge, for the existence of non-physical things. We've just been saying there are such things for so long that pointing out the emperor has no clothes is deeply disturbing. When asked to produce evience for the claim, all people ever do is repeat the claim, as though that counts as evidence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And? There's no reason to think 'the subjective experience of activated brain state' is anything abstract or non-physical.

Minds surely by definition are not physical ; mental implies not -physical, if you are talking within the common FSK of modern science , and the common FSB of substance ontology.
You and I experience activated brain states both as objective observers of others and also as subjects of our own experiences.

'Minds surely by definition are not physical.'
But we can't define things into or out of existence.
They either do or don't exist.
And there's no evidence, to my knowledge, for the existence of non-physical things.

We've just been saying there are such things for so long that pointing out the emperor has no clothes is deeply disturbing. When asked to produce evience for the claim, all people ever do is repeat the claim, as though that counts as evidence.

Are you saying you don't have a mind?

Are you insisting psychiatry, psychology thus psychiatrists and psychologists are all nonsense and stupid/delusional to deal with something that do not exists?

• Psychiatry
  the practice or science of diagnosing and treating mental disorders.

• Psychology
  the science of the mind or of mental states and processes.
  the science of human and animal behavior.
  the sum or characteristics of the mental states and processes of a person or class of persons, or of the mental states and processes involved in a field of activity:
  the psychology of a soldier; the psychology of politics.
  mental ploys or strategy:
  He used psychology on his parents to get a larger allowance.

• Mental
  of or relating to the mind:
  mental powers; mental suffering.
  of, relating to, or affected by a disorder of the mind:
  a mental patient; mental illness.
  providing care for persons with disordered minds, emotions, etc.:
  a mental hospital.
  performed by or existing in the mind:
  mental arithmetic; a mental note.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mental?s=t

As Wittgenstein had stated and implied,
"whatever is the meaning of a word is in its use" [PI S43]

Note the early-Wittgenstein was a fanatical classical analytical philosopher but in later he killed classical analytical philosophy and that 'meaning of a word is within the word'.

It would be very stupid of you to deny the existence of 'the mind as physical*' within the psychiatry and psychology FSK. * as in Physicalism.
Note the practical positives [netting of negatives] psychiatry and psychology had contributed to the individuals and humanity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And? There's no reason to think 'the subjective experience of activated brain state' is anything abstract or non-physical.

Minds surely by definition are not physical ; mental implies not -physical, if you are talking within the common FSK of modern science , and the common FSB of substance ontology.
You and I experience activated brain states both as objective observers of others and also as subjects of our own experiences.

Oh no! Veritas, aka Fisky Fiskerton, is infecting other people. You're using the "FSK" terminology!

At any rate, re defining mentality as nonphysical, would you say that it we were to define a coffee maker as nonphysical, it's thus nonphysical? Or would it maybe be that it would make more sense to define coffee makers as physical, since they're made out of plastic and metal and such?

When you resort of 'put down' that is a sign of the doubting of your confidence in your knowledge database and it is getting flimsy.

I did not expect you to be so ignorant and stupid with the concept of Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Point is all classes of knowledge must be conditioned upon its respective FSK.

Note this to enlighten you;

A conceptual system is a system that is composed of non-physical objects, i.e. ideas or concepts. In this context a system is taken to mean "an interrelated, interworking set of objects".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptua ... _framework

A conceptual framework is used in research to outline possible courses of action or to present a preferred approach to a system analysis project. It has also been defined as the organization of ideas to achieve a purpose[4] The framework is built from a set of concepts linked to a planned or existing system of methods, behaviors, functions, relationships, and objects. A conceptual framework might, in computing terms, be thought of as a relational model.

For example, a conceptual framework of accounting "seeks to identify the nature, subject, purpose and broad content of general-purpose financial reporting and the qualitative characteristics that financial information should possess".[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptua ... _framework

Also 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]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

[Belinda]

And? There's no reason to think 'the subjective experience of activated brain state' is anything abstract or non-physical.

Minds surely by definition are not physical ; mental implies not -physical, if you are talking within the common FSK of modern science , and the common FSB of substance ontology.
You and I experience activated brain states both as objective observers of others and also as subjects of our own experiences.

Oh no! Veritas, aka Fisky Fiskerton, is infecting other people. You're using the "FSK" terminology!

At any rate, re defining mentality as nonphysical, would you say that it we were to define a coffee maker as nonphysical, it's thus nonphysical? Or would it maybe be that it would make more sense to define coffee makers as physical, since they're made out of plastic and metal and such?

