What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Nope. I am not saying people back then could claim that their was DNA. They couldn't. A realist would say of course there was DNA and gut bacteria back then. A realist would even say, but a person back then had no justification for believing in gut bacteria or DNA, because they had no empirical research or empirical anything to back up such a claim.
But the DNA was functioning back then.
We know now a realist would say, that there are gut bacteria and there is DNA and there was back then. And even though people back then could not perceive it and had no FSK to even conceive of these things within, DNA and gut bacteria existed and performed the functions, in those people back then, even though they did not know about it.

Right there up above, you distinguish yourself from realists on this issue. You say there were no gut bacteria back then.

So, how did their digestion work without them?

And note: you directly say there were no gut bacteria back then. You didn't say 'They could not have known about them.' or 'Belief in them would not have been justified back then.' It has nothing to do with hindsight. I am not saying that they should have believed back then. I am focused on your ontological claim that there were no gut bacteria then. (and it doesn't matter for me whether they were mind independent or mind dependent. Since you are claiming they did not exist, this doesn't matter. Further, I am not asserting they did exist. I am responding to your claim that they did not exist back then and then wondering how this would have affected digestion)

As I had stated you are conflating foresight with hindsight grounded on philosophical realism re mind-independent ontology.
On this basis you assumed there are absolutely mind-independent gut-bacteria then 500 years ago and now in 2023.
It is the same you did with DNA & digestion or anything you will consider within history.

I am not assuming it. I told you what realists believe and then, just to be sure, I reported back to you what you had said.

Please stop telling me what I believe. You are incorrect each time.

You have said that there were not but bacteria at that time.

How did their digestion work?

An as ANTI-Philosophical_Realist I do not accept ontology [philosophical realists'] at all. Such an ontology is Metaphysical, illusory, non-nonsensical and meaningless.
Your response indicate you are forcing me to accept your illusory metaphysical ontology. [the perennial irritation].

No, I am not.

1) I am not telling you what to believe.
2) I could not possibly force you or anyone to accept any belief at all.

So, stop accusing me of this and just answer the question;
How did their digestion work if there were no gut bacteria at that time?

If you believe there were bacteria back then, then some mind must have known they existed back then. Otherwise how could something that did not exist then function back then?
If you do not believe there were gut bacteria back then, how did digestion work?

I don't need to hear about realist's beliefs or accusations that I am forcing you to believe something. I don't need to hear what you think my beliefs are. That is irrelevant to what your beliefs are. I don't need to hear what you think I am confusing.

All I am interested in is your answer to the question.

At that time in the past, before humans could know about those bacteria, according to some of your statements they could not exist, since no one had perception of them. They were not in an FSR or FSK. So, at that time they should not have existed, according to many of your statements. So, one wonders how digestion would have worked.

Yes, now we have these bacteria in an FSK. Did this current knowledge retroactively lead to the existence of the gut bacteria in the past?

To answer the question honestly is to recognise that the fsr-fsk condition or caveat is irrelevant, which demolishes VA's fake antirealism - and with it, his fallacious argument for moral objectivity. So it aint gonna happen.

[Skepdick]

To answer the question honestly is to recognise that the fsr-fsk condition or caveat is irrelevant, which demolishes VA's fake antirealism - and with it, his fallacious argument for moral objectivity. So it aint gonna happen.

Could you explain to us how you are using the word "honestly"?

Relative to what objective moral standard are you making assertions about VA's moral qualities?

Can't you be honest about your moral attitudes and admit that you just don't like the way VA speaks; or is deception perfectly acceptable in your "moral" system?

[Iwannaplato]

To answer the question honestly is to recognise that the fsr-fsk condition or caveat is irrelevant, which demolishes VA's fake antirealism - and with it, his fallacious argument for moral objectivity. So it aint gonna happen.

I am interested here in the not quite getting the question. I get a bunch of distractions, though I am sure he does think they are relevant. I'm even an antirealist. I am trying to get at his understanding of his antirealism. And he doesn't seem to get the question to be answered.

