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 »

Claim: If there were no humans, then there would be no reality.

Response 1: 'If there were no humans, there would be nobody to use the term "reality"; or any terms. For any purpose whatsoever.'

A trifle anthropocentric, but...no shit!

Response 2: 'If there were no humans, there would be nothing referred to as "reality" because there would be nobody to DO any referring.'

So - if nothing is called 'reality', then there is no reality. ?

'Ah, that's not what I meant. Read the words.'

(Face palm.)
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 8:49 am So - if nothing is called 'reality', then there is no reality. ?
Why are you asking this question ?!?

YOU are the one using the word "reality". HOW are you using that word? Why do you continually refuse to account for your own use of terms?

You insist that you reject the correspondence theory - fine. So the term "reality" doesn't correspond to anything.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 8:49 am A trifle anthropocentric, but...no shit!
YOU said that philosophy is about the use of language, you dumb cunt.

What sort of non-anthropocentric use of language did you have in mind?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 8:49 am 'Ah, that's not what I meant. Read the words.'
I am reading the word! The word is "reality".

What does it mean? What or where is the referent for the word "reality" ? HOW are you using that word and WHY?

Why can't you explain your own use of words?
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: Mon May 29, 2023 12:26 pm I think VA's kind of anti-realist mistake is as follows.

Premise: If there were no humans, then there would be no reality-as-it-is-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans.

In one way, this claim is trivially true and so inconsequential. But lurking inside it is an empiricist skepticism of the kind exploited by Berkeley with his idealist esse est percipi - and maybe also picked up by Quine with his 'to be is to be the value of a bound variable in a quantification'.

Perhaps this skepticism can be summarised by the claim: ontology is epistemology. And this is what VA's drone - 'a fact emerges from and exists only within a framework and system of knowledge' - amounts to.

But the following conclusion is a mistake:

If there were no humans, then there would be no reality.

A question for VA: is the above what you claim?
The starting point is the evolutionary default where philosophical realists cling to philosophical realism as an "ism" and ideology.
  • Philosophical realism is ... about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent [PH: human conditions] existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I have already stated my stance is 'anti-philosophical-realism' which mean my views are NOT that of philosophical realism.

There are many versions of specific views that is anti-philosophical-realism and mine has nothing to do with Berkeley's subjective idealism.
Mine non-philosophical-realism is Empirical Realism subsumed within Transcendental Idealism like that of Kant's.

As mentioned a 'million' times, what I believe is this;
whatever is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a human-based FSR or FSK.
As such, if there are no humans, then, there are no human-based-FSR-FSK reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity.

As mentioned many times elsewhere,
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
this is supported by the Science-QM-FSK.

Note this.
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."

"Common sense" meaning the evolutionary default of philosophical realism's mind-independence.

You and your philosophical realists [proto-, primal thinking] believe that there is still objective reality if there are no humans is based on illusions and thus delusional in a higher perspective of reality.
You have not been able to prove or explain your above claim of an ultimate independent objective reality without humans.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Yes, VA, if there were no humans, then there would be no human perception, belief, knowledge and descriptions of what we humans call reality.

But do you think that, if there were no humans, then there would be no reality - that the thing we call reality would not exist?

Have a go at answering that question without repeating your FSR and FSK claim.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 9:42 am Yes, VA, if there were no humans, then there would be no human perception, belief, knowledge and descriptions of what we humans call reality.
It's like Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes doesn't understand the definite and indefinite use of terms.

The "what" in the statement "What humans call reality." is definite.
The "what" in the question "What do humans call reality?" is indefinite.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 9:42 am But do you think that, if there were no humans, then there would be no reality - that the thing we call reality would not exist?
I don't know what your question means. You aren't using those words like everybody else uses them.

Given the way we use words both "reality" and "existence" are nouns, but you are using "reality" as a noun and "exist" as a verb.

Personally, the way I use language I only pose questions to other people when I think they have the answer.
It's pointless asking questions from people who don't know, but you seem to know so I am asking you.

What do you call "reality" and what are you asserting about it when you say that it "exist"?
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue May 30, 2023 10:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
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: Tue May 30, 2023 9:42 am Yes, VA, if there were no humans, then there would be no human perception, belief, knowledge and descriptions of what we humans call reality.

But do you think that, if there were no humans, then there would be no reality - that the thing we call reality would not exist?

Have a go at answering that question without repeating your FSR and FSK claim.
Strawman again.

As mentioned a 'million' times, what I believe is this;
whatever is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a human-based FSR or FSK.
As such, if there are no humans, then, there are no human-based-FSR-FSK reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity.

Hey! your skull must be VERY thick,
I have asserted a million times,
Before there are human perceptions, beliefs, knowledge and descriptions of what we humans call reality, there are the prior processes of emergence and realization within humans [of course via FSR and FSK] as conditioned upon 13.7 billion years of "deterministic" forces since the Big Bang.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

VA.

