Perceiving, Knowing & Describing Not Related to Existence

[Veritas Aequitas]

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Things Not Related to constructing of the Real Existence of the Thing.

The existence of gut bacteria then or now must always be qualified to the human-based science-biology FSK, thus, cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

No, this is patently false. The EXISTENCE of gut bacteria - or any other feature of reality - has NOTHING to do with knowledge or description, human or otherwise. The vague expressions 'qualified by' and 'conditioned to' are nothing more than mystical fog. And the predicate 'absolutely mind-independent' is incoherent.

How many times do I have to repeat the below before it gets into your thick skull.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

It is obvious the perceiving, the knowing and the description [all subject-dependent] do not bring THE-PERCEIVED, THE KNOWN and THE DESCRIBED into reality and existence as real.

But before any real thing is perceived, known and described it has to emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted, thus cannot be absolutely human independent or 'mind-independent'.
Thus, there a prior emergence and realization process to be accounted for.

Gut-Bacteria exist as real as conditioned upon a human-based science-biology FSK, thus cannot exist as absolutely human-independent.

Can you prove the EXISTENCE of gut bacteria - or any other feature of reality, is absolutely human [mind, brain, body] independent?
So far you have merely talk but have not shown proofs.
Show me your proofs?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Here is an indication [re Kuhn and changes in paradigm] to the concept of emergence and realization prior to description;

The changes in perception, conceptualization, and language that Kuhn associated with changes in paradigm also fuelled his notion of world change, which further extends the contrast of the historicist approach with realism.
There is an important sense, Kuhn maintained, in which after a scientific revolution, scientists live in a different world.
This is a famously cryptic remark in Structure ([1962] 1970: 111, 121, 150), but he (2000: 264) later gives it a neo-Kantian spin: paradigms function so as to create the reality of scientific phenomena, thereby allowing scientists to engage with this reality.
On such a view, it would seem that not only the meanings but also the referents of terms are constrained by paradigmatic boundaries.

And thus, reflecting an interesting parallel with neo-Kantian logical empiricism, the idea of a paradigm-transcendent world which is investigated by scientists, and about which one might have knowledge, has no obvious cognitive content.
On this picture, empirical reality is structured by scientific paradigms, and this conflicts with the commitment of realism to knowledge of a mind-independent world.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... lism/#Hist

The term “social construction” refers to any knowledge-generating process in which what counts as a fact is substantively determined by social factors, and in which different social factors would likely generate facts that are inconsistent with what is actually produced.

By making social factors an inextricable, substantive determinant of what counts as true or false in the realm of the sciences (and elsewhere), social constructivism stands opposed to the realist contention that theories can be understood as furnishing knowledge of a mind-independent world.
And as in the historicist approach, notions such as truth, reference, and ontology are here relative to particular contexts; they have no context-transcendent significance.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... /#SociCons

The main point above is this 3 points;
1. Kuhn maintained, in which after a scientific revolution, scientists live in a different world.
2. paradigms function so as to create the reality of scientific phenomena, thereby allowing scientists to engage with this reality.
3. In the historicist approach, notions such as truth, reference, and ontology are here relative to particular contexts; they have no context-transcendent significance.

The term paradigm is equivalent to my FSR-FSK.
While the above use "construct" and "create" [which can be mistaken literally] the more appropriate term should be 'emergence'.
Re point 3, the supposed referent and ontology emerged from the respective FSR-FSK, thus are human correlated; therefore there is no uncorrelated mind-independent reality awaiting to be discovered and therefrom described.

The above described the current ever-changing scientific facts and general facts are correlated with their respective human-based FSK; however this FSR-FSK process had been going on since the first one-celled emerged from abiogenesis 3.5 billion years ago to the present humans.

[Iwannaplato]

Gut-Bacteria exist as real as conditioned upon a human-based science-biology FSK, thus cannot exist as absolutely human-independent.

So, did they exist as mind-dependent back then in the 1500's? If so, could you give us an example of whose mind it was that they were dependent on. Was it someone living back then?

This should not require a long post to answer. It should be simple. Gut bacteria existed back then or not. Yes or no. If they existed what mind were they dependent on? If they didn't exist, how did people digest without them?

