Moral Facts are Mental NOT Physical States!

[Peter Holmes]

This is so pathetic, you are so ignorant and you do not know what substance realism is about.
Read it here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#SubDua
and you will note it has nothing to do with the OP.
Show me how the details I presented in the OP are related to substance realism as explained above.

My point is moral facts are like emotion-as-fact, i.e.
within the Psychological FSK, etc. there exist within our brain the set of neurons from various parts of the brain [emotion-as-fact] that will trigger emotional feelings when triggered by the appropriate stimuli.

It is the same with the sexual drive as fact, i.e.
within the Sexuality FSK, etc. there exist within our brain the set of neurons from various parts of the brain [sexual_drive-as-fact] that will trigger sexual feelings and behaviors when triggered by the appropriate stimuli.

The emotional and sexual potentials [supported by it physical parts] within all humans are not pure physical states, but non-physical states as potentials.

Thus,
within the moral FSK there exists within our brain the set of neurons from various parts of the brain [moral facts] that will trigger moral behavior when triggered by the appropriate stimuli.

If you think there are mental states and events that are different from physical states and events, then you are a substance dualist. Own it.

Own what? your stupidity?

You have not answered my question.
Do you agree, the potential-for-emotions in humans is a fact? Yes or No.

But anyway, this is the same specious argument: we're 'programmed' not to do X; therefore X is morally wrong.
Or: we're 'programmed' with an emotional response - say, revulsion - to X; therefore X is morally wrong. The moral conclusion doesn't follow in either case.

The above is not wrong and irrelevant to morality.
The potential-for-emotions in humans is a fact as analogous to the potential-for-morality in human as a fact.

I did not relate emotions to morality in the above case, but merely their potentials are both psychological facts.

I don't prefer the term 'morally wrong' but where humans acts out of alignment with the inherent moral facts, that is a moral deviation from the norms within a moral framework and system.

But if, instead, your preferred conclusion is: therefore X is inconsistent with our 'programming' - that is no longer a moral assertion, and has no moral implication. But that penny just won't drop for you.
Nul point.

It has moral implications when conditioned upon a moral framework and system.

The general principle is, a proposition has X implications when conditioned upon an X framework and system.
E.g. the common liquid we drink and use to bathe has scientific implications [i.e. is H20] when conditioned only upon the scientific [chemistry] FSK.

Wtf? Humans have emotions. Yes. And? Why does that mean there are moral facts?

Same mistake every time. 'Here's a fact; therefore there's a moral fact.'

How can a fact be evidence for the existence of a moral fact? If consistency with a supposed moral fact is all you have to show the existence of moral facts - you ain't even made it to the starting post. Nul point.

[Age]

... OBVIOUS.
... ANSWER ... TWO VERY DIFFERENT WORDS to EXPLAIN ... EXACT SAME STATE or EXACT SAME THING?... CLAIM ... CLAIMING ... is OBVIOUSLY a WRONG ... MEAN ... ONE ... ALWAYS WRONG,...BELIEVE that ALL ... ALWAYS WRONG?
VERY MUCH ... COMES FROM ... ACTUALLY BELIEVE ... is ACTUALLY ... TWO DIFFERENT WORDS/TERMS?
...OF COURSE,...HAVE TO ... ABOUT ... NOTHING WHATSOEVER...LOOKING and SEEING ... REFER to EXACTLY?
.. AWARE ... CLEARLY SEEN ... YOUR OWN PERSONAL ASSUMPTION... YOU COMPLETELY ASTRAY, ... ALREADY ... BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS a... SEE CLEARLY .. CLEARLY WRITTEN. ... SEEING ...ASSUME ...PRESUME ... BEING MEANT.

Yet another shouty rant.

OR, it could be some 'thing' else, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

BUT, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE to ASSUME ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, BEFORE you gain ANY ACTUAL CLARITY, AT ALL.

Also, have you actually got ANY thing that you want to challenge me on, claim is wrong, or just question me about? Or, is just me using some capital letters the ONLY thing you want to bring up and highlight here?

[Veritas Aequitas]

All mental states are physical brain states, so no. Your statement is always wrong. You cannot have a mental state that is not physical too.
Facts are referents. Whilst they all exist as mental states, they most often refer to external physical states. These can be very complex, such as a state of affairs with multiple conditions and situations.
For example the statement.
"The UK is fucked"
Is a fact deep in metaphor. Not to be taken literally, and refers to: the reaction of several European countries' and their reaction to the news that the UK had discovered a new COVID strain; problems regarding the lack of a trade deal with the EU; an absurd attachment to the monarch and peole absurdly clinging to its imperial past; the failure to control the media's continual war on democracy; ad infinitem...

