PH Counter VA re FSRC

[Veritas Aequitas]

Age and other moral objectivists [except VA's] claim that there are moral facts - things that just are morally right or wrong - regardless of anyone's opinion. But a simple question shows why this is incorrect.

The claim that there are moral facts is delusory - and can be (and often is) morally and practically harmful.

You need to qualify the above with "except VA's version".

You also need to edit the below as such;
The claim that there are moral facts is delusory [based on my definition of 'what is fact'] ...

But I have argued your 'what is fact' is illusory, therefore your above claim is false and illusory.

PH's Fact is Delusional
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

You have not countered by claims convincingly.

I suggest you open a specific thread to counter my claim so we can refer to it easily. [your two large thread has become a skip full of shit]

This thread will do fine. I've countered your argument countless times. But here goes again.

The Concise Oxford has this disjunctive definition of fact: 'a thing that exists, or has occurred, or is true.' Of course, a dictionary definition is always a snapshot explanation of how we use a word - it asserts a fact about that usage.

Dictionaries meanings are a good start but they are limited in this case of discussing 'what is fact' within the philosophy context.

I have always refer to WIKI's definition of 'fact' as a better start for philosophical discussion:

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance.[1] Standard reference works [specific FSRC] are often used to check facts.

Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. [within Science FSRC]
For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, [linguistic FSRC] and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. [astronomy FSRC]
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts. [historical FSRC]

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Why are you running away from the WIKI definition which I have linked a '1000' times.
You need to read the detailed contents as well to get an idea of what is fact and the implication of a FRSC that ground whatever is the specific fact

• Etymology and usage
  In philosophy
  Correspondence and the slingshot argument
  Compound facts
  Fact–value distinction
  Factual–counterfactual distinction
  In mathematics
  In science
  The scientific method
  In history
  In law
  Legal pleadings

The above also refer to mathematical facts, legal facts.
If you read the full article, you will note, the authority and ground of 'what is fact' must be grounded to its specific FSRC [framework and system]. There are no "absolutely" unconditional facts.
One cannot insist 'it is a fact because my father, mother, etc. said so'.

For now, let's leave aside the 'or is true' disjunct - though it's very important in my refutation. So a fact is: a thing that exists, or has occurred.

Now, your claim is that there's no such thing as 'a thing that exists or has occurred' which is absolutely independent from humans. You say such a thing is an illusion. For example, this means you say that everything that existed and occurred in the universe before humans evolved was not absolutely independent from humans.

And I say that is patent and demonstrable nonsense, for which there's no evidence of any kind. And I explain where this nonsense - which you've bought into - comes from, as follows.

No argument nor evidences??

I have explain why
"everything that existed and occurred in the universe before humans evolved was not absolutely independent from humans."

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

Understanding FSRC via Deep Learning
viewtopic.php?t=42071

You have not bothered to counter my above arguments convincingly. All you did is to handwave "is patent and demonstrable nonsense."

The third disjunct in the above definition of fact is: 'or is true'.
But, in this context, the only thing that can be true or false is a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression. A
nd language is, of course, a human phenomenon - though not exclusively, because other species arguably have at least 'proto-languages'.

So this kind of fact - a linguistic expression - isn't and can't be absolutely independent from humans. But it's a radically different kind of thing. A linguistic expression is obviously 'a thing that exists'. But outside language, reality - consisting of things that exist or have occurred - is not linguistic.

You got it wrong.

What is true is only true within its specific FRSC.
see: There are Two Senses of Truth
viewtopic.php?t=42081

Whatever is true within the scientific FSRC cannot be absolutely true in a non-scientific FSRC and vice-versa.
Even whatever is true within science-biology FSRC cannot be true with the science-physics FSRC without qualifications to their specific FSRC.

The kind of fact - a linguistic expression is only true within a linguistic FSRC, note Wittgenstein's language game.
A linguistic fact is only true within a specific language-game.
It cannot be absolutely true by itself unconditionally without reference to its specific language-game.
A language-game is human-based and is a subset of the human-based FSRC.
Note:
Wittgenstein's Framework & FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=42070

Whatever is outside the linguistic FSRC are only realistic as qualified conditionally to a human-based specific FSRC.