A coffee maker is never subjected to experience whereas a living brain-mind is subjected to experience.

The basic subjective experience is the quale.

It's not good to be snobbish about protoplasm versus plastic and metal and such. What matters about artificial intelligence is whether or not an AI machine experiences qualia. If it experiences qualia then it deserves to be considered for rights as a subject of experience.

[Peter Holmes]

Minds surely by definition are not physical ; mental implies not -physical, if you are talking within the common FSK of modern science , and the common FSB of substance ontology.
You and I experience activated brain states both as objective observers of others and also as subjects of our own experiences.

'Minds surely by definition are not physical.'
But we can't define things into or out of existence.
They either do or don't exist.
And there's no evidence, to my knowledge, for the existence of non-physical things.

We've just been saying there are such things for so long that pointing out the emperor has no clothes is deeply disturbing. When asked to produce evience for the claim, all people ever do is repeat the claim, as though that counts as evidence.

Are you saying you don't have a mind?

Are you insisting psychiatry, psychology thus psychiatrists and psychologists are all nonsense and stupid/delusional to deal with something that do not exists?

• Psychiatry
  the practice or science of diagnosing and treating mental disorders.

• Psychology
  the science of the mind or of mental states and processes.
  the science of human and animal behavior.
  the sum or characteristics of the mental states and processes of a person or class of persons, or of the mental states and processes involved in a field of activity:
  the psychology of a soldier; the psychology of politics.
  mental ploys or strategy:
  He used psychology on his parents to get a larger allowance.

• Mental
  of or relating to the mind:
  mental powers; mental suffering.
  of, relating to, or affected by a disorder of the mind:
  a mental patient; mental illness.
  providing care for persons with disordered minds, emotions, etc.:
  a mental hospital.
  performed by or existing in the mind:
  mental arithmetic; a mental note.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mental?s=t

As Wittgenstein had stated and implied,
"whatever is the meaning of a word is in its use" [PI S43]

Note the early-Wittgenstein was a fanatical classical analytical philosopher but in later he killed classical analytical philosophy and that 'meaning of a word is within the word'.

It would be very stupid of you to deny the existence of 'the mind as physical*' within the psychiatry and psychology FSK. * as in Physicalism.
Note the practical positives [netting of negatives] psychiatry and psychology had contributed to the individuals and humanity.

Me: To my knowledge, there's no evidence for the existence of any non-physical thing.
VA: Are you saying you don't have a mind?

Phew. The rapier-cut and thrust of philosophical conversation.

(I suggest you stop referring to Wittgenstein, because your misunderstanding of his ideas is embarrassing.)

[Terrapin Station]

A coffee maker is never subjected to experience whereas a living brain-mind is subjected to experience.

So is this saying that what makes mind nonphysical isn't that it's defined that way?

[Belinda]

A coffee maker is never subjected to experience whereas a living brain-mind is subjected to experience.

So is this saying that what makes mind nonphysical isn't that it's defined that way?

Minds are mental, and brains are physical, and the two ontic substances mind and matter , cannot meet except via the pineal gland or some such add-on hypothesis. This definition is peculiar to Cartesian dualists and is dualist because it posits two separate ontic substances.
So, yes, mind is defined as non physical by Cartesian dualists.

The other theory of existence that defines mind as non-physical is idealism which is not substance dualist but is a substance monist theory of existence.For an idealist everything is basically mind substance.

I say a coffee maker cannot experience qualia and so, however smart the coffee maker, mentality does not apply to it. For a coffee maker quality of life is irrelevant.

My preferred belief is that for those beings that can experience qualia the physical and the mental are two aspects of the same substance which has mental and physical aspects.

Ontology is speculative and pragmatic. Theories of existence are a matter of choice. How theories of existence are understood and expressed is irrelevant to what is the case. Epistemology and ontology are separate therefore thinking and believing do not make ontic reality whatever that may be.

[Terrapin Station]

A coffee maker is never subjected to experience whereas a living brain-mind is subjected to experience.

So is this saying that what makes mind nonphysical isn't that it's defined that way?

Minds are mental, and brains are physical, and the two ontic substances mind and matter , cannot meet except via the pineal gland or some such add-on hypothesis. This definition is peculiar to Cartesian dualists and is dualist because it posits two separate ontic substances.
So, yes, mind is defined as non physical by Cartesian dualists.

The other theory of existence that defines mind as non-physical is idealism which is not substance dualist but is a substance monist theory of existence.For an idealist everything is basically mind substance.

