[Serious] The Good

[Angrboda]

No, I'm not, but your confusion is understandable.  Given that this is off-topic and I don't have the time to adequately address this over the next few days, I'll simply defer to a fuller exploration of the question another day and in another thread.  We never did finish our prior discussion of it due to similar time pressures that precluded my full participation.  I would simply note that if morals are a consequence of empirical facts, then you have managed to square a circle that has eluded greater philosophers.  This either points to the fact that you are, in this department, a philosophical genius, or, it points to the fact that you are a confused boob who doesn't know what you're talking about.  YMMV.

Or, conversely, that it doesn't take a philosophical genius to explain what moral realism is about.  I tend to think that myself. People expect more out of realism than it promises.

If that were the case, it would be rather improbable that it had eluded philosophers up until now. The far more likely answer is that the reply that philosopher Simon Blackburn gave in reviewing Sam Harris' attempt to square the same circle, to wit, that, "[Harris] joins the prodigious ranks of those whose claim to have transcended philosophy is just an instance of their doing it very badly," applies to you as well. Your cocksure confidence to the contrary, the hypothesis you present is rather improbable.

Oh, and I see that you've now amended your prior post to include a mind reading performance. You might have a great future in entertainment as a mentalist. As a philosopher, I have my doubts.