(August 15, 2019 at 12:21 pm)Acrobat Wrote:(August 15, 2019 at 12:14 pm)Grandizer Wrote: You have made no such demonstration. Repeatedly asserting is not demonstrating, neither is arguing by false analogy.
"good/bad" exists in the same way that "green" exists in a green leaf. There's no floaty weird spooky stuff going on by which you then recognize something is good or bad, lol.
Objectively good or bad, not just good or bad.
Don't leave the objectiveness of good and bad out.
I indicated that this objectiveness doesn't not exist in the scientific facts about x. I'm not going to pull out any objective property we can call good or bad from x. A point you seem to have conceded.
Good and bad are also not properties of my mind either, like my likes and dislikes, a point you conceded by acknowledge that good and bad are objective.
If Good and Bad are objective, given the two things indicated its not reducible to any scientific fact about x, or to our state of mind. Their objective existence is in something non-natural, a non-natural reality/property.
Objectiveness is a redundant word if it is being implied, in context, that "good" or "bad" is objective.
You indicated, you said so, you asserted, you did not demonstrate. And I did not concede that "good/bad" aren't linked to the act, only that "good/bad" do not exist concretely on the act (as in there's no specific location as it's just a descriptor).
Try again.