There can be no mental without physical. That is inductively and empirically true

The existence of the US Dollar is a fact.
Do you deny this?

"The dollar" is a concept. It is represented variously by bits of paper, small metal objects, and lines of computer code. It wholy relies on belief. THe dollar can exist without these things and the existence of these things does not necessitate the existence of the dollar. If you think they do then ask anyone who owns a quantity of cancelled currency.

I asked,
Is the existence of the US Dollar a fact - an economic fact?
Yes or No?

Whatever is a fact is represented by a concept of it.

The US Dollar is an economic fact of value
If state the USD Dollar relies on belief,
then beliefs can be fact, and
fact can be value.

The US Dollar is not backed by any physical gold standard.
The US Dollar as an ECONOMIC fact is purely mental.

ALL mental states are ultimately physical, since the physicality of the human brain is required to reproduce then. Were there a cessation of that cerebral activity which generates and promotes the belief in the dollar the dollar would be meaningless.

Yes all mental states are grounded on the physical brain -that's ABC.
True if there are no humans to believe, there is no US Dollar.

Point is the US Dollar is an economic fact that is primarily based on mental states not the paper or computer storage.

Do you deny your existence as a 'me' is a fact.
The 'me' [empirical self] as a fact is purely mental.
Without the mental 'you' are merely a corpse.

The generic potential within humans for emotions [mental state*] is a fact.
Analogously,
the generic potential within humans for morality [mental state] is a fact.
* yes, this mental state is supported by the relevant physical.

This is just irrelevant gibberish.

The above is show you the significance of the mental over the physical.

Facts are referents.

There are no independent referent without any reference to the human conditions.
Note there is no objective to any referent,
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424

What is the point of your post here?

You stated 'facts are referents' i.e. the real feature of objective reality.
The link from Hoffman claimed,
there are no real feature of objective reality.

Thus what you think is fact as something very real is an illusion.

[Sculptor]

The existence of the US Dollar is a fact.
Do you deny this?

"The dollar" is a concept. It is represented variously by bits of paper, small metal objects, and lines of computer code. It wholy relies on belief. THe dollar can exist without these things and the existence of these things does not necessitate the existence of the dollar. If you think they do then ask anyone who owns a quantity of cancelled currency.

I asked,
Is the existence of the US Dollar a fact - an economic fact?
Yes or No?

"Economic" is another concept, that is held in the cerebral cortexes of humans.
Like all such things, it is materially and physically represented by what we call concepts.
Without humans there is no dollar, there is no economy and and so on.

Whatever is a fact is represented by a concept of it.

No that would be silly. In this case, if you want to call economy or dollar a fact, then facts are conceptual. You have the cart before the horse.

The US Dollar is an economic fact of value
If state the USD Dollar relies on belief,
then beliefs can be fact, and
fact can be value.

You are just falling down a rabbit hole of your own construction.
You are saying that any belief has to be factual. How stupid is that?
I beleive in fairies, therefore they are factual.
You really need to stop and think about what you are saying.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"The dollar" is a concept. It is represented variously by bits of paper, small metal objects, and lines of computer code. It wholy relies on belief. THe dollar can exist without these things and the existence of these things does not necessitate the existence of the dollar. If you think they do then ask anyone who owns a quantity of cancelled currency.

I asked,
Is the existence of the US Dollar a fact - an economic fact?
Yes or No?

"Economic" is another concept, that is held in the cerebral cortexes of humans.
Like all such things, it is materially and physically represented by what we call concepts.
Without humans there is no dollar, there is no economy and and so on.

Whatever is a fact is represented by a concept of it.

No that would be silly. In this case, if you want to call economy or dollar a fact, then facts are conceptual. You have the cart before the horse.

The US Dollar is an economic fact of value
If state the USD Dollar relies on belief,
then beliefs can be fact, and
fact can be value.

You are just falling down a rabbit hole of your own construction.
You are saying that any belief has to be factual. How stupid is that?
I beleive in fairies, therefore they are factual.
You really need to stop and think about what you are saying.

Do you deny 'there are economic facts'?

Can you repeat and confirm this,
'There are no economic facts.'

I believe in fairies, therefore they are factual.

Suppose, in this case, you are schizophrenic.
Your believing [the mental activities] is factual, the fairies are not factual.
I can justify it is a fact [psychological and neuroscience] you are believing in term of mental processes of believing.

But the fairies cannot be justified as a fact or real until empirical evidence are produced to verify and justified fairies are real within the scientific framework and system.