Do you think that, if there were no humans, then there would be no reality - that the thing we call reality would not exist? That, had there been no humans, there would have been no universe?

Try again.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 10:41 am VA.

Do you think that, if there were no humans, then there would be no reality - that the thing we call reality would not exist? That, had there been no humans, there would have been no universe?

Try again.
Use is meaning and Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes agrees!

How is anybody supposed to answer his question if he keeps refusing to explain how he is using his terms?!?
How is anybody supposed to answer his question if he keeps refusing to explain what his question means ?!?

What are you refering to as "reality" (or the "universe") and how does it "exist"?

Had there been no humans - who would be asking a questions like "Is there a universe?"

There where? What are your terms refering to?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

VA,

Do you have any evidence to support the extraordinarily unscientific claim that no humans = no reality?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 11:08 am VA,

Do you have any evidence to support the extraordinarily unscientific claim that no humans = no reality?
Why are you shifting the burden of proof you dumb cunt?

You are the one working on the a priori assumption that "reality exists" (whatever the hell that means) so prove it.

With or without humans.

The philosopher playbook is clear as dalylight.

1. Propose a set of rules (like the burden of proof)
2. Make everyone else obey them while the philosopher themselves ignores them.

Fucking dictator.

P.S Since I am a reasonable person who would never put you up to an impossible challenge (unlike Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes) here's what I would accept as an existence-proof. Since proofs are identical to computer programs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence) then ANY computer program which simulates reality is a sufficient proof of existence.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Thoughts on the burden of proof.

There are different kinds of proof, all based on assumptions. For example, a scientific (physical) proof is a test - as in 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating' and '40% proof spirit'. And that's nothing like a logical or mathematical proof, which is a purely linguistic matter. (And computers are language-crunching machines.)

I'm asked to demonstrate ('prove') the existence of what (at least) most of us call reality: rocks and stones and trees and humans and quantum events and shit like that - physical things. The point of the challenge is to show that, since I supposedly can't 'prove' that they exist, I can't rationally deny that anything exists, such as moral facts - moral features of reality.

Okay. My assumption - and, I think, that of working natural scientists - is that what we call energy, and the form it takes that we call matter - including human beings - exist. And with that working assumption, scientific testing, and the technologies it generates, seem to work. In science, the burden of proof is the need to test hypotheses about energy and matter - physical things.

Of course, it's possible to reject the basic assumption. And some kinds of anti-realism do so. But, for example, a brain-in-a-vat and a computer simulation are, presumably real things and not themselves simulations, so these kinds of hypotheses seem oddly self-defeating. And the myth of the mind as the non-physical generator of an illusory reality is patently a special pleading religious hangover. I think anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on - and their claim is one giant performative contradiction. But that's just me.

Anyway. I think the path from metaphysical anti-realism to moral realism/objectivism is blocked, because you can't have your cake and eat it. If there are no facts, then there are no moral facts. But if there are facts, then there is an assumption about what constitutes those facts. Wheel full circle. No compulsion to roll with it.

PS. Here's a claim:

'Since proofs are identical to computer programs... then ANY computer program which simulates reality is a sufficient proof of existence.'

Natural science 'proofs' are physical tests - nothing like computer programs, which are purely linguistic operations.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 4:45 pm I'm asked to demonstrate ('prove') the existence of what (at least) most of us call reality: rocks and stones and trees and humans and quantum events and shit like that - physical things.
I've never called a rock; a stone; a tree; a human; or quantum events "reality".

I don't think anybody has - I think you are confused.

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 4:45 pm The point of the challenge is to show that, since I supposedly can't 'prove' that they exist, I can't rationally deny that anything exists, such as moral facts - moral features of reality.
Nobody's asking you to show them a tree; or a rock; or a stone; or humans; or quantum events.

I am asking you show me reality. The whole thing.

Where is it? Other than in your head.
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: Tue May 30, 2023 11:08 am VA,

Do you have any evidence to support the extraordinarily unscientific claim that no humans = no reality?
I have stated my principle,

Whatever is reality, facts, truth, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK [the standard] is the most credible and reliable at present.

Since, no humans = no human based FSK = no human based reality;
therefore, humans = human-based FSK = human based reality

A real goat can only be verified and justified as conditionally real based on the human-based science-biology FSK. Since it is human-based, what is a real goat cannot be independent of the human conditions [or mind-independent].

Now you prove to me your claim;
no humans = no human based FSK = human-independent reality.

Note this thread here;
A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40148&start=30

Can you address this thread which is a critical counter to your repetitive "Perceiving, Knowing & Describing,"
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

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.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

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?
Post Reply