(March 5, 2017 at 6:10 am)bennyboy Wrote:
(March 5, 2017 at 4:40 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: You are looking at the difference between subjectivity and objectively from a false standpoint, it is about dependency of propositions, what we think of as truths.It is objectively true that some people have blue eyes, and this would no longer be true if humans were extinct. We would have to speak of blue eyes in the past tense: "Some people HAD blue eyes." Similarly, we can say objectively that at moment X in human evolution, the prevalent moral ideas were Y and Z, as observed in written and video records, in laws, and so on.
If morality is subjective, it is dependent upon personal conception, if morality is objective, it is independent of personal conception and would still be true even if humans and their conceptions went extinct.
Morality is an interaction among DNA, its physical expression in the human brain, and the environment, as all ideas are. That the machine experiences some of the formation of ideas does not separate it from the unity of the single objective reality that Jesster posits. If you had access to enough of the world, you could say, "This was the brain structure of person X at moment Y, this was the totality of the physical process of the brain, and this was the resultant idea." Unless you are asserting that there is something about human experience which goes beyond the function of the brain, then it should be pretty obvious that all "subjective" ideas are objective, and that we make a distinction due only to our interest in the experience of qualia.
Again, objective moral values would mean morality is independent of human conception, subjective moral values would mean morality is dependent upon human conception. Humans have the ability to develop ideas (or truths) about the world, whether they correspond with the world or not, hence the terms "objective" and "subjective" are classifications. Ideas and the natural world are separate.
What you say doesn't go against my point at all. If person A strongly asserts that an omnipotent and immaterial God exists, it would be objectively true that the state of the physical processes of the brain hold to this, but the truth of the world independent of our brains (which is objective reality) may not have this God.
Is this conception of God dependent upon the brain and the concepts perceived by it or independently exists from it? That would be the objective/subjective question.
Yes, I am taking logical truths and propositions into account.
Hail Satan! 