So. Yes or no. And then saying what mind they were dependent on. Very short post. Nothing about realists or problems I may nor may not have or links to other posts. Just simple answers.

[Skepdick]

So, did they exist as mind-dependent back then in the 1500's? If so, could you give us an example of whose mind it was that they were dependent on. Was it someone living back then?

This should not require a long post to answer. It should be simple. Gut bacteria existed back then or not. Yes or no. If they existed what mind were they dependent on? If they didn't exist, how did people digest without them?

So. Yes or no. And then saying what mind they were dependent on. Very short post. Nothing about realists or problems I may nor may not have or links to other posts. Just simple answers.

Why don't you lead by example? You seem to be talking about time, events, dates. Things happening "back then". The order of things etc.

In short - you are talking about time. What can you tell us about the mind-independence of time?

This should not require a long post to answer - just simple answers. What is ontological time?

[Iwannaplato]

So, when describing military actions where there are 'unintended' and unintended deaths and injuries, the term collateral damage is used.
When describing the 'unintended' and unintended bodily reactions to psychotropic medicines, they refer to side effects and adverse reactions.

Let's take one of the most common psychotropics, Fluoxetine:

Prozac (fluoxetine) was most commonly linked to aggression, increasing violent behavior 10.9 timesnervousness
anxiety
difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep
nausea
suicidal ideation
diarrhea
dry mouth
heartburn
yawning
weakness
uncontrollable shaking of a part of the body
loss of appetite
weight loss
unusual dreams
stuffy nose
sexual problems in males; decreased sex drive, inability to get or keep an erection, or delayed or absent ejaculation
sexual problems in females; decreased sex drive, or delayed orgasm or unable to have an orgasm
excessive sweating
headache, confusion, weakness, difficulty concentrating, or memory problems
rash
hives or blisters
itching
fever
joint pain
swelling of the face, throat, tongue, lips, eyes, hands, feet, ankles, or lower legs
difficulty breathing or swallowing
agitation, fever, sweating, confusion, fast or irregular heartbeat, shivering, severe muscle stiffness or twitching, hallucinations, loss of coordination, nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea
fast, slow, or irregular heartbeat
shortness of breath
dizziness or fainting
seizures
abnormal bleeding or bruising

By all means cure the mainstream of their common certainties. Bomb the terrorist dominant position philosophers.

The world needs more VAs.

[Skepdick]

By all means cure the mainstream of their common certainties. Bomb the terrorist dominant position philosophers.

The world needs more VAs.

How did you go from the simple question as to whether time exists to bombing people?

Without some value-system at the helm of disambiguation there's no difference between an effect and a "side-effect". It's the first law of ecology - you can't do just one thing.

[Atla]

But before any real thing is perceived, known and described it has to emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted, thus cannot be absolutely human independent or 'mind-independent'.
Thus, there a prior emergence and realization process to be accounted for.

So Kant in the 18th century came up with a guess, that there should be some sort of pre-processing in the mind.

And?

You seem to be making the completely idiotic claim that, while percieving/knowing/describing are not related to existence, the pre-processing has to be related to existence?

[Skepdick]

But before any real thing is perceived, known and described it has to emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted, thus cannot be absolutely human independent or 'mind-independent'.
Thus, there a prior emergence and realization process to be accounted for.

So Kant in the 18th century came up with a guess, that there should be some sort of pre-processing in the mind.

And?

You seem to be making the completely idiotic claim that, while percieving/knowing/describing are not related to existence, the pre-processing has to be related to existence?

Processing and pre-processing. Lol.

Now tell us about the simulation.

[Iwannaplato]

But before any real thing is perceived, known and described it has to emerge to be realized as real within a FSR_FSK which is subject interacted, thus cannot be absolutely human independent or 'mind-independent'.
Thus, there a prior emergence and realization process to be accounted for.

So Kant in the 18th century came up with a guess, that there should be some sort of pre-processing in the mind.

And?

You seem to be making the completely idiotic claim that, while percieving/knowing/describing are not related to existence, the pre-processing has to be related to existence?

