What could make morality objective?

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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:02 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 6:26 pm I think the premise is mystical gibberish. And the conclusion, even if 'the human conditions' is coherent, doesn't follow.
Va frequently says he stopped talking about philosophical realism as being "mind independent" and started talking about it being "independent from the human conditions" because of you. I've always been curious if that wording is in fact preferred by you. Does the "human conditions" wording work better for you?
No. He has never defined 'human conditions', which seems to mean nothing more than 'humans'.

My objection to the distinction between mind-dependence and mind-independence is that, pending evidence for its existence, the mind as a separate, non-physical thing is a fiction or myth or metaphor - a way of talking about our selves and experiences. So the perenially intractable mind-body or mind-matter problem - the problem of consciousness from the physical - is a non-problem.

There are just brains in skulls atop bodies. So I think we need to view the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity differently. And VA's claim that reality is in some way dependent on humans, without appeal to the mind to explain the dependence, is obviously silly, in my opinion. Without the mysterious mind, our physical place in a physical universe is much less complicated. (The mind is the soul secularised - a religious hangover.)
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Interesting...
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:52 pm Interesting...
VA and PH have been going at it for years. It's an endless debate between two kinds of crazy, literal mind-dependence and literal mind-denial. Such debates are fun content
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12243
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 6:26 pm VA,

I don't understand the following argument.

Premise: Reality has to emerge and realise before we humans can perceive, know and describe it.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not independent from the human conditions.

I think the premise is mystical gibberish. And the conclusion, even if 'the human conditions' is coherent, doesn't follow.
"mystical gibberish" that is because your thinking is so ignorant, primitive and kindergartenish.

The full range of living entities that are non-humans, e.g. viruses, bats do not perceive, know and describe reality like humans do.

As such, there is only an emergence and realization of reality within these non-humans organisms.
Such feature of basic emergence and realization within non-humans are also embedded in the human brain via evolution. This proven with evidence we have similar brain structures like those of reptiles and other later evolved fishes, mammals etc.

The cortex that enable humans to perceive, know and described are later evolutionary additions to the prior reptilian and mammalian brain.

Note crudely [not precisely];

Image
The triune model of the mammalian brain is seen as an oversimplified organizing theme by some in the field of comparative neuroscience.[15]
It continues to hold public interest because of its simplicity.
While inaccurate in many respects as an explanation for brain activity, structure and evolution,
it remains a commonly used concept as the "neocortex" represents that cluster of brain structures involved in advanced cognition, including planning, modeling and simulation; the "limbic brain" refers to those brain structures, wherever located, associated with social and nurturing behaviors, mutual reciprocity, and other behaviors and affects that arose during the age of the mammals;
and the "reptilian brain" refers to those brain structures related to territoriality, ritual behavior and other "reptile" behaviors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain
As such it is the lowest and mid-brain that enable the emergence and realization of reality prior to the neo-cortex perceive to human consciousness, is known and subsequently described.
  • Premise: Reality has to emerge and realised before we humans can perceive, know and describe it.
    Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not independent from the human conditions [human nature].
Given the above, how could you deny the above argument.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:30 pm No. He has never defined 'human conditions', which seems to mean nothing more than 'humans'.
Human conditions is synonymous with human nature, i.e. what it takes to be defined as a human being within the human based science-biology FSK.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Jun 02, 2023 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:29 am
The Triune Brain theory, which is a realist theory of the brain, is outdated crap...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9010774/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4422034/
This division is perhaps best exemplified in Paul MacLean’s discredited triune model of the mammalian brain
And again, The Triune Brain theory is REALIST theory of the brain.
[
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:49 am Image
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 10:23 am Btw, that 13.7 billion years of deterministic" forces since the Big Bang is conditioned via the human based science-cosmological-FSR-FSK.
You just cannot disentangle the human factor from any sense of reality.

You are merely relying on an evolutionary default that there is an independent reality even if there are no humans; this is illusory and delusional in the perspective of advance knowledge, i.e. not common sense.
The sense that we should not kill others based on empathy is an evolutionary default.

Some things that VA finds in the brain he treats as objective facts. Why? Because they are in the brain. Objective moral facts.
Some things that VA finds in the brain he treats as evolutionary defaults that he thinks we do not need to treat as objective. Urges to kill or be aggressive are not objective moral facts and we can try to suppress them. Realism is not an objective position because it is an evolutionary default.

Get it!

When it is convenient VA appeals to the authority of the brain. It's in all brains, therefore it is objective.
Unless it is convenient to dismiss something in the brain because it is something that had evolved as the default.

And it is ALL realist. His arguments are realist arguments, with these brains 'out there' and animal brains and brains going back billions of years. And natural selection happening 'back then'.

He is a realist posing as an antirealist when it suits some corner of his conflict with PH.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Atla wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:58 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:52 pm Interesting...
VA and PH have been going at it for years. It's an endless debate between two kinds of crazy, literal mind-dependence and literal mind-denial. Such debates are fun content
Can you explain 'literal mind-denial', and show why it's crazy?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:18 pm Can you explain 'literal mind-denial', and show why it's crazy?
So you want us to show you how mind-denial is a mental disorder?