But the US Dollar is based on belief [not on real gold equivalent].
Despite grounded on belief and trust [which can be verified empirically], the US Dollar is also an economic fact because it can be traded as a real currency of value.
No one at present would deny the US Dollar is objectively real otherwise no one would hold such currency in their bank or in physical pieces of dollars.
It is an economic fact that is represent by its physical correlates in the brain.

If you insist whatever US Dollar you have in the bank or in paper is not a fact, thus not objective real, why don't you just throw them away?

Your resistance to the above fact is due to ignorance, being dogmatic and bigoted.
You need to expand your knowledge for you own well being.

[Skepdick]

This post sums up to one question: Do you believe in belief?

[Sculptor]

I asked,
Is the existence of the US Dollar a fact - an economic fact?
Yes or No?

"Economic" is another concept, that is held in the cerebral cortexes of humans.
Like all such things, it is materially and physically represented by what we call concepts.
Without humans there is no dollar, there is no economy and and so on.

Whatever is a fact is represented by a concept of it.

No that would be silly. In this case, if you want to call economy or dollar a fact, then facts are conceptual. You have the cart before the horse.

The US Dollar is an economic fact of value
If state the USD Dollar relies on belief,
then beliefs can be fact, and
fact can be value.

You are just falling down a rabbit hole of your own construction.
You are saying that any belief has to be factual. How stupid is that?
I beleive in fairies, therefore they are factual.
You really need to stop and think about what you are saying.

Do you deny 'there are economic facts'?

Can you repeat and confirm this,
'There are no economic facts.'

I believe in fairies, therefore they are factual.

Suppose, in this case, you are schizophrenic.
Your believing [the mental activities] is factual, the fairies are not factual.
I can justify it is a fact [psychological and neuroscience] you are believing in term of mental processes of believing.

But the fairies cannot be justified as a fact or real until empirical evidence are produced to verify and justified fairies are real within the scientific framework and system.

But the US Dollar is based on belief [not on real gold equivalent].
Despite grounded on belief and trust [which can be verified empirically], the US Dollar is also an economic fact because it can be traded as a real currency of value.
No one at present would deny the US Dollar is objectively real otherwise no one would hold such currency in their bank or in physical pieces of dollars.
It is an economic fact that is represent by its physical correlates in the brain.

If you insist whatever US Dollar you have in the bank or in paper is not a fact, thus not objective real, why don't you just throw them away?

Your resistance to the above fact is due to ignorance, being dogmatic and bigoted.
You need to expand your knowledge for you own well being.

There is definitely something fundamentally wrong with your cognition.

[Skepdick]

There is definitely something fundementally wrogn with your cognition.

For somebody who rejects moral facts you sure like to assert "fundamental wrongness" a lot...

Care to justify your normative framework, or are you going to go into your usual meltdown?

[Walker]

Here is a discussion that where I argue, Moral Facts justified within a moral framework and system [FSK] are significantly mental-states within an individual person in reality and are not SOLELY physical states. It has a physiological basis.

You’re on the right track and all you need is the perfect proof to make it Law. Not that I have the perfect proof, but I’ve noticed that yes, people do have inherent morality.

How else could traffic flow at 75 mph on a packed freeway zooming around curves and changing lanes with no paint job suffering narry a scratch? And when walking in crowds, people don’t touch. If you feel a touch, someone might be in your pocket.

Of course, inherent morality can be corrupted by conditions, just as the inherent savagery of a wildcat can be tamed by conditions.

For example, let's say a person of inherent sense of fairness, with the inherent sense of right and wrong, accidentally kills someone.

Or, such an inherently fair person is required by his country to go war and kill people. He’s young and has been taught that to be an adult, one must do disagreeable things, or that disagreeable things will happen by accident. What this means is, one must overcome one’s inherent sense of morality.

So, he figures this is just a part of life. What is inherently disagreeable, or abhorrent, must sometimes be done in the name of … whatever.

This advice will only help a little bit in assuaging the psychological pain so intense that it becomes what's commonly called physical pain (creating a false mental/physical dichotomy), pain caused by corrupting the inherent sense of morality. Because killing was done, a moral line was crossed and this good person will be haunted for the rest of their days, and psychologically this person will always feel somewhat apart from the human race.

But this need not be so. There are those skilled with corrupting conditions to crush inherent morality. The formula is simple. Raid a village and steal the boys. Force them to kill people, over and over. If they do kill, they win admiration from their superiors. If they don’t, they die. Because of their inherent will to live, they kill. Simple formula with many variations and applications, such as killing the inherent goodness in oneself.

