Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Whateverist]

Hmmm .. since Rhythm had wanted to argue Anima's side, perhaps we could make this a team event: Jorgsetpolexy and BadBoyBenny could argue against while RhythmMethod and Enima argue for. Have we ever had team play here before?

Fund raising idea: make this pay per view with all money raised going to the site.

[Angrboda]

Let's take an ordinary pencil, dipped partly into a bowl of water.  From the side, it looks like the pencil is bent.  Viewed from overhead, it appears straight.  Viewed from directly behind it, it appears to be little more than a dot of eraser.  All three perspectives yield perceptions of an objective fact, yet there is no way to create an objective view that is merely a summation of the independent views.  That all three are perceiving the same object does not remove the obstacle of the independence of each perception.  Postulating realism simply asserts that there is a fact of the matter as to which is the 'real' object being perceived; it does nothing to reconcile the divergent subjectivities.

Realism resolves the problem because the object is not longer in flux, but is now made fixed.  Since the object is now fixed the variation is subjective perspective of that object now lies solely with the observer in terms of mean of perception or orientation of perception.  Under the pencil example you give the first is a means variation (medium of air vs medium of water), the next two are orientation variations (from above vs behind).  By extension it may then be said if observation may be made in accordance with every medium from every orientation and that information could be coalesced (or summed up) the information would be objective.

Under idealism the object is defined in terms of the subject.  Given the uniqueness of the subject it may not be said that the object observed is the same object by different medium or orientation because the object is defined in terms of the subject and not fixed.  Since there is no fixed point to approach objectivity or to establish correlation between one observer or another the data may not be accumulated or summed up.  The only way to resolve this problem is to say the observers are not unique.  Thereby establishing both a fixed observer and a fixed object.  In which case there can be no accounting for variation in medium or orientation.

Realism:  Observers (A and B) each observe the same object (X).

A ==> X <== B

Such that X= Xa + Xb + Xn

I think I see where you're going with this, so if I may be so bold as to sketch out where I see your argument leading at the risk of creating a strawman.

Since the original question was about morality and not pencils, I assume your point about realism was drawn in order to support a point about morality. That point is this, that if there is an objective morality then that morality is fixed and can be known in spite of the varying perceptions of individual subjects. That enough observations of objective morals can lead in the sum to an accurate picture of what those objective morals are. However the problem comes in that we are perceiving moral truths and not pencils. The only access to these moral truths lies in the subjectivity of the individual observer. As a consequence we have multiple independent attestations to the proper contours of objective morality. Each religion paints a different picture of those contours. Islam is distinct in its perceptions from those of Christianity, Vaishnavite Hindu is independent from Taoist, and Buddhist despite being atheistic has its own picture which is distinct from that of the Jains. As I contend, positing realism simply asserts that there is a fact of the matter concerning the proper contours of objective morality, it does not help us determine what those contours are. If my sketch is correct, then you would be suggesting that summation of the independent perceptions of objective morals would provide us with a true picture of their underlying substance.

The problem is that each of these views presents irreconcilable witness to what those contours are. The Hindu vision cannot be 'summed' to the Christian vision to produce a more accurate picture of the contours of objective morality. At most, one of these views is correct. But they might all be wrong. They might all be looking at a bent pencil. They all have their revelations concerning objective morality, and they all claim to have the correct contours. What is needed is a way to test the different versions in some way. This is the perennial question of the physical sciences: how to test whether one's perception of the contours of objective reality are correct. The procedure of summing up observations is analogous to verificationism, in which a perception of reality was counted as validating the model of reality if it confirmed that view. The problems of theory dependence and confirmation bias led to reformulating the criteria for testing physical models. This led to the theory of falsificationism; the theory which most successfully resists falsification is deemed the most accurate. But how do we apply such lessons to morals? How do we test moral systems to determine whether they contain accurate perceptions of objective morals? It would seem the only data we have to test such things are the individual moral judgements of thinking subjects. Each individual's perception of what is moral counts as evidence as to what objective morality consists of. But this leads us in a circle to the relativism that we are trying to avoid by postulating realism, by supposing that there is a way to get at the hidden reality which is independent of individual subjectivities. Our goal to establish the contours of objective morality has led us back to the dependence for the perception of those contours upon individual, independent perceptions. Thus, 'summing up' the individual perceptions leads right back to the problem of relativism, of morality by the argument of numbers; argumentum ad populum as to what is objective morality.

I hope I haven't gone too far off the track of where you were heading. This is just my surmising, and I'm not attributing these views to you. But I hope I have made some relevant observations along the way.

[Cato]

Funny indeed how a dead body shocked writhes in like manner to a living one.  Is the person in the dead body in pain?  Or is the meat automaton making proper response to the given stimuli?  All Hume's bundled theory the body may be said to consists of its ontological properties (weight, color, smell, etcetera).  I doubt that any of us would assign sentience or personality as an ontological property of meat.

Are you simply feigning ignorance of the condition of death; i.e., brain dead or do you not understand how there is no person in a dead body? Hume's theory certainly only applies to living persons so your refutation on the matter is nonsensical.

[downbeatplumb]

Funny indeed how a dead body shocked writhes in like manner to a living one.  Is the person in the dead body in pain?  Or is the meat automaton making proper response to the given stimuli?  All Hume's bundled theory the body may be said to consists of its ontological properties (weight, color, smell, etcetera).  I doubt that any of us would assign sentience or personality as an ontological property of meat.

Are you simply feigning ignorance of the condition of death; i.e., brain dead or do you not understand how there is no person in a dead body? Hume's theory certainly only applies to living persons so your refutation on the matter is nonsensical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGPfSSUlReM

[Cato]

There is nothing intrsinsic to the senses and to the flow of ideas which show whether I'm in the Matrix, the mind of God, a BIJ or an actual physical space.

Until there is evidence demonstrating that there is something more than what you are calling physical space, the idea remains wholly unsubstantiated and wildly speculative at best; fiction. Even if there were some undetectable reality as you propose, me, you and everyone else are obligated to navigate existence as if physical reality is the only game in town due to our evolved traits. Musing about some ultimate reality becomes rather pointless; a true what if d-o-g spells cat investigation.

[robvalue]

A brain in a vat, in another brain in vat?

Maybe.

[Anima]

Hmmm .. since Rhythm had wanted to argue Anima's side, perhaps we could make this a team event:  Jorgsetpolexy and BadBoyBenny could argue against while RhythmMethod and Enima argue for.  Have we ever had team play here before?

Fund raising idea: make this pay per view with all money raised going to the site.

I like that Idea!! A tag team battle!!!

[Angrboda]

Uh, I have no interest in a group debate, given the requirements of the format. If Anima wants to choose to debate me alone, I'll oblige, but otherwise count me out.
(Of course, that depends on the format chosen. I don't imagine a formal debate just being a free-for-all.)

[robvalue]

I don't think I've ever heard a theist admit that their God is imaginary before. Am I missing something?

[Whateverist]

A brain in a vat, in another brain in vat?

Maybe.

Gawd help us, it could be brains in vats all the way down!

---

I don't think I've ever heard a theist admit that their God is imaginary before. Am I missing something?

Shhh.  Just enjoy it.