I say a coffee maker cannot experience qualia and so, however smart the coffee maker, mentality does not apply to it. For a coffee maker quality of life is irrelevant.

My preferred belief is that for those beings that can experience qualia the physical and the mental are two aspects of the same substance which has mental and physical aspects.

Ontology is speculative and pragmatic. Theories of existence are a matter of choice. How theories of existence are understood and expressed is irrelevant to what is the case. Epistemology and ontology are separate therefore thinking and believing do not make ontic reality whatever that may be.

Also curious if you're limiting "nonphysical" to mental stuff?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Me: To my knowledge, there's no evidence for the existence of any non-physical thing.
VA: Are you saying you don't have a mind?

Phew. The rapier-cut and thrust of philosophical conversation.

In your own words;

• 'Minds surely by definition are not physical.'
  But we can't define things into or out of existence.
  They either do or don't exist.
  And there's no evidence, to my knowledge, for the existence of non-physical things.

(I suggest you stop referring to Wittgenstein, because your misunderstanding of his ideas is embarrassing.)

How so?

[Peter Holmes]

Me: To my knowledge, there's no evidence for the existence of any non-physical thing.
VA: Are you saying you don't have a mind?

Phew. The rapier-cut and thrust of philosophical conversation.

In your own words;

• 'Minds surely by definition are not physical.'
  But we can't define things into or out of existence.
  They either do or don't exist.
  And there's no evidence, to my knowledge, for the existence of non-physical things.

(I suggest you stop referring to Wittgenstein, because your misunderstanding of his ideas is embarrassing.)

How so?

Have a look at these two claims.

1 To my knowledge, there's no evidence for the existence of any non-physical thing.

2 Minds surely by definition are not physical.

I assume you can see the problem. We can't name, define, describe or argue things into or out of existence. They either do or don't exist, regardless of the ways we describe them. [In VA speak - regardless of the FSK within which they are asserted.]

So we can't define the mind into existence. What we call the mind either does or doesn't exist. And, as for any existence-claim, empirical evidence is required. None so far, to my knowledge. Just the claim endlessly repeated - as for all other non-physical or abstract things.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

So we can't define the mind into existence. What we call the mind either does or doesn't exist. And, as for any existence-claim, empirical evidence is required. None so far, to my knowledge. Just the claim endlessly repeated - as for all other non-physical or abstract things.

There is no empirical evidence that minds (qualia) exist.What we do have is immediate experience of minds (qualia). If you agree there are other minds then it follows minds exist, on the basis of immediate subjective experience.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote:

So we can't define the mind into existence. What we call the mind either does or doesn't exist. And, as for any existence-claim, empirical evidence is required. None so far, to my knowledge. Just the claim endlessly repeated - as for all other non-physical or abstract things.

There is no empirical evidence that minds (qualia) exist.What we do have is immediate experience of minds (qualia). If you agree there are other minds then it follows minds exist, on the basis of immediate subjective experience.

And there's no reason to believe that what we experience is anything other than physical. Calling things 'qualia' makes no difference. Saying things are abstract or non-physical is just a bad habit.

[Skepdick]

And there's no reason to believe that what we experience is anything other than physical. Calling things 'qualia' makes no difference. Saying things are abstract or non-physical is just a bad habit.

That's a moral claim.

How is a "habit" different from a "bad habit"?

[Belinda]

So is this saying that what makes mind nonphysical isn't that it's defined that way?

Minds are mental, and brains are physical, and the two ontic substances mind and matter , cannot meet except via the pineal gland or some such add-on hypothesis. This definition is peculiar to Cartesian dualists and is dualist because it posits two separate ontic substances.
So, yes, mind is defined as non physical by Cartesian dualists.

The other theory of existence that defines mind as non-physical is idealism which is not substance dualist but is a substance monist theory of existence.For an idealist everything is basically mind substance.

I say a coffee maker cannot experience qualia and so, however smart the coffee maker, mentality does not apply to it. For a coffee maker quality of life is irrelevant.

My preferred belief is that for those beings that can experience qualia the physical and the mental are two aspects of the same substance which has mental and physical aspects.

Ontology is speculative and pragmatic. Theories of existence are a matter of choice. How theories of existence are understood and expressed is irrelevant to what is the case. Epistemology and ontology are separate therefore thinking and believing do not make ontic reality whatever that may be.

Also curious if you're limiting "nonphysical" to mental stuff?

There are perhaps aspects of nature that fit neither mental nor physical, however our intuitions cannot cope with envisaging such.