Plato's Moral Realism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Plato's Moral Realism

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 8:28 am My 'biology' is object/energy, and there's nothing abstract or non-physical about it.
Suppose you are wrong. What if the universe isn't physical?

Suppose that the standard model of physics gets superseded by a newer, better theory and physicalism gets relegated to the history books in favour of the latest scientific breakthrough: idiotism.

Suppose that the future theory of idiotism falsifies physicalism - nothing's physical anymore. Everything is now idiotic. And this use of the term "idiotic" eventually enters popular use and replaces the old use of the term "physical".

There will be nothing non-idiotic about you.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Plato's Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 8:28 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:13 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:28 pm
I disagree. 'Take away the subject and the world as object' would carry on just as it did before conscious subjects turned up, would have carried on had no conscious subjects turned up, and will carry on when conscious subjects are gone. I think yours is another version of VA's peculiar anthropocentric theory.

Think of humans as just a little more developed and intelligent apes - which is what we are - and this subject-object myth fades away. We're not embodied souls or minds or consciousnesses.
The only way you know apparent reality is on a subjective level.
To say we perceive, know and describe reality in a human way is not to say reality is what we perceive, know and describe. But that's what the 'no subject = no object' idea implies.


Your everyday reality is a subjective property. In subjective consciousness's absence, necessarily that subjective world no longer exists.
But so what? That doesn't mean that what we call reality disappears or doesn't exist if we're not experiencing it - or if it's not being perceived. That is Berkeley's barmy idealism - empiricist skepticism at its dreadful work.
Berkeley got it half right, what is wrong with his view is when he claimed it still exists because a God is perceiving it.

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
The principles therein won the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics.

Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

You have ignored the above point and had not countered it at all?
If you can refute the above, then you should be entitled to the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics or at least has it withdrawn from the current winners.
It is a self-simulation in the sense that apparent reality is how object/energy alters your biology; it is then, a biological readout. From this, you know more about the effect of the object/energy than you know about the object/energy.
My 'biology' is object/energy, and there's nothing abstract or non-physical about it.

Peter, you don't believe we are embodied with minds or consciousness-----really? This is really the wrong topic for you.
Popeye, your model is incorrect. There's no reason to think there is - or is evidence for - a duality or polarity or dichotomy between mind and matter or body, between the subject and the object, between consciousness and the object of consciousness.

The claim that we are 'embodied' minds or consciousnesses or subjectivities is a quasi-religious residue. It goes back to and way beyond Descartes. The mind is the soul secularised and dressed up with scientific solemnity.

But perhaps you do have evidence for the existence of any abstract or non-physical thing. Perhaps you can explain how a non-physical cause can have a physical effect - or how a physical effect can be evidence for a non-physical cause - without an appeal to magic.

But if not - whence and whither your subject/object theory?
How come you are that ignorant of Descartes' claims?
Descartes NEVER claimed for a embodied mind, rather he claimed the mind [self] is disembodied from the physical person, thus a soul the can survive physical death.
Embodied cognition is the theory that many features of cognition, whether human or otherwise, are shaped by aspects of an organism's entire body. Sensory and motor systems are seen as fundamentally integrated with cognitive processing. The cognitive features include high-level mental constructs (such as concepts and categories) and performance on various cognitive tasks (such as reasoning or judgment). The bodily aspects involve the motor system, the perceptual system, the bodily interactions with the environment (situatedness), and the assumptions about the world built into the organism's functional structure.

The embodied mind thesis challenges other theories, such as cognitivism, computationalism, and Cartesian dualism.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition
Post Reply