I think a consistant anti-realism could be presented. But I can't seem to manage to get him to focus on the challenge.

If there were mind-dependent gut bacteria in 1000AD, helping with digestions, whose mind were they dependent on?
If there weren't mind-dependent or mind independent gut bacteria in 1000AD, how was digestion working, in his non-realism?

His answers seem to imply that current minds posit that there were gut bacteria. I say seem to....
If so, then it seems like retroactive causation.

Or to put this another way, then some future mind could be aware of something we are not, so things no human now is aware of exist. So realism and antirealist (his version) are quite similar.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From the empirical realist basis, I can accept on a hindsight, historical and theoretical basis, there are gut bacteria 500 years ago based on foresight knowledge, but this is ultimately subsumed within Idealism [Kantian] thus cannot be the "absolutely mind-independent" of philosophical realism.

So, of course, there were bacteria long before humans knew about them - and DNA, and quantum events, and so on - all of the stuff that it's only rational to call 'reality'.

Relatively, yes, but not absolutely mind-independent as your grounds that there are no moral facts.

And, of course, we humans have to perceive, know and describe this reality - including our bodies, including our 'embodied minds', and including our gut bacteria - in human ways.

Yes, but you are ignoring that reality including our 'embodied minds' are somehow contributed by the human self [human conditions], therefore cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

And, of course, the silly idea that reality depends in some mysterious way on human perception, knowledge and description comes from the ancient delusion of mistaking what we think and say for the way things are.

The "ancient delusion" is from your claim that 'what is fact' is that feature of reality and thing which is just-is, being-so, that is the case, states of affairs, that are absolutely independent of the human conditions [mind-brain-body], i.e. related to opinions, judgments, and beliefs.

And, of course, the canard of 'mind-independence' - absolute or otherwise - is a legacy hangover from an ancient religious substance dualism recycled and repackaged by Descartes and Kant.

Your usual handwaving without argument.
Your claim of "what is fact" [defined] above is literally 'absolutely mind-independent' i.e. the thing-existing-by-itself independent of the human conditions which is exposed as an illusion by Kant.
Your reification of an illusion as real is a scandal to philosophy.

Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. I am not saying people back then could claim that their was DNA. They couldn't. A realist would say of course there was DNA and gut bacteria back then. A realist would even say, but a person back then had no justification for believing in gut bacteria or DNA, because they had no empirical research or empirical anything to back up such a claim.
But the DNA was functioning back then.
We know now a realist would say, that there are gut bacteria and there is DNA and there was back then. And even though people back then could not perceive it and had no FSK to even conceive of these things within, DNA and gut bacteria existed and performed the functions, in those people back then, even though they did not know about it.

Right there up above, you distinguish yourself from realists on this issue. You say there were no gut bacteria back then.

So, how did their digestion work without them?

And note: you directly say there were no gut bacteria back then. You didn't say 'They could not have known about them.' or 'Belief in them would not have been justified back then.' It has nothing to do with hindsight. I am not saying that they should have believed back then. I am focused on your ontological claim that there were no gut bacteria then. (and it doesn't matter for me whether they were mind independent or mind dependent. Since you are claiming they did not exist, this doesn't matter. Further, I am not asserting they did exist. I am responding to your claim that they did not exist back then and then wondering how this would have affected digestion)

As I had stated you are conflating foresight with hindsight grounded on philosophical realism re mind-independent ontology.
On this basis you assumed there are absolutely mind-independent gut-bacteria then 500 years ago and now in 2023.
It is the same you did with DNA & digestion or anything you will consider within history.

I am not assuming it. I told you what realists believe and then, just to be sure, I reported back to you what you had said.

Please stop telling me what I believe. You are incorrect each time.

You have said that there were not but bacteria at that time.

How did their digestion work?

Note this;
Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265

• 1. The human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK - the Standard]
  
  2. The philosophical realism mind-independent sense of reality.

So, the answers to the questions raised above will depend on which of the above stance one is adopting.

