Morality: Emergence & Realization

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical Realists [e.g. PH & others] claimed Morality cannot be Objective because all Moral Elements are subjective [right or wrong], thus cannot be objective facts.
To p-realists, Objective facts exist in an absolute mind-independent state regardless of how they are perceived, known and described or even when not perceived.

I countered whatever are facts [real, exists, truth, knowledge, objective] CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent [as claimed by philosophical-realists] but somehow are conditioned to the human conditions via a prior process of emergence and realization [FSR] of its reality before they are perceived, known [FSK] and described.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
In the above, I claimed there is an Emergence & Realization of Reality [FSR-ed] before reality is perceived, known and described.

Here is a take on Emergence and Realization' of Reality including Moral Reality.

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.

Emergence and Realization' of reality is a complex* process which happened before things are perceived, known an described. * because it has a 13.5 billion [4 billion organic] years of history.
I will not be wasting time to explain in detail because your skull is too thick with very strong resistance to reject Facts [FSK-ed]. I have given clues in previous posts.

Take 'water is H20' as a scientific fact which you as a philosophical realist, insists exists absolutely independent of the human conditions. But that is shortsighted and grounded on an illusion.

Whatever that 'fluid-X' is, had already emerged and was realized as a 'thing' which was intricately part and parcel of the abiogenesis process and the related FS-Realization [note LUCA -Last Universal Common Ancestor].
That 'fluid-X' thus emerged and is realized via its nervous system grounded on a certain pattern of perturbations.
This consistent pattern of perturbations of that 'fluid-X' with its primary and secondary features as experienced flowed from LUCA through the tree of life to humans.

That common pattern of perturbation in the Nervous System of humans which we now perceived, known and described as water [conventional FSK] and H20 [science-chemistry FSK] is conditioned by its specific FSK thus CANNOT be absolutely human-condition independent or in generally, organically-independent.

The most you can counter is the usual "what about the moon before there were humans and after human extinction"
Here your statement is conditioned and grounded upon 'time' [before or after], where time is grounded upon human conditions and thus ultimately nothing can be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

So note, Kant's Copernican Revolution.

Your philosophical realism stance of reality just cannot be realistic, i.e. it is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Your [& like] clinging to philosophical realism is more because of Psychology like theism that it is to philosophy.

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.

I have been asserting;
whatever is real, exists, true, knowledge, objective must be conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
There is no other way; whatever other way you claim is a non-starter.

Not Berkeleyan [superficially an idealist but ultimately a philosophical realist] but Kantian Empirical_Realism-Transcendental_Realism [plus Buddhist Philosophy and other rational stances].

Because reality and things are realistically conditioned upon a specific FSR-FSK, reality and things therein CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

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.

My ace-card is ALL scientists must comply with the 'constitution' of the human-based Science-FSK in general and to the FSK of their specific field.
There is no way a scientist can claim 'Water is H20' because he said so but it is implicit to the conditions of the science-chemistry FSK.
Thus it follows, 'Water is H20' cannot be absolutely mind-independent [philosophical realism].

See.. you're the ignorant, shallow, narrow, dogmatic and stupid one.

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.

I did a course in Genetics, Genomics, Molecular Engineering ... from MITx.

Whatever the knowledge of the evolution of bacteria including human gut bacteria, it has to be conditioned and grounded to a specific human-based science FSK.
Because it is human-based, it follows whatever the conclusions therefrom, they CANNOT be absolutely human-conditions independent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
To get a greater picture of the above, one will to delve into the below and others;