Because it is human-based, logically and deductively, whatever the conclusion [emergence, realization of reality and cognition*, knowledge & description] of a FSRC it cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions. * see my threads on emergence above.

So I think you mistake what we humans believe, know and say about reality - things that exist or have occurred - for reality itself - the facts of reality. Hence your absurd conclusion that reality isn't absolutely independent from humans.

And if you want to get out of this confusion by claiming that reality is 'relatively' independent from humans - ie, not 'absolutely' independent - then what is it that is independent? Oh - it must be things that exist or have occurred.

In this context, the things that are indeed dependent on humans are human knowledge-claims and truth-claims about reality. Not reality itself.

So, as I've said many times, your primary premise is false. From which it follows that the rest of your argument about morality is incoherent.

Strawman .. the 'millionth' times.
I have never claimed the below;
what we humans believe, know and say about reality - things that exist or have occurred - for reality itself.

I have argued as above;
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Re: Absolute vs Relative Mind Independence:
see: Relative vs Absolute Mind-Independence
viewtopic.php?t=40600

My basic premise is this:
ALL of reality, truths, facts, knowledge [other than meta-FSK], objectivity are conditioned upon an embodied human-based language-game as a subset of a FSRC.

Just in case [you are likely to bring this up], note this;
Avoiding Circularity in Assessing Objectivity of FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=42003

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[FlashDangerpants]

In the OP you quote Pete denying your motion to make him run this tedious debate over two other threads, instead he says there "This thread will do fine".

So you insist on curling out yet another garbage thread, but this time with its pointlessness written into the OP.

Is your actual purpose to ensure that all conversation in this sub has to be with, to and about you? Is the design to ensure that any other discussion is always choked by the relentless spam of idiot shit spo that everyone else just knows not to bother any more?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the OP you quote Pete denying your motion to make him run this tedious debate over two other threads, instead he says there "This thread will do fine".

So you insist on curling out yet another garbage thread, but this time with its pointlessness written into the OP.

Is your actual purpose to ensure that all conversation in this sub has to be with, to and about you? Is the design to ensure that any other discussion is always choked by the relentless spam of idiot shit spo that everyone else just knows not to bother any more?

Serious philosophical discussions must be neatly segregated and pigeon-holed instead of being dumped into a skip of shit as evident in the two large threads of PH. Note how easy it is for me to make references to the relevant points and their relevant specific detailed discussion.

You are empty philosophical vessel which is making loads of noises rather zooming into serious philosophical discussions [which you don't have any substance anyway].

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have not countered by claims convincingly.
I suggest you open a specific thread to counter my claim so we can refer to it easily. [your two large thread has become a skip full of shit]

This thread will do fine. I've countered your argument countless times. But here goes again.

Can you refer to the "countless times" you have countered my points and show the relevant posts where you have countered your points convincingly that I have accepted your argument as valid??

I bet you will be diving into your skip of shit to find the relevant needles therein.
You don't seem to have any sense of organization, neatness, systematicity and efficiency in retrieval of information.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, VA says this:

'My basic premise is this:
ALL of reality, truths, facts, knowledge [other than meta-FSK], objectivity are conditioned upon an embodied human-based language-game as a subset of a FSRC.'

Notice the blurring effect of the conjunction [reality, truths, facts, knowledge and objectivity]. Is there a 'master' category - a big set - of which the other conjuncts are elements? And if so, is the 'master' category perhaps reality or knowledge? That makes a huge difference.

And notice the question-begging conjunction of 'reality' and 'truths' - true factual assertions about reality, which are, of course, contextual and conventional - and so very much human productions.

Squeeze this basic premise for the pips, and perhaps this is what's left: 'All of reality is conditioned upon [?] human ways of knowing and describing reality.'

And, given any interpretation of 'conditioned upon', this is patently and demonstrably false. For example, the universe existed long before humans evolved, so it cannot have been in any way dependent on humans, or 'conditioned upon' human knowledge or description.