It is obvious the perceiving, the knowing and the description [all subject-dependent] do not bring THE-PERCEIVED, THE KNOWN and THE DESCRIBED into reality and existence as real.

I don't think we should hop over this suddenly realist facet of his antirealism.

[Atla]

Now tell us about the simulation.

Most NPCs are obnoxious and boring, the grind is unbelievable, mostly pay-to-win, the graphics and physics are surprisingly good though. You can't save or reload your progress, and you only have 1 life. Your starting stats and starting location are random, and mostly determine how well you will do in the simulation, which is pretty dumb imo. The simulation does have some nice or interesting moments here and there though if you're lucky.

[Skepdick]

Now tell us about the simulation.

Most NPCs are obnoxious and boring, the grind is unbelievable, mostly pay-to-win, the graphics and physics are surprisingly good though. You can't save or reload your progress, and you only have 1 life. Your starting stats and starting location are random, and mostly determine how well you will do in the simulation, which is pretty dumb imo. The simulation does have some nice or interesting moments here and there though if you're lucky.

Not the science fiction simulation, you clown.

The simulation happening in your head where "reality" gets reconstructed for you from sense-data.

[Atla]

Not the science fiction simulation, you clown.

You're right, it's so bizarre it could even be a sci-fi
It would get 34% on rottentomatoes

[Veritas Aequitas]

Gut-Bacteria exist as real as conditioned upon a human-based science-biology FSK, thus cannot exist as absolutely human-independent.

So, did they exist as mind-dependent back then in the 1500's? If so, could you give us an example of whose mind it was that they were dependent on. Was it someone living back then?

This should not require a long post to answer. It should be simple. Gut bacteria existed back then or not. Yes or no. If they existed what mind were they dependent on? If they didn't exist, how did people digest without them?

So. Yes or no. And then saying what mind they were dependent on. Very short post. Nothing about realists or problems I may nor may not have or links to other posts. Just simple answers.

So, yes or no: Just simple answers.??
It is an insult to one's intelligence to give simple answers to this 'simple-minded' question.

This is a philosophical issue which is heavily loaded which you do not have the necessary philosophical strength to carry.

You are conflating foresight with hindsight grounded on 'time' which is not absolutely mind-independent.
Thus what that follows cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
Note Skepdick's response re ontological [philosophy] time..

I have already answered the above in this post.
viewtopic.php?p=663857#p663857
You missed it or deliberately ignoring it and pretend the issue was not addressed.

Repeat:

How did their digestion work?

Note this;
Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265

• 1. The human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK - the Standard]
  
  2. The philosophical realism mind-independent sense of reality.

So, the answers to the questions raised above will depend on which of the above stance one is adopting.

IWP: So, one wonders how digestion would have worked.

This a weird question without qualifications as it involved the conflation of foresight and hindsight, realism and anti-realism.

One could ask the following silly questions,
-there was no sperm then how reproduction would have worked?
-there was no humans then how humans exist at present
-there was no x then, how y would have worked.

At that time in the past, before humans could know about those bacteria, according to some of your statements they could not exist, since no one had perception of them. They were not in an FSR or FSK. So, at that time they should not have existed, according to many of your statements.

Yes, they don't exist then [> 500 years ago] and this is based on an ANTI-philosophical stance [specifically Kantian].

But note, digestion did work as evident except then it was not understood in terms of gut-bacteria.

To ask the following question is ignorance;
IWP: So, one wonders how digestion would have worked.

From the ANTI-Philosophical_Realist stance [Kantian], there is no wondering on how digestion worked then.
This knowledge of digestion can be deduced or inferred logically from the knowledge of the existing human-based science-FSK, thus cannot be an absolutely mind-independent fact.

It is the philosophical-realists who are bewildered with the above answers because their stance is grounded on an illusion; other types of anti-realists may also be confused from their limited grounds.

Yes, now we have these bacteria in an FSK.
Did this current knowledge retroactively lead to the existence of the gut bacteria in the past?

This current knowledge enabled the inferred-existence of gut bacteria in the past just like other similar facts [sperm, DNA, etc.].

The existence of gut bacteria then or now must always be qualified to the human-based science-biology FSK, thus, cannot be absolutely mind-independent.