Cybernetics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics

Autopoiesis
Black box
Circularity: feedback, feedforward, recursion, reflexivity.
Conversation theory
Double bind theory: Double binds are patterns created in interaction between two or more parties in ongoing relationships where there is a contradiction between messages at different logical levels that creates a situation with emotional threat but no possibility of withdrawal from the situation and no way to articulate the problem.[30] The theory was first described by Gregory Bateson and colleagues in the 1950s with regard to the origins of schizophrenia,[31] but it is also characteristic of many other social contexts.[30]
Experimental epistemology[32]
Good regulator theorem
Method of levels: The method of levels is an approach to psychotherapy based on perceptual control theory where the therapist aims to help the patient shift their awareness to higher levels of perception in order to resolve conflicts and allow reorganization to take place.
Perceptual control theory: A model of behavior based on the properties of negative feedback (cybernetic) control loops. A key insight of PCT is that the controlled variable is not the output of the system (the behavioral actions), but its input, "perception". The theory came to be known as "perceptual control theory" to distinguish from those control theorists that assert or assume that it is the system's output that is controlled.
Radical constructivism
Second-order cybernetics: Also known as the cybernetics of cybernetics, second-order cybernetics is the recursive application of cybernetics to itself and the practice of cybernetics according to such a critique. It has seen development of cybernetics in relation to family therapy, the social sciences, the creative arts, design research, and philosophy.
Requisite Variety
Self-organisation
Social systems theory: Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory draw on ideas from cybernetics such as autopoiesis.
Viable system model
Neural Networks

and many other related topics critical to Emergence and Realization of Reality prior to its perception, known and described.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

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.

[Iwannaplato]

Non-realism is dependent on realism.
Veritas Aequitas is dependent on Peter Holmes.

VA cannot exist absolutely (or even relatively exist without) the existence of Peter Holmes. You can in no way demonstrate the independent existence of Veritas Aequitas. Where there is Veritas Aequitas there is Peter Holmes inextricably connected via causal chains. Peter Holmes is part of/participates in language. When VA writes or speaks he is linked to the prior existence of Peter Holmes and cannot be considered objectively separate from Peter Holmes or even as 'two separate people'. Let alone material causation. There is no Holmes-independent Veritas Aequitas.

To speak of Peter Holmes as in some way primitive is a form of self-hate on the part of VA.
VA's mind cannot be independent of Peter Holme's mind. Not two minds, but one.

Whatever that 'VA' is, had already emerged and was realized as a 'non-separate person' which was intricately part and parcel of the Peter Holmes' mental process and the related FS-Realization [note LUCA - Their Last Universal Common Ancestor - the last common ancestor to these two men].
That 'Veritas Aequitas' thus emerged and is realized via 'his' nervous system grounded on a certain pattern of perturbations s coterminus with Peter Holmes.
This consistent pattern of perturbations of that 'Veritas Aequitas' with its primary and secondary features as experienced flowed from LUCA through the tree of life to these two men. Time has a direction only via human experiencing. The past is not separate from the present. The two men are part of one entity.

Without one the other does not exist.

The one hand strikes it's brother hand with a hammer.

[Iwannaplato]

Double bind theory: Double binds are patterns created in interaction between two or more parties in ongoing relationships where there is a contradiction between messages at different logical levels that creates a situation with emotional threat but no possibility of withdrawal from the situation and no way to articulate the problem.[30] The theory was first described by Gregory Bateson and colleagues in the 1950s with regard to the origins of schizophrenia,[31] but it is also characteristic of many other social contexts.[30]

Please: It would be lovely if you could go beyond hinting and explain how double bind theory is relevant to the topic. This is a mere request.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Double bind theory: Double binds are patterns created in interaction between two or more parties in ongoing relationships where there is a contradiction between messages at different logical levels that creates a situation with emotional threat but no possibility of withdrawal from the situation and no way to articulate the problem.[30] The theory was first described by Gregory Bateson and colleagues in the 1950s with regard to the origins of schizophrenia,[31] but it is also characteristic of many other social contexts.[30]

Please: It would be lovely if you could go beyond hinting and explain how double bind theory is relevant to the topic. This is a mere request.

Read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind

Thus, the essence of a double bind is two conflicting demands, each on a different logical level, neither of which can be ignored or escaped. This leaves the subject torn both ways, so that whichever demand they try to meet, the other demand cannot be met. "I must do it, but I can't do it" is a typical description of the double-bind experience.

It is two conflicting demands [cognitive dissonance] that drive philosophical realists to the evolutionary default [thus psychological comforting and secured] but it is grounded on an illusion.

When this psychological security is threatened, SOME [not all] will even kill or exterminate that perceived threat to secure their psychological comfort.

[Iwannaplato]

one part of realism is the sense of 'individuals'. This is an evolutionary default, where primitive urges connected to survival lead to the misconception of the subject object split AND the idea of separate individuals.