An as ANTI-Philosophical_Realist I do not accept ontology [philosophical realists'] at all. Such an ontology is Metaphysical, illusory, non-nonsensical and meaningless.
Your response indicate you are forcing me to accept your illusory metaphysical ontology. [the perennial irritation].

No, I am not.

1) I am not telling you what to believe.
2) I could not possibly force you or anyone to accept any belief at all.

So, stop accusing me of this and just answer the question;
How did their digestion work if there were no gut bacteria at that time?

If you believe there were bacteria back then, then some mind must have known they existed back then. Otherwise how could something that did not exist then function back then?
If you do not believe there were gut bacteria back then, how did digestion work?

I don't need to hear about realist's beliefs or accusations that I am forcing you to believe something. I don't need to hear what you think my beliefs are. That is irrelevant to what your beliefs are. I don't need to hear what you think I am confusing.

All I am interested in is your answer to the question.

At that time in the past, before humans could know about those bacteria, according to some of your statements they could not exist, since no one had perception of them. They were not in an FSR or FSK. So, at that time they should not have existed, according to many of your statements. So, one wonders how digestion would have worked.

Yes, now we have these bacteria in an FSK. Did this current knowledge retroactively lead to the existence of the gut bacteria in the past?

IWP: So, one wonders how digestion would have worked.

This a weird question without qualifications as it involved the conflation of foresight and hindsight, realism and anti-realism.

One could ask the following silly questions,
-there was no sperm then how reproduction would have worked?
-there was no humans then how humans exist at present
-there was no x then, how y would have worked.

At that time in the past, before humans could know about those bacteria, according to some of your statements they could not exist, since no one had perception of them. They were not in an FSR or FSK. So, at that time they should not have existed, according to many of your statements.

Yes, they don't exist then [> 500 years ago] and this is based on an ANTI-philosophical stance [specifically Kantian].

But note, digestion did work as evident except then it was not understood in terms of gut-bacteria.

To ask the following question is ignorance;
IWP: So, one wonders how digestion would have worked.

From the ANTI-Philosophical_Realist stance [Kantian], there is no wondering on how digestion worked then.
This knowledge of digestion can be deduced or inferred logically from the knowledge of the existing human-based science-FSK, thus cannot be an absolutely mind-independent fact.

It is the philosophical-realists who are bewildered with the above answers because their stance is grounded on an illusion; other types of anti-realists may also be confused from their limited grounds.

Yes, now we have these bacteria in an FSK.
Did this current knowledge retroactively lead to the existence of the gut bacteria in the past?

This current knowledge enabled the inferred-existence of gut bacteria in the past just like other similar facts [sperm, DNA, etc.].

The existence of gut bacteria then or now must always be qualified to the human-based science-biology FSK, thus, cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

[Atla]

Nonsensical drivel, both of VA's two senses of reality are based on direct perception and so they're both invalid. That's why he fails to make a lick of sense when he tries to integrate modern science into them.

Btw some people argue that Kant may have been autistic or an Aspie, here for example https://www.quora.com/Was-Kant-autistic
I'm just mentioning this because this may help to understand in how to approach his writings.

[Peter Holmes]

The existence of gut bacteria then or now must always be qualified to the human-based science-biology FSK, thus, cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

No, this is patently false. The EXISTENCE of gut bacteria - or any other feature of reality - has NOTHING to do with knowledge or description, human or otherwise. The vague expressions 'qualified by' and 'conditioned to' are nothing more than mystical fog. And the predicate 'absolutely mind-independent' is incoherent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The existence of gut bacteria then or now must always be qualified to the human-based science-biology FSK, thus, cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

No, this is patently false. The EXISTENCE of gut bacteria - or any other feature of reality - has NOTHING to do with knowledge or description, human or otherwise. The vague expressions 'qualified by' and 'conditioned to' are nothing more than mystical fog. And the predicate 'absolutely mind-independent' is incoherent.

How many times do I have to repeat the below before it gets into your thick skull.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

It is obvious the perceiving, the knowing and the description [all subject-dependent] do not bring THE-PERCEIVED, THE KNOWN and THE DESCRIBED into reality and existence as real.

