What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

What is the nature of an unknown fact?

A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. So an unknown fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case that nobody knows about. Hence the possibility that we don't know all the facts. Hence the provisionality of scientific conclusions. Hence the so-called problem of induction.

Do you need some toilet paper for your brain? Telling us what a fact IS doesn't tell us what the nature of a fact IS.

You are just re-defining the word "fact". Given your re-definition of a fact - lets try again.

What is the nature of an unknown feature of reality that is or was the case?

Advice on sucking eggs also available for the hard of understanding.

I'd much prefer some advice on how to understand any of your incoherence without a degree in proctology.

[Peter Holmes]

What is X?
What kind of thing is X?
What is the nature of X?
What are the properties of X?
Describe X.

Let X be an unknown cause. Or an unknown effect. Or an unknown event. Or an unknown feature of reality. Or an unknown anything whatsoever.

Explanations vary. But they come to an end. And there's no saying that says it all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Either your are running away or you missed this;

Okay. More than one million hits, with 9600 replies, on 641 pages.

I want to thank my production team, my co-stars, and, most of all, my wonderful wife and family, without whose patience and support, none of this would have been possible.

And a big thank you to the largely civilised contributors to this discussion, from whom I've learnt a very great deal.

Oh, and by the way. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions held by people, among whom the egotists think their own moral opinions are facts, and among which egotists the most dangerous can be those who think their own team's invented god's invented moral opinions are facts.

No wonder with people like you on the above, philosophy is accused as mental masturbation.
Did you get an orgasm from the above?

This thread is merely a dumpster full of shits with few bits of gems.
Don't revert to such childish and immature thoughts in a philosophy-proper forum.

I was joking. But, to be serious, I've never come across someone as stupid, self-important and self-deluded as you. You're incapable of reasoning and arguing intelligently, of actually addressing falsifications and refutations of your silly claims and the moral and metaphysical theory you just mindlessly repeat. The end.

I have given my valid and sound arguments supported with loads of references from 'shoulders of giants'.

I am the one who is asking for your arguments, justification and references.
So far you have given none.
Show me if you have linked any references [if any it would be very rare] to support your claim.
All you claim is 'it is just is'.
So far I have cornered you from every angle you have tried to run.

Thus, you are the stupid, self-important, dogmatic and self-deluded one.

I am still waiting for you to prove and demonstrate your 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is 'just is', that is the case, or a state of affairs and what are they predicated upon.
Show me some references to justify your argument, if not, you are likely to be speaking from your arse.

[Veritas Aequitas]

3 The whole point of objectivity and facts - what we mean when we talk about them - is that facts are independent from beliefs, judgements and opinions - individual or collective/consensus.

For example, the fact that the universe began billions of years ago has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus - which until very recently concluded that it's only a few thousand years old. That we get the facts wrong sometimes isn't a problem with facts.

Note this;

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
Many planetary astronomers, however, continue to consider Pluto and other dwarf planets to be planets.

So the fact is that Pluto is a officially a dwarf-planet and not a typical planet [as defined].
This is a fact that is grounded on intersubjective consensus [thus intersubjective] within the International Astronomical Union (IAU) which is conditioned upon a human-based embodied science-physics-cosmological-astronomy-FSRK.
There is no other way to establish this fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet.
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that "Pluto is a dwarf planet"?

The point is there are many layers of reality that is realized humans consciously and unconsciously.
At the basic level, for Pluto, there is a specific cluster of particles, atoms, molecules, materials, in various combinations which are also intersubjective via the scientific FSRK.
The intersubjective processes of establishing Pluto as a dwarf planet reinforces the basic level of reality to make the resultant reality with greater refinements.

It is the same with 'the fact that the universe began billions of years ago' based on the science-physics-cosmology-FSRK.
This is based on the intersubjective consensus within the science-physics-cosmology collective of scientists.
There is no other way to establish this fact that the universe began billions of years ago'
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that 'the universe began billions of years ago'?
Because your mother said so?

On what authority that is non-human based [non-intersubjective] that you are making on your claim of the fact 'the universe began billions of years ago'??

[Peter Holmes]

3 The whole point of objectivity and facts - what we mean when we talk about them - is that facts are independent from beliefs, judgements and opinions - individual or collective/consensus.

For example, the fact that the universe began billions of years ago has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus - which until very recently concluded that it's only a few thousand years old. That we get the facts wrong sometimes isn't a problem with facts.

