What do you mean by “only mental”? Words are only mental, too. Beliefs are only mental. Perhaps normatives refer to actual conduct and what is inter subjectively true?

Any assessment has to be done by a mind, so, it seems that what you want, "a mind-independent assessment," is a contradiction in terms. — Dfpolis

Hence "If normatives are only mental, then there are no facts about them aside from the fact that a particular mind is thinking about them however that mind is thinking about them." — Terrapin Station

This is a non sequitur. The fact that thoughts depend on the mind for their being does not prevent them from referring to and grasping objective reality.

The meaning of a word is only mental. The sounds or marks etc. are not. Beliefs per se are mental, but if they correspond to something that's not only mental, they can be correct or incorrect.

Normatives don't correspond to anything non-mental. The actual conduct doesn't have anything like a normative in it.

Intersubjectivity is nonsense on my view, at least insofar as it attempts to refer to anything other than the facts that we can agree and cooperate with each other.

You can't refer to or grasp the objective reality of anything that's only mental, because it's only mental--by definition not objective.

Are you claiming that normatives are referring to something non-mental that's anything like a normative? What objective thing?

It’s objectively true that the Holocaust was evil.

Nope.

There are no objective whatever-you-want-to-call-thems period when it comes to good, bad, evil, etc. (most terms, like assessments, evaluations, judgments, already suggest things we do, so you can use whatever term you think best suggests things the world does/is like independent of us)

Agree to disagree. I believe in objective moral truths. Genocide is objectively wrong. Cold-blooded murder of babies is objectively wrong. Torture of religious heretics is objectively wrong.

And burning atheists at the stake simply for being atheists is objectively wrong.

Where would you say "genocide is wrong" is located in the world? What is "genocide is wrong" a property of?

I don't like "agreeing to disagree" about stuff like this. I want people to not have the same old incorrect beliefs.

You cannot rationally will the maxim that genocide is permissible without denying basic human rights. I believe in human rights. I believe society cannot function optimally without them, and chaos goes against our order-seeking minds/brains.

You just told me a bunch of stuff about how some people think, what they believe, what they prefer.

Your claim was that "genocide is wrong" can be found in the world independently of us.

So it doesn't do any good to attempt to support that by talking about how some people think, what they believe or what they prefer. The only way to support it is to give the evidence of "genocide is wrong" occurring mind-independently.

I was referring to the objective fact that the human mind/brain seeks order. It orders the objective world, and human conduct is a part of the objective world.

You can't refer to or grasp the objective reality of anything that's only mental, because it's only mental--by definition not objective.

Are you claiming that normatives are referring to something non-mental that's anything like a normative? What objective thing? — Terrapin Station

No, I an saying norms have an objective foundation in reality, which though not themselves norms, justify the application of norms. For example, there is a biological basis for not eating 2-week old cream pie.

I was referring to the objective fact that the human mind/brain seeks order — Noah Te Stroete

For it to be an objective fact, it has to be a fact that's mind-independent. How is a fact about the human mind mind-independent?

No, I an saying norms have an objective foundation in reality, which though not themselves norms, justify the application of norms. For example, there is a biological basis for not eating 2-week old cream pie. — Dfpolis

Do they objectively justify the application of norms?

It’s a fact about how brains work. I can look at other people’s brains through fMRI’s and the accounts they give while being scanned. Then compare it to a large sample of scans and accounts.

It’s a fact about how brains work. — Noah Te Stroete

Sure, a mental way that they work, right? (Otherwise you're not saying something about the human mind after all, no?)

Your stipulation was that mental states refer to the outside world truths. I’m giving an account of how that can be shown objectively.

Your stipulation was that mental states refer to the outside world truths — Noah Te Stroete

That's not what I said (and there are reasons I definitely would never say that that way (which I don't want to get into because it would be a big tangent)).

What I said was that normatives, and moral stances, etc. are mental only. They don't correspond to something not mental. So talking about the human mind, which is the brain in particular (dynamic) states, isn't talking about something not mental, right?

Brain scans aren’t mental. But I’m sure that’s not what you’re saying?

fMRI scans in conjunction with reported accounts are observable phenomena. They are objective. That’s how we corroborate the mental activity of minds giving order to the world.

Just take the example of a city. It is order. Minds came up with the idea, but there are physical aspects to what we call “cities”. Living as intelligent social beings, we also cannot consistently live together without emergent objective social norms.

Brain scans aren’t mental. But I’m sure that’s not what you’re saying? — Noah Te Stroete

Right, since a brain scan isn't a moral stance or a normative, etc.

fMRI scans in conjunction with reported accounts are observable phenomena. They are objective. That’s how we corroborate the mental activity of minds giving order to the world. — Noah Te Stroete

What I kept specifying was mind versus mind-independent, no? I didn't say anything about whether anything is observable.

Just take the example of a city. It is order. Minds came up with the idea, but there are physical aspects to what we call “cities”. Living as intelligent social beings, we also cannot consistently live together without emergent objective social norms. — Noah Te Stroete

The question is whether norms, ethical stances etc. are mind-independent. The question isn't whether once we have norms and ethical stances in mind whether that has any impact on mind-independent stuff.

Is there a reason you didn't answer the question in the last post, by the way?

Okay. I just don’t know how you could describe anything from a mind-independent viewpoint without positing a mind. So what is mind-independent knowledge?

You ignored the question I asked earlier and then ignored the question about why you ignored the question. I wasn't asking questions simply for decoration.

Remind me which question. I’m thick.

The first question was "Talking about the human mind, which is the brain in particular (dynamic) states, isn't talking about something not mental, right?"

Brain states equate to mental states. I will give you that. But what is a mind-independent fact?

But what is a mind-independent fact? — Noah Te Stroete

Most states of affairs are mind-independent facts. A tree being deciduous, for example, or that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, or that seawater has an average salinity of about 3.5%, etc.

Wrong. Without minds to make “sense” of the world, everything would be amorphous. You can’t posit a fact without first assuming a mind.