A different angle to view this comes from The Tell-Tale Heart, and Crime and Punishment. In each of these artful psychological studies, arrogance challenges inherent morality, and loses.

Crossing that line can eat human physicality from the inside out. Psychopaths are a different breed, exceptions of some sort, perhaps evolutionary, and are characterized by a lack of inherent morality.

Crossing that moral line might* even be perpetrated into inherency by DNA, resulting in Morlocks and Eloi.


* I'm no expert about DNA, but I've read about it, thus the weasel word "might."

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Economic" is another concept, that is held in the cerebral cortexes of humans.
Like all such things, it is materially and physically represented by what we call concepts.
Without humans there is no dollar, there is no economy and and so on.

No that would be silly. In this case, if you want to call economy or dollar a fact, then facts are conceptual. You have the cart before the horse.

You are just falling down a rabbit hole of your own construction.
You are saying that any belief has to be factual. How stupid is that?
I beleive in fairies, therefore they are factual.
You really need to stop and think about what you are saying.

Do you deny 'there are economic facts'?

Can you repeat and confirm this,
'There are no economic facts.'

I believe in fairies, therefore they are factual.

Suppose, in this case, you are schizophrenic.
Your believing [the mental activities] is factual, the fairies are not factual.
I can justify it is a fact [psychological and neuroscience] you are believing in term of mental processes of believing.

But the fairies cannot be justified as a fact or real until empirical evidence are produced to verify and justified fairies are real within the scientific framework and system.

But the US Dollar is based on belief [not on real gold equivalent].
Despite grounded on belief and trust [which can be verified empirically], the US Dollar is also an economic fact because it can be traded as a real currency of value.
No one at present would deny the US Dollar is objectively real otherwise no one would hold such currency in their bank or in physical pieces of dollars.
It is an economic fact that is represent by its physical correlates in the brain.

If you insist whatever US Dollar you have in the bank or in paper is not a fact, thus not objective real, why don't you just throw them away?

Your resistance to the above fact is due to ignorance, being dogmatic and bigoted.
You need to expand your knowledge for you own well being.

There is definitely something fundamentally wrong with your cognition.

It just show you have run out of arguments that are of substance to counter my arguments.

Show me precisely which of my premise is wrong?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a discussion that where I argue, Moral Facts justified within a moral framework and system [FSK] are significantly mental-states within an individual person in reality and are not SOLELY physical states. It has a physiological basis.

You’re on the right track and all you need is the perfect proof to make it Law. Not that I have the perfect proof, but I’ve noticed that yes, people do have inherent morality.

How else could traffic flow at 75 mph on a packed freeway zooming around curves and changing lanes with no paint job suffering narry a scratch? And when walking in crowds, people don’t touch. If you feel a touch, someone might be in your pocket.

Of course, inherent morality can be corrupted by conditions, just as the inherent savagery of a wildcat can be tamed by conditions.

For example, let's say a person of inherent sense of fairness, with the inherent sense of right and wrong, accidentally kills someone.

Or, such an inherently fair person is required by his country to go war and kill people. He’s young and has been taught that to be an adult, one must do disagreeable things, or that disagreeable things will happen by accident. What this means is, one must overcome one’s inherent sense of morality.

So, he figures this is just a part of life. What is inherently disagreeable, or abhorrent, must sometimes be done in the name of … whatever.

This advice will only help a little bit in assuaging the psychological pain so intense that it becomes what's commonly called physical pain (creating a false mental/physical dichotomy), pain caused by corrupting the inherent sense of morality. Because killing was done, a moral line was crossed and this good person will be haunted for the rest of their days, and psychologically this person will always feel somewhat apart from the human race.

But this need not be so. There are those skilled with corrupting conditions to crush inherent morality. The formula is simple. Raid a village and steal the boys. Force them to kill people, over and over. If they do kill, they win admiration from their superiors. If they don’t, they die. Because of their inherent will to live, they kill. Simple formula with many variations and applications, such as killing the inherent goodness in oneself.

A different angle to view this comes from The Tell-Tale Heart, and Crime and Punishment. In each of these artful psychological studies, arrogance challenges inherent morality, and loses.

Crossing that line can eat human physicality from the inside out. Psychopaths are a different breed, exceptions of some sort, perhaps evolutionary, and are characterized by a lack of inherent morality.

Crossing that moral line might* even be perpetrated into inherency by DNA, resulting in Morlocks and Eloi.

* I'm no expert about DNA, but I've read about it, thus the weasel word "might."

I agree with the above and you are on the right track which is based on Moral Intuitions.
Intuitions are not factual.
To confirm them [moral intuitions] as factual we need to verify and justify empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.