Note this;

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
Many planetary astronomers, however, continue to consider Pluto and other dwarf planets to be planets.

So the fact is that Pluto is a officially a dwarf-planet and not a typical planet [as defined].
This is a fact that is grounded on intersubjective consensus [thus intersubjective] within the International Astronomical Union (IAU) which is conditioned upon a human-based embodied science-physics-cosmological-astronomy-FSRK.
There is no other way to establish this fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet.
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that "Pluto is a dwarf planet"?

The point is there are many layers of reality that is realized humans consciously and unconsciously.
At the basic level, for Pluto, there is a specific cluster of particles, atoms, molecules, materials, in various combinations which are also intersubjective via the scientific FSRK.
The intersubjective processes of establishing Pluto as a dwarf planet reinforces the basic level of reality to make the resultant reality with greater refinements.

It is the same with 'the fact that the universe began billions of years ago' based on the science-physics-cosmology-FSRK.
This is based on the intersubjective consensus within the science-physics-cosmology collective of scientists.
There is no other way to establish this fact that the universe began billions of years ago'
Do you have any other basis to claim the fact that 'the universe began billions of years ago'?
Because your mother said so?

On what authority that is non-human based [non-intersubjective] that you are making on your claim of the fact 'the universe began billions of years ago'??

How we name, categorise and describe Pluto is indeed a matter of consensus opinion. But that Pluto exists and consists of what it consists has nothing whatsoever to do with us. You mistake what we say for the way things are.

How we establish a fact is different from the fact itself. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? You agree the universe existed long before humans evolved. And I agree that our way of knowing and describing that fact is inescapably human.

Here's where you go wrong. There are three separate and different things.

1 Features of reality that are or were the case.
2 Things we believe and know about them.
3 Things we say about them, some of which (classically) may be true or false, given the way(s) we use the signs involved in context.

On the one hand, you deny that the things referred to in 1 exist - or you demand proof that they exist. But on the other hand, you exalt the natural sciences for their credibility and reliability relative to other practices and discourses. You say they're the most objective of our sources of knowledge.

But knowledge of WHAT? Of WHAT do the natural sciences give us the most credible and reliable knowledge? After all, it can't be knowledge of features of reality that are or were the case, BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK THEY EXIST.

Now, there's the contradiction at the heart of your stupid FSRK theory.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How we name, categorise and describe Pluto is indeed a matter of consensus opinion. But that Pluto exists and consists of what it consists has nothing whatsoever to do with us. You mistake what we say for the way things are.

How we establish a fact is different from the fact itself. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? You agree the universe existed long before humans evolved. And I agree that our way of knowing and describing that fact is inescapably human.

Here's where you go wrong. There are three separate and different things.

1 Features of reality that are or were the case.
2 Things we believe and know about them.
3 Things we say about them, some of which (classically) may be true or false, given the way(s) we use the signs involved in context.

You are banking on traditional analytic philosophy with your 1, 2 and 3 above.
As I had presented, traditional analytic philosophy is DEAD.

Rise & Fall [Death] of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=41868

On the one hand, you deny that the things referred to in 1 exist - or you demand proof that they exist. But on the other hand, you exalt the natural sciences for their credibility and reliability relative to other practices and discourses. You say they're the most objective of our sources of knowledge.

But knowledge of WHAT? Of WHAT do the natural sciences give us the most credible and reliable knowledge? After all, it can't be knowledge of features of reality that are or were the case, BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK THEY EXIST.

Now, there's the contradiction at the heart of your stupid FSRK theory.

Knowledge of WHAT??
It is knowledge of that which emerged, is realized as reality within the FSR, then it subsequently known as knowledge.

I have linked these many times, but you have not countered them;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

Note this response to FDP on the same subject;
Why ALL Facts are Intersubjective?
viewtopic.php?p=698053#p698053

[Peter Holmes]

How we name, categorise and describe Pluto is indeed a matter of consensus opinion. But that Pluto exists and consists of what it consists has nothing whatsoever to do with us. You mistake what we say for the way things are.

How we establish a fact is different from the fact itself. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? You agree the universe existed long before humans evolved. And I agree that our way of knowing and describing that fact is inescapably human.

Here's where you go wrong. There are three separate and different things.

1 Features of reality that are or were the case.
2 Things we believe and know about them.
3 Things we say about them, some of which (classically) may be true or false, given the way(s) we use the signs involved in context.