People who believe in separate individuals, as VA does, have committed many acts of violence, and some but not all people who believe they are distinct from other individuals, as VA does especially in the case of Peter Holmes and other realists, are more likely to commit acts of violence.

VA is not Peter Holmes-independent. They are not distinct individuals. There are not two minds there but one.

The clinging to this idea that Peter Holmes has a mind external to Veritas Aequitas' mind, is a psychological defense mechanism not unlike the belief in God.

Most of the realist and the antirealist views
on the self have been developed in reference
to the Cartesian self. Antirealists deny the
existence of the self by arguing that there is
no such thing as the self. Rather the self is an
illusion, a fction of the mind. Tere would not
be such a thing that we call the self if there
was no one to perceive it. Tey further deny
the evaluation-independence claim, arguing
that the concept of the self is invented by
cultural, social, and linguistic conventions,
and it is nothing but a useful conceptual tool
for organizing human experience. Unlike
what a Cartesian claims, there is no substance
such as the self, the self is not a determinate,
timeless, unifed, and bounded thing. In fact,
for the antirealists, this malleable nature of
the self is evidence that the self cannot be a
evaluation-independent and real thing in the
way that chemical elements such as gold are
(e.g., Dennett, 1991; Foucault, 1979; Rorty,
1989).

[Skepdick]

People who believe in separate individuals, as VA does, have committed many acts of violence.

You have a failure of framing there.

Literally every individual murdered in the name of this; or that is failure on behalf of the perpetrator(s) to recognize that individual's right to life.

Human rights become meaningless if they apply to humans but not to individuals.

[Iwannaplato]

And, of course, the lack of individuals, a concept within realism, is not just restricted to realists vs antirealists. This as if there were discrete minds (plural, lol), with 'different beliefs', also holds for the illusory dichotomy between 'philosophers' and 'non-philosophers' as if there were these discrete individual minds with separate identities. There is just one mind with jumbled, shifting philosophical/non-philosophical qualites and facets, with the bile and judgements of certain facets for other facets a mere confusion, a confusion that is itself part of the generalized mash-up.

[Skepdick]

And, of course, the lack of individuals, a concept within realism, is not just restricted to realists vs antirealists. This as if there were discrete minds (plural, lol), with 'different beliefs', also holds for the illusory dichotomy between 'philosophers' and 'non-philosophers' as if there were these discrete individual minds with separate identities. There is just one mind with jumbled, shifting philosophical/non-philosophical qualites and facets, with the bile and judgements of certain facets for other facets a mere confusion, a confusion that is itself part of the generalized mash-up.

You could park individuals for a second, and we could talk about the process of individuation.

Say like you individuate confused from non-confused entities.
Or the dichotomy between illusionary and non-illusionary dichotomies.

Or in general - how said person individuates based on qualities they never seem to be able to make explicit.

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts—physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on—remember that nature does not know it! --Richard Feynman

[Veritas Aequitas]

one part of realism is the sense of 'individuals'. This is an evolutionary default, where primitive urges connected to survival lead to the misconception of the subject object split AND the idea of separate individuals.

People who believe in separate individuals, as VA does, have committed many acts of violence, and some but not all people who believe they are distinct from other individuals, as VA does especially in the case of Peter Holmes and other realists, are more likely to commit acts of violence.

VA is not Peter Holmes-independent. They are not distinct individuals. There are not two minds there but one.

The clinging to this idea that Peter Holmes has a mind external to Veritas Aequitas' mind, is a psychological defense mechanism not unlike the belief in God.

Most of the realist and the antirealist views
on the self have been developed in reference
to the Cartesian self. Antirealists deny the
existence of the self by arguing that there is
no such thing as the self. Rather the self is an
illusion, a fction of the mind. Tere would not
be such a thing that we call the self if there
was no one to perceive it. Tey further deny
the evaluation-independence claim, arguing
that the concept of the self is invented by
cultural, social, and linguistic conventions,
and it is nothing but a useful conceptual tool
for organizing human experience. Unlike
what a Cartesian claims, there is no substance
such as the self, the self is not a determinate,
timeless, unifed, and bounded thing. In fact,
for the antirealists, this malleable nature of
the self is evidence that the self cannot be a
evaluation-independent and real thing in the
way that chemical elements such as gold are
(e.g., Dennett, 1991; Foucault, 1979; Rorty,
1989).