What a fucking idiot. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What or where is is this desire of yours?

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes appears to have the emotional intelligence of a rock.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:18 pm Can you explain 'literal mind-denial', and show why it's crazy?
It's denying the only thing than can be directly known to exist. Again: the modern definiton of mind doesn't imply something abstract or non-physical or supernatural.

You've yet to answer the earlier simple question: when you dream in images, do those images actually exist in any way, or don't they? (Not what the images are depicting, but simply the images themselves.)
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Atla wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:55 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:18 pm Can you explain 'literal mind-denial', and show why it's crazy?
It's denying the only thing than can be directly known to exist. Again: the modern definiton of mind doesn't imply something abstract or non-physical or supernatural.

You've yet to answer the earlier simple question: when you dream in images, do those images actually exist in any way, or don't they? (Not what the images are depicting, but simply the images themselves.)
He answered you before.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 6:22 pm There are thoughts in the brain in exactly the same way as there are feelings in the heart. Metaphorically.
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 6:30 am I'm not claiming that. I'm saying that when we talk about 'having a thought' or 'changing our mind', we're speaking metaphorically about electrochemical events - synaptic firing - and so on. Physical things
He literally thinks that he doesn't think.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:18 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:58 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:52 pm Interesting...
VA and PH have been going at it for years. It's an endless debate between two kinds of crazy, literal mind-dependence and literal mind-denial. Such debates are fun content
Can you explain 'literal mind-denial', and show why it's crazy?
I'd be more interested to know what metaphorical mind-denial would mean.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 6:31 am And again, The Triune Brain theory is REALIST theory of the brain.
How do you figure that?
realism, in philosophy, the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them.
In what universe can there be a thinking, feeling or perceiving part of the brain independent of anyone thinking, feeling or perceiving (them)?

You are necessarily trying to have your cake and eat it too by talking about thinking, feeling and perceiving from 3rd person perspective while pretending the 1st person perspective doesn't exist.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:49 pm In what universe can there be a thinking, feeling or perceiving part of the brain independent of anyone thinking, feeling or perceiving them?
Oh, I thought he was talking about brains in general, not just his brain.

So you are perceiving your triune brain now? Does it look like the picture he made? How is it like his model? The brain you perceive. what does his model share with the brain you are perceiving, your brain that is? Does his model explain your experience of your brain or is it mind?

It'd be odd in the specific, since it's generally not an accepted model for the brain now. And in general, how's it match up? Those colors. Those sections? Do they act discretely from each other, those sections, in your experiencing of your brain? You know when you collapse it out of superposition?
'
Why does the brain persist, this triune brain, but not the goat? If in antirealist fashion.

I mean, I get it. You don't understand the whole context.

I hope you'll start to ignore my interactions with VA because in fact you are ignoring the bulk of each one. You see a tree and rush to chop it down on some mission to end philosophy or prove everyone participating here is not communicating as they should. So, I'll stop checking to see if you actually try to get a handle on the larger context.

Cause every time you miss the forest.

As VA misses his own forest.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:26 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:49 pm In what universe can there be a thinking, feeling or perceiving part of the brain independent of anyone thinking, feeling or perceiving them?
Oh, I thought he was talking about brains in general, not just his brain.
I am pretty sure that's not his brain in the picture.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:49 pm So you are perceiving your triune brain now?
Realism isn't being true without me perceiving it.
It's about being true without anyone perceiving it.

The thought experiment usually goes something like "imagine all humans disappeared...".
Of course, it's rather difficult to imagine what that picture would be depicting then.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:26 pm Does it look like the picture he made? How is it like his model? The brain you perceive. what does his model share with the brain you are perceiving, your brain that is? Does his model explain your experience of your brain or is it mind?
None of it is relevant. Imagine all humans disappeared... then tell me which part of human brain does what.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:26 pm It'd be odd in the specific, since it's generally not an accepted model for the brain now. And in general, how's it match up? Those colors. Those sections? Do they act discretely from each other, those sections, in your experiencing of your brain? You know when you collapse it out of superposition?
OK. Pick your favourite model of the brain. Imagine all huams disappeared and tell me what it depicts.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:26 pm Why does the brain persist, this triune brain, but not the goat? If in antirealist fashion.
Persist when? In the realist thought experiment of "What would remain if humans disappear?" Human brains definitely won't persist if that happened.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:26 pm I hope you'll start to ignore my interactions with VA because in fact you are ignoring the bulk of each one. You see a tree and rush to chop it down on some mission to end philosophy or prove everyone participating here is not communicating as they should. So, I'll stop checking to see if you actually try to get a handle on the larger context.

Cause every time you miss the forest.

As VA misses his own forest.
If you have paid attention to anything I've said you may have grokked by now that all philosophy is missing a forrest - a larger context.

All philosophy is uncontextualised. That's why it's meaningless.

There's no context what makes any given philosophy "right" or "wrong". Those are moral terms.

Unless you pre-suppose some philosophy which de-moralizes them.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

The expressions 'a wrong turning' and 'the right answer' need have no moral significance whatsoever. And to insist they must always be used morally is to ignore the ways we often actually do use them. Meaning is use, and there's no other court of appeal.
Post Reply