You are banking on traditional analytic philosophy with your 1, 2 and 3 above.
As I had presented, traditional analytic philosophy is DEAD.

Rise & Fall [Death] of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=41868

On the one hand, you deny that the things referred to in 1 exist - or you demand proof that they exist. But on the other hand, you exalt the natural sciences for their credibility and reliability relative to other practices and discourses. You say they're the most objective of our sources of knowledge.

But knowledge of WHAT? Of WHAT do the natural sciences give us the most credible and reliable knowledge? After all, it can't be knowledge of features of reality that are or were the case, BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK THEY EXIST.

Now, there's the contradiction at the heart of your stupid FSRK theory.

Knowledge of WHAT??
It is knowledge of that which emerged, is realized as reality within the FSR, then it subsequently known as knowledge.

So let's get this straight. The natural sciences are our most credible and reliable - most objective - sources of knowledge, because they give us knowledge of 'that which emerged, is realized as reality within the FSR [framework and system of reality], then it [sic] subsequently known as knowledge'.

Two questions.

1 What exactly is it - what kind of thing - emerged, and is realised as reality within the FSR?

2 Is there only one FSR? Or can there be many FSRs, just as there are many FSKs? And if so, how can we choose which FSR to use? What makes one more credible and reliable than the others?

[Skepdick]

What is X?
What kind of thing is X?
What is the nature of X?
What are the properties of X?
Describe X.

Let X be an unknown cause. Or an unknown effect. Or an unknown event. Or an unknown feature of reality. Or an unknown anything whatsoever.

Explanations vary. But they come to an end. And there's no saying that says it all.

It's so weird how you keep classifying in epistemic terms: known and unknown.

What happened to mind independence?

[Peter Holmes]

Question: What happened to mind independence?

What happened to the mind, full stop?

There's probably no such thing as mind as a separate substance from body or matter - and certainly no good evidence for its existence. So talk of mind dependence or independence is incoherent, along with talk of knowledge or knowing being something that goes on in the fictional mind.

Kant wanted to find a way around the supposed empiricist scandal of our inability to prove the existence of the external world - and Moore was still wrestling with this non-problem. But - to what is the external world external?

If we abandon what could be called 'mentalism' - and recognise 'mentalist' talk about minds containing mental things and events as just that - a way of talking metaphorically about our selves and experiences - which it always was - then the silliness of the argument about philosophical realism v antirealism is evident.

For example, if - as VA maintains - what we could call 'independent' reality is an illusion or a human construction, then so are we. And if there are no noumena, then there's no reason to think that all we can know are phenomena: things as they appear to us. There are just features of reality we know about, and others we don't. Yet.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How we name, categorise and describe Pluto is indeed a matter of consensus opinion. But that Pluto exists and consists of what it consists has nothing whatsoever to do with us. You mistake what we say for the way things are.

How we establish a fact is different from the fact itself. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? You agree the universe existed long before humans evolved. And I agree that our way of knowing and describing that fact is inescapably human.

Here's where you go wrong. There are three separate and different things.

1 Features of reality that are or were the case.
2 Things we believe and know about them.
3 Things we say about them, some of which (classically) may be true or false, given the way(s) we use the signs involved in context.

You are banking on traditional analytic philosophy with your 1, 2 and 3 above.
As I had presented, traditional analytic philosophy is DEAD.

Rise & Fall [Death] of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=41868

On the one hand, you deny that the things referred to in 1 exist - or you demand proof that they exist. But on the other hand, you exalt the natural sciences for their credibility and reliability relative to other practices and discourses. You say they're the most objective of our sources of knowledge.

But knowledge of WHAT? Of WHAT do the natural sciences give us the most credible and reliable knowledge? After all, it can't be knowledge of features of reality that are or were the case, BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK THEY EXIST.

Now, there's the contradiction at the heart of your stupid FSRK theory.

Knowledge of WHAT??
It is knowledge of that which emerged, is realized as reality within the FSR, then it subsequently known as knowledge.

So let's get this straight. The natural sciences are our most credible and reliable - most objective - sources of knowledge, because they give us knowledge of 'that which emerged, is realized as reality within the FSR [framework and system of reality], then it [sic] subsequently known as knowledge'.

Two questions.