But before any real thing is perceived, known and described it has to emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted, thus cannot be absolutely human independent or 'mind-independent'.
Thus, there a prior emergence and realization process to be accounted for.

Gut-Bacteria exist as real as conditioned upon a human-based science-biology FSK, thus cannot exist as absolutely human-independent.

Can you prove the EXISTENCE of gut bacteria - or any other feature of reality, is absolutely human [mind, brain, body] independent?
So far you have merely talk but have not shown proofs.
Show me your proofs?

[Peter Holmes]

The existence of gut bacteria then or now must always be qualified to the human-based science-biology FSK, thus, cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

No, this is patently false. The EXISTENCE of gut bacteria - or any other feature of reality - has NOTHING to do with knowledge or description, human or otherwise. The vague expressions 'qualified by' and 'conditioned to' are nothing more than mystical fog. And the predicate 'absolutely mind-independent' is incoherent.

It is obvious the perceiving, the knowing and the description [all subject-dependent] do not bring THE-PERCEIVED, THE KNOWN and THE DESCRIBED into reality and existence as real.

Ah! Yes, this is obvious: perceiving, knowing and describing don't bring things into existence. So first they exist - and then we perceive, know and describe them. Bingo.

But before any real thing is perceived, known and described it has to emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted, thus cannot be absolutely human independent or 'mind-independent'.
Thus, there a prior emergence and realization process to be accounted for.

This is incoherent nonsense. What does it mean to say a thing 'has to emerge to be realized as real'? Claptrap.

Gut-Bacteria exist as real as conditioned upon a human-based science-biology FSK, thus cannot exist as absolutely human-independent.

Can you prove the EXISTENCE of gut bacteria - or any other feature of reality, is absolutely human [mind, brain, body] independent?
So far you have merely talk but have not shown proofs.
Show me your proofs?

Why do you ask for proof of the existence of things that you agree obviously exist as real? See your comment above.

[Skepdick]

Ah! Yes, this is obvious: perceiving, knowing and describing don't bring things into existence. So first they exist - and then we perceive, know and describe them. Bingo.

So time always existed? Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The "always" was always there?

ROFL.

Idiot philosophers don't know the first damn thing about the storage and transmission of information. Transmission through space (signaling) is the same as transmission through time (storage).

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, this is patently false. The EXISTENCE of gut bacteria - or any other feature of reality - has NOTHING to do with knowledge or description, human or otherwise. The vague expressions 'qualified by' and 'conditioned to' are nothing more than mystical fog. And the predicate 'absolutely mind-independent' is incoherent.

It is obvious the perceiving, the knowing and the description [all subject-dependent] do not bring THE-PERCEIVED, THE KNOWN and THE DESCRIBED into reality and existence as real.

Ah! Yes, this is obvious: perceiving, knowing and describing don't bring things into existence. So first they exist - and then we perceive, know and describe them. Bingo.

Strawman, where did I state literally 'first they exist' as if like a magic show?
I stated they have to emerge and be realized as existing then we perceive, know and describe them.

But before any real thing is perceived, known and described it has to emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted, thus cannot be absolutely human independent or 'mind-independent'.
Thus, there a prior emergence and realization process to be accounted for.

This is incoherent nonsense.
What does it mean to say a thing 'has to emerge to be realized as real'?
Claptrap.

You have not even attempt to find out whether is it empirical-rationally possible, then you hastily jumped to the conclusion without justifications, that is your Claptrap.
Your conclusion followed from your ignorant, narrow, shallow, dogmatic Claptrap thinking.

Gut-Bacteria exist as real as conditioned upon a human-based science-biology FSK, thus cannot exist as absolutely human-independent.

Can you prove the EXISTENCE of gut bacteria - or any other feature of reality, is absolutely human [mind, brain, body] independent?
So far you have merely talk but have not shown proofs.
Show me your proofs?

Why do you ask for proof of the existence of things that you agree obviously exist as real? See your comment above.
[/quote]
Still don't get it?
You are making a positive claim, gut-bacteria existed >500 years ago and now absolutely independent and Unconditional of the human conditions [mind-independent].
So provide proofs for your positive claim??