Strawman as usual.

You seem to be going into a "tailspin" with your philosophy.

The article from which the above is quoted,
Self, Philosophical Considerations
Serife Tekin

give an account of the many faces of 'what is self' but is not efficient in presenting a good summary.

However, if we summarize the many faces of "what is self" re Realism vs Anti-realism from the Kantian perspective, it will realistic summary.

For Kant there is;
1. Empirical Realism [relative mind-independence] which is subsumed within
2. Transcendental Idealism [no absolute mind-independence]

From the Empirical Realist position, for Kant there is the empirical self [a thing] which can be verified and justified via the empirical FSKs. But this empirical self [a thing] cannot be the absolute mind-independent self of Descartes' realism.

From the Transcendental Idealism perspective, the mind-independent self, the substance soul that can survive physical death is rejected; this is because under transcendental idealism of the human conditions, it is impossible for the self to be absolutely mind-independent.

Hardcore philosophical realists like PH has to be anti-realist when it comes to the self and claim that a mind-independent soul is impossible' this contradict their principle of evaluation independence when it comes to the self as a thing, i.e.

1. For non-self thing, they are hardcore absolute mind-independent philosophical realists.
2. For the self-thing, they turned and claim the self is not evaluation independent and flipped to be anti-realists, i.e. idealist, which is more realistic than 1.

To be more consistently realistic, people like PH should apply 2 to 1, i.e. that non-self-things cannot be evaluation independent, i.e. mind-independent or human-condition independent.

But they cannot do it due to the strong psychological cognitive dissonance that drive them to be hardcore philosophical realists in terms of non-self-things.

My point;
Philosophical Realists like PH and his like are closet idealists.

[Iwannaplato]

Strawman as usual.

Oh, good. So, you don't think there is an individual you and a separate individual PH who is distinct from you. I'm sorry, the way you talk negative about him (and his ilk) made it seem to me you thought he and you were separate, discrete individuals. But now you clearly are saying that you don't believe PH is different from you, and rather take the non-realist stance that there is no PH over there with discrete identity and qualities and VA over here with his identity and qualites. You don't have that realist position and you are ilk of each other instead. One ilk,

You seem to be going into a "tailspin" with your philosophy.

As I said elsewhere, since you seem to like doubling your posts, I have given up on trying to get on point responses and justifications from you. This has freed me up to enjoy responding to you much more. You may not recognize my turning your arguments around on you, or pointing out implications you may not realise or using what you consider a valid argument, because the freedom from logic is fun. I am having fun with you, rather than, in Waiting for Godot fashion, expecting consistantly reasonable response. It is the opposite of a tailspin.

Philosophical Realists like PH and his like are closet idealists.

Oh, how I would have misinterpreted this as a criticism from 'someone' who thinks they are somehow a separate individual from PH. But since you said this was a strawman, I can avoid making that mistake a second time.

I understand you mean this ironically. Wink, wink. Got it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If there were no humans, would there be no water?

Within common sense there is definitely water [that "thing" which is critical for survival].

But what is 'water' within common sense of humans is what humans realized water as 'water'.
If there were no humans there would be no humans to realize 'common sense water'.
Note the term "realization" which is prior to experience.

Absolute bollocks. The existence and nature of water - a feature of reality - has nothing to do with the human 'realisation' of water. You're off with the fairies - and the sad thing is, I think you know you are.

You are the ignorant one thus the handwaving.

Note I supported my argument with;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

FYI,
The human Sperm and egg comprised of a high % of "water" and the human fetus also comprised of a high % of "water" and the adult person is 60% "water".
As such, what is "water" is already "realized" as real from the stage of the fetus and the realization of "what is real" changes with age which is experienced, perceived, known and described later.

As you would insist and I agree "water" is just a label and a description and that is merely linguistic.
"That feature of reality" is that which is realized from the fetus to the baby to adulthood as conditioned to the human-based FSK.
There is no absolute permanence to "that feature of reality" [named water] that exists absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Your 'feature of reality' that is just-is, being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs are merely thoughts inferred as intelligible objects which can never be verified as really real via the scientific FSK which rely on empirical evidences.

Instead of handwaving, give a rational counter to the above.
Prove Your 'feature of reality' that is just-is, being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs, is really real and objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.