1 What exactly is it - what kind of thing - emerged, and is realised as reality within the FSR?

2 Is there only one FSR? Or can there be many FSRs, just as there are many FSKs? And if so, how can we choose which FSR to use? What makes one more credible and reliable than the others?

1. What emerged is an emergence.
For example, hunger is an emergence from somewhere in the brain and whole body [with a 13.7 billion years history] that is subsequently felt as some kind of sensation via various processes.
It is the same with the emergence and realization of a 'thing' [cluster of particles] which is realized as something edible, a common sense fruit identify as apple or verified and justified as an apple biologically.

2. What is FSR will depend on the organic state of the living thing.
For example a sonar bat or dolphin will have a different FSR from other animals and humans.
Among humans there will be different states of FSR, depending on the physiological and psychological conditions of the individuals which generate degrees of FSR-ed reality.
A baby will have a different FSR state than an adult.
Among adults there will be a different continuum of FSRs from one extreme to another and their individual realizations [first-person experience] are co-shared within the different FSKs that has a feedback process to influence present and later realization of reality.

see this thread for more details.
viewtopic.php?p=664820#p664820

[Veritas Aequitas]

Question: What happened to mind independence?

What happened to the mind, full stop?

There's probably no such thing as mind as a separate substance from body or matter - and certainly no good evidence for its existence. So talk of mind dependence or independence is incoherent, along with talk of knowledge or knowing being something that goes on in the fictional mind.

Kant wanted to find a way around the supposed empiricist scandal of our inability to prove the existence of the external world - and Moore was still wrestling with this non-problem. But - to what is the external world external?

If we abandon what could be called 'mentalism' - and recognise 'mentalist' talk about minds containing mental things and events as just that - a way of talking metaphorically about our selves and experiences - which it always was - then the silliness of the argument about philosophical realism v antirealism is evident.

I thought we have an understanding when I refer to mind-independence, it is for the general only, but for you it means absolutely independent of the human conditions.

In context, to you, 'what is fact' is absolutely independent of human or the subject's opinion, beliefs and judgment; to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue even if there are no humans.

For example, if - as VA maintains - what we could call 'independent' reality is an illusion or a human construction, then so are we. And if there are no noumena, then there's no reason to think that all we can know are phenomena: things as they appear to us. There are just features of reality we know about, and others we don't. Yet.

What you claim as human conditions 'independent' reality is an illusion is on the basis that you adopt your belief as an ideology, i.e. philosophical realism.

As for humans, this is what happen with those who claim [as an ideology] they are an independent reality, i.e. a soul that is independent and can survive physical death. Even if all humans are extinct they will survive eternally in heaven.
This is the same in your philosophical realism which you claim the moon [or things are] is still there regardless of whether there are humans or not.

What Kant accept with noumena as the cause of phenomena is merely a temporary concession of primal logic. But like Hume, Kant did not accept causation as real. As such the noumena as a cause of the phenomena is ultimately illusory. Why Kant went along with the idea of noumena aka thing-in-itself is because it is a useful illusion that is critical for his later projects.

What is real is the phenomena which must be conditioned to a human-based FSRK, e.g. science and/or mathematics as the most credible and objective.

[Atla]

Question: What happened to mind independence?

What happened to the mind, full stop?

There's probably no such thing as mind as a separate substance from body or matter - and certainly no good evidence for its existence. So talk of mind dependence or independence is incoherent, along with talk of knowledge or knowing being something that goes on in the fictional mind.

Kant wanted to find a way around the supposed empiricist scandal of our inability to prove the existence of the external world - and Moore was still wrestling with this non-problem. But - to what is the external world external?

If we abandon what could be called 'mentalism' - and recognise 'mentalist' talk about minds containing mental things and events as just that - a way of talking metaphorically about our selves and experiences - which it always was - then the silliness of the argument about philosophical realism v antirealism is evident.

I thought we have an understanding when I refer to mind-independence, it is for the general only, but for you it means absolutely independent of the human conditions.

In context, to you, 'what is fact' is absolutely independent of human or the subject's opinion, beliefs and judgment; to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue even if there are no humans.

For example, if - as VA maintains - what we could call 'independent' reality is an illusion or a human construction, then so are we. And if there are no noumena, then there's no reason to think that all we can know are phenomena: things as they appear to us. There are just features of reality we know about, and others we don't. Yet.

What you claim as human conditions 'independent' reality is an illusion is on the basis that you adopt your belief as an ideology, i.e. philosophical realism.