On the other hand, I claim gut-bacteria do not exist >500 years ago on an unconditional absolutely independent basis.
I claim Gut-Bacteria exist as real now or > 500 years ago, as conditioned upon a human-based science-biology FSK, thus cannot exist as absolutely human-independent.


So provide proofs for your positive claim??
Waiting .... .....

[Peter Holmes]

It is obvious the perceiving, the knowing and the description [all subject-dependent] do not bring THE-PERCEIVED, THE KNOWN and THE DESCRIBED into reality and existence as real.

Ah! Yes, this is obvious: perceiving, knowing and describing don't bring things into existence. So first they exist - and then we perceive, know and describe them. Bingo.

Strawman, where did I state literally 'first they exist' as if like a magic show?
I stated they have to emerge and be realized as existing then we perceive, know and describe them.

And this 'emergence and realization' is unexplained. You just state that it has to happen.

But before any real thing is perceived, known and described it has to emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted, thus cannot be absolutely human independent or 'mind-independent'.
Thus, there a prior emergence and realization process to be accounted for.

This is incoherent nonsense.
What does it mean to say a thing 'has to emerge to be realized as real'?
Claptrap.

You have not even attempt to find out whether is it empirical-rationally possible, then you hastily jumped to the conclusion without justifications, that is your Claptrap.
Your conclusion followed from your ignorant, narrow, shallow, dogmatic Claptrap thinking.

Gut-Bacteria exist as real as conditioned upon a human-based science-biology FSK, thus cannot exist as absolutely human-independent.

Say this as often as you like - it remains incoherent rubbish. There's absolutely no evidence that the universe didn't 'exist as real' (stupid expression) before humans evolved - and all the evidence we have indicates that it did. ALL THE EVIDENCE. So the universe MUST HAVE BEEN absolutely mind-independent before we evolved - unless you're hinting at a Berkeleyan argument for the existence of a god's mind.

Can you prove the EXISTENCE of gut bacteria - or any other feature of reality, is absolutely human [mind, brain, body] independent?

Yes - a thousand times yes. Or rather, natural scientists can. They can also prove that there were dinosaurs long before humans evolved. But your silly argument is that, because we have to prove and know things in human ways, the existence of those things isn't independent from the human mind. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

So far you have merely talk but have not shown proofs.
Show me your proofs?

Why do you ask for proof of the existence of things that you agree obviously exist as real? See your comment above.

Still don't get it?
You are making a positive claim, gut-bacteria existed >500 years ago and now absolutely independent and Unconditional of the human conditions [mind-independent].
So provide proofs for your positive claim??

Okay, since you seem too lazy or stupid to find out for yourself, I'll try to find a reference to the evolution of bacteria, including human gut bacteria. I'm absolutely sure there's tons of well-researched empirical evidence.

[Skepdick]

Okay, since you seem too lazy or stupid to find out for yourself, I'll try to find a reference to the evolution

What or where is "evolution"? Can you show it to us without appealing to the writings of Prophet Darwin?

There's this adage, I am not sure if you've ever heard it... every paradigm needs a first miracle.

Mathematics needs numbers.
Logic needs axioms.
Theism needs God.
Physics needs Big Bang.
General Relativity needs spacetime.

And evolution needs abiogenesis.

Can you tell us all about how non-living matter turns into living matter?
Can you tell us how in a universe which tends towards entropy we end up with negentropic processes such as life forms?

Some evidence on how that works would be absolutely wonderful, thanks!

[Atla]

how in a universe which tends towards entropy we end up with negentropic processes such as life forms?

Completely off-topic, but why do you think that lifeforms are negentropic?

[Skepdick]

how in a universe which tends towards entropy we end up with negentropic processes such as life forms?

Completely off-topic, but why do you think that lifeforms are negentropic?

Why do you think they aren't?

Biological systems take energy from the environment and use it to do stuff. Not the least of all we use it to reconfigure matter in self-similar manner. e.g reproduction/self-replication.