The rest is obfuscatory blather.

(Just bites from a philosophical gnat called Keter.)

Constructing your own strawmen as usual.

You quoted the above from my above post:
PH Counter VA re FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=42080
where I have presented the arguments to support my point in addressing all the questions your raised above,
but you seem to be a coward in addressing the details.

Notice the blurring effect of the conjunction [reality, truths, facts, knowledge and objectivity]. Is there a 'master' category - a big set - of which the other conjuncts are elements? And if so, is the 'master' category perhaps reality or knowledge? That makes a huge difference.

I have argued;
ALL of reality, truths, facts, knowledge [other than meta-FSK], objectivity are conditioned upon an embodied human-based language-game as a subset of a FSRC.'
e.g.
The reality, truths, facts, knowledge, objectivity of science are conditioned upon an embodied human-based language-game as a subset of a scientific FSRC.

Provide a detail counter why the above is false?

Don't be a coward and running away from this thread and bury your counters in a dumpster thread of shit.
Besides all the above points are not directly related to the argument 'Morality is or is-not Objective.

I want to remind you, your counters against my points are based on illusions:
PH's Fact is Delusional
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
You have not provided sufficient argument to support your 'what is fact' is realistic.
Before you can claim any credibility you have to counter the above arguments of mine.

[Iwannaplato]

Can you refer to the "countless times" you have countered my points and show the relevant posts where you have countered your points convincingly that I have accepted your argument as valid??

Who can spot the key confirmation bias criterion?

[Iwannaplato]

Serious philosophical discussions must be neatly segregated and pigeon-holed instead of being dumped into a skip of shit as evident in the two large threads of PH.

Well, it's good to know that VA pidgeonholes https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... pigeonhole his own discussions.

In any case, it is clear that VA had a new subtopic to highlight in this thread in the OP. It is a clear and separate subtopic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I just set out an argument, yet again, showing why yours is fallacious. But, as usual, you don't or can't address it. All you say is: 'I have argued that...', as though that does the job. But it doesn't. And it's philosophically infantile.

Here's the question. Why was the universe before humans evolved not independent - absolutely or otherwise - from human beings? Or. If the universe before humans evolved was relatively independent from humans, which part of that universe was relatively dependent on humans?

Your refuse to answer these questions honestly, because to do so would explode your stupid FSRC theory.

What?? Where have you been?
I requested you to start a thread so we can focus on the above particular issue.
I told you it is not effectiveness to discuss the issue within this thread as the relevant posts will be dumped with shits all over.
You refused, so I started one for you and posted forth a detailed argument to counter your above point.

See: PH Counter VA re FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=42080
which is linked to your posts, surely you are notified of it, but you ignored it[?] and made the above accusation.
I took some effort to present the 'few-pages' arguments.
Why are you so fearful to deal with it within a specific thread?

Apparently you quoted from the above thread in your post:
viewtopic.php?p=705081#p705081
yet you accuse me of not addressing your question.
Something is very wrong with you.

My bad. I'm just a philosophical gnat, with a minuscule attention span. I like very simple and very short arguments that validly and soundly reach persuasive conclusions.

Perhaps somewhere you have shown why the universe before humans evolved was or is 'conditioned by' a human way of knowing and describing it. I just missed it, and that's my loss. But maybe you've persuaded others, and that's a success.

That is the problem with your humongous pile of shit in your >600 page thread where you are unable to trace to the posts I have answered in relation to the above question.

Thus it is useful I have opened separate threads here:
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
posting.php?mode=edit&p=624050
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."

Why the Moon is not Absolutely Mind-Independent
viewtopic.php?t=40594

The above is explained in detailed via the links I provided in the OP;
I have explained why
"everything that existed and occurred in the universe before humans evolved was not absolutely independent from humans."

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

Understanding FSRC via Deep Learning
viewtopic.php?t=42071

Do you think it would easy for you to refer if I had merely throw all the above into one thread of >500 pages?
Yes or No?