As for humans, this is what happen with those who claim [as an ideology] they are an independent reality, i.e. a soul that is independent and can survive physical death. Even if all humans are extinct they will survive eternally in heaven.
This is the same in your philosophical realism which you claim the moon [or things are] is still there regardless of whether there are humans or not.

What Kant accept with noumena as the cause of phenomena is merely a temporary concession of primal logic. But like Hume, Kant did not accept causation as real. As such the noumena as a cause of the phenomena is ultimately illusory. Why Kant went along with the idea of noumena aka thing-in-itself is because it is a useful illusion that is critical for his later projects.

What is real is the phenomena which must be conditioned to a human-based FSRK, e.g. science and/or mathematics as the most credible and objective.

You lack the minimum intelligence to comprehend indirect perception. Everything you've ever said on the topic is moot.

[Skepdick]

There are just features of reality we know about, and others we don't. Yet.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is back into full-swing incoherence.

What's a fact as distinct from a feature?
What's a feature as distinct from a fact?

Show us one without telling us about it? Why can't you?
Is it because "fact" and "feature" are abstract ideas?

If you can't point to any features; or facts why do you think they even exist?

[Peter Holmes]

Question: What happened to mind independence?

What happened to the mind, full stop?

There's probably no such thing as mind as a separate substance from body or matter - and certainly no good evidence for its existence. So talk of mind dependence or independence is incoherent, along with talk of knowledge or knowing being something that goes on in the fictional mind.

Kant wanted to find a way around the supposed empiricist scandal of our inability to prove the existence of the external world - and Moore was still wrestling with this non-problem. But - to what is the external world external?

If we abandon what could be called 'mentalism' - and recognise 'mentalist' talk about minds containing mental things and events as just that - a way of talking metaphorically about our selves and experiences - which it always was - then the silliness of the argument about philosophical realism v antirealism is evident.

I thought we have an understanding when I refer to mind-independence, it is for the general only, but for you it means absolutely independent of the human conditions.

In context, to you, 'what is fact' is absolutely independent of human or the subject's opinion, beliefs and judgment; to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue even if there are no humans.

For example, if - as VA maintains - what we could call 'independent' reality is an illusion or a human construction, then so are we. And if there are no noumena, then there's no reason to think that all we can know are phenomena: things as they appear to us. There are just features of reality we know about, and others we don't. Yet.

What you claim as human conditions 'independent' reality is an illusion is on the basis that you adopt your belief as an ideology, i.e. philosophical realism.

As for humans, this is what happen with those who claim [as an ideology] they are an independent reality, i.e. a soul that is independent and can survive physical death. Even if all humans are extinct they will survive eternally in heaven.
This is the same in your philosophical realism which you claim the moon [or things are] is still there regardless of whether there are humans or not.

What Kant accept with noumena as the cause of phenomena is merely a temporary concession of primal logic. But like Hume, Kant did not accept causation as real. As such the noumena as a cause of the phenomena is ultimately illusory. Why Kant went along with the idea of noumena aka thing-in-itself is because it is a useful illusion that is critical for his later projects.

What is real is the phenomena which must be conditioned to a human-based FSRK, e.g. science and/or mathematics as the most credible and objective.

1 Noumena - things-in-themselves - are not a useful illusion. They're a confusing fiction that is still causing no end of philosophical muddle. Whatever Kant intended for his fiction, it's been disastrous - just as Plato's forms have been. It's time to unfog ourselves.

2 The shift from mind-independence to human-independence does nothing to revive philosophical antirealism. The claim that no fact - no feature of reality - nothing in the set 'what is real' - is independent from humans is flatly and demonstrably false. (That no human knowledge is independent from humans is trivially true.)

[Skepdick]

1 Noumena - things-in-themselves - are not a useful illusion. They're a confusing fiction that is still causing no end of philosophical muddle. Whatever Kant intended for his fiction, it's been disastrous - just as Plato's forms have been. It's time to unfog ourselves.

But your illusion of "unknown facts" and "unknown features of reality" is the exact same confusing fiction wrapped in a nea name.

The claim that no fact - no feature of reality - nothing in the set 'what is real' - is independent from humans is flatly and demonstrably false.

Really? In the absence of humans who is going to demonstrate the falsity of the claim and how? In the absence of humans who is the falsity of the claim going to be demonstrated to and how?