[Sculptor]

Do you deny 'there are economic facts'?

Can you repeat and confirm this,
'There are no economic facts.'


Suppose, in this case, you are schizophrenic.
Your believing [the mental activities] is factual, the fairies are not factual.
I can justify it is a fact [psychological and neuroscience] you are believing in term of mental processes of believing.

But the fairies cannot be justified as a fact or real until empirical evidence are produced to verify and justified fairies are real within the scientific framework and system.

But the US Dollar is based on belief [not on real gold equivalent].
Despite grounded on belief and trust [which can be verified empirically], the US Dollar is also an economic fact because it can be traded as a real currency of value.
No one at present would deny the US Dollar is objectively real otherwise no one would hold such currency in their bank or in physical pieces of dollars.
It is an economic fact that is represent by its physical correlates in the brain.

If you insist whatever US Dollar you have in the bank or in paper is not a fact, thus not objective real, why don't you just throw them away?

Your resistance to the above fact is due to ignorance, being dogmatic and bigoted.
You need to expand your knowledge for you own well being.

There is definitely something fundamentally wrong with your cognition.

It just show you have run out of arguments that are of substance to counter my arguments.

Show me precisely which of my premise is wrong?

Here's one I do not find endearing or accurate; "Your resistance to the above fact is due to ignorance, being dogmatic and bigoted.
You need to expand your knowledge for you own well being."

I'm pretty sure my knoweldge base is larger than yours and education is higher than yours.
As for the rest, you might want to consider the fact that you do not know me enough to make any of those insults stick.
Aside from that I'm not especially keen to trawl through the other nonesense. If you really want to do that you'll have to show some basic respect.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is definitely something fundamentally wrong with your cognition.

It just show you have run out of arguments that are of substance to counter my arguments.

Show me precisely which of my premise is wrong?

Here's one I do not find endearing or accurate; "Your resistance to the above fact is due to ignorance, being dogmatic and bigoted.
You need to expand your knowledge for you own well being."

I'm pretty sure my knoweldge base is larger than yours and education is higher than yours.
As for the rest, you might want to consider the fact that you do not know me enough to make any of those insults stick.
Aside from that I'm not especially keen to trawl through the other nonesense. If you really want to do that you'll have to show some basic respect.

It is easy to infer your ignorance, dogmatism and bigotry from what you had actually posted in response in this forum.

It is so obvious you like Peter Holmes and others are merely relying on archaic and limited knowledge from the linguistic perspectives inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists.

If you have real intellectual substance, you would have posted relevant references and links to reputable philosophers to support your claims.

Like the principles of supply and demand, it your discretion and mine to respond to whatever.

As far as I am concern, I am posting solely for my selfish self-interests and benefits to expand and refresh my knowledge database.

..................................
ps: btw, thanks to you, it was your comment regarding reading Hume on the 'IS-OUGHT' issue, where you stated 'I was still suckling when you'd read Hume's Treatise' that prompted me to refresh my reading of Hume's Treatise and Inquiry, and from therefrom spurred to cover the full range of 'what is morality'.
Previously I was more familiar with Kant's Morality & Ethics,'
I now have additional >1200 files in > 60 folder in my 'Morality Directory'.

While I had made tons of references to the various topics on morality here, you have not even posted a single reference from Hume or other reputable philosophers on the subject of Morality and Ethics. All you did is merely make noises and blabber from your bastardized archaic memory.

[Belinda]

But if an event , concept, or proposition is solely mental then what is mental is separable from what is physical.

If a mental event * does not correlate with a physical event * then the former is a separate ontic substance from the latter.

If that is the case then any old worn out fallacy is substantial, and you have a problem assessing which propositions are true and which are lies, fantasies, or illusions.

I enjoy a good ghost story as much as anyone and I can tell fact from fiction.

[Sculptor]

It just show you have run out of arguments that are of substance to counter my arguments.

Show me precisely which of my premise is wrong?

Here's one I do not find endearing or accurate; "Your resistance to the above fact is due to ignorance, being dogmatic and bigoted.
You need to expand your knowledge for you own well being."

I'm pretty sure my knoweldge base is larger than yours and education is higher than yours.
As for the rest, you might want to consider the fact that you do not know me enough to make any of those insults stick.
Aside from that I'm not especially keen to trawl through the other nonesense. If you really want to do that you'll have to show some basic respect.

It is easy to infer your ignorance, dogmatism and bigotry from what you had actually posted in response in this forum.

My knoweldge and education are pearls and you are the swine.