What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Even any kindi kid can answer the above, i.e. there are things out there awaiting to be seen by humans.

Well, stone me.

So, the thing we call reality would exist if there were no humans. It would have 'emerged' and 'realised' since the universe began.

If there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.

This is complete nonsense. It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself. And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.

The "since the universe began" itself is an emergent and realization as conditioned a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.
Without humans the "since the universe began' is a non-starter.

There is very compulsive a natural instinct [force] an evolutionary default to ascertain "since the universe began" as an ideological certainty of a mind-independent reality which is illusory;
whenever this impulse is triggered [naturally] the philosophical-rational approach is to resort to Pyrrhonian Skepticism as a therapeutic diversion to avoid being delusional.

Here are some questions to chew on.
1 From what perspective can scientific paradigm shifts be described?

From the philosophical FSK, sociology FSK and linguistic FSK.

Missing the point. If a paradigm 'creates' reality, and there's no perspective outside a paradigm, then there's no way to describe paradigm-shifts. There's no perspective 'above the fray'. The very idea of paradigm-shifts assumes the existence of a reality which can be described differently.

2 What is the truth-value of the claim that there's no such thing as classical truth-value?

From the philosophy-FSK and Analytical-critical-thinking FSK.

Missing the point. If the claim 'there's no such thing as classical truth-value' is true, then it demolishes itself.

There is only a truth-value [PH's] when one believe there is an absolutely mind independent reality out there to be mirrored, corresponded or obtained.
If the claim is not mirrored, corresponded or obtained with anything out there, then it is false, else it is true.
The above is grounded on philosophical realism.

(How many times?) The correspondence-theory-of-truth charge against realism is a straw man - one which antirealists need in order to justify their position. Correspondence theories are obviously incorrect - as Wittgenstein's 'meaning is use' insight demonstrates.

Based on analytical-critical thinking, philosophical realism is not tenable.

3 How can a non-classical logic be described? Non-classically?

In any description we rely upon the human-based linguistic FSK.
In this case, we rely on 'meaning is use' i.e. how "non-classical logic" is used then defined by members who agree with it within a human-based linguistic FSK.

PH, I am researching in depth into "Semantic Realism" [a subset of philosophical-realism] which I believe most of your philosophical views are grounded upon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_realism
Suggest you look into it and more deeper besides the above.

I suggest you stop and think very deeply about the fundamental mistake you're making. You muddle up three separate and different things: what there is; what we believe and know about what there is; and what we say about what there is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, stone me.

So, the thing we call reality would exist if there were no humans. It would have 'emerged' and 'realised' since the universe began.

If there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.

This is complete nonsense.
It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself.
And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.

It is complete nonsense to you because you are ignorant, philosophically immature and incompetent.

PH: It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself.
Your 'reality itself' which is independent of the human condition is illusory.
I have challenged you to prove 'reality itself' [that which we {you} believe, know and say about] is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
You have not been able to do so, and most likely you don't have the philosophical competent even to understand [not agree with] this very contentious issue.

If you are philosophically mature, you would not have waved the issue above as complete nonsense but rather the contention between what you believe as a realist is totally in opposite to that of the anti-realists [many types].

If you are philosophically mature, you would have justified why your belief [p-realist] is true and those of the anti-realists are false.

And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.

Strawman again. I did not write nor imply the above statement.
I wrote above;
"Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is {subsequently} perceived, known, believed and described via FSK."
How is this contradictory?

I have explained in numerous threads on how Reality emerged and is realized prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing it.


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

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

The "since the universe began" itself is an emergent and realization as conditioned a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.
Without humans the "since the universe began' is a non-starter.

There is very compulsive a natural instinct [force] an evolutionary default to ascertain "since the universe began" as an ideological certainty of a mind-independent reality which is illusory;
whenever this impulse is triggered [naturally] the philosophical-rational approach is to resort to Pyrrhonian Skepticism as a therapeutic diversion to avoid being delusional.

Here are some questions to chew on.
1 From what perspective can scientific paradigm shifts be described?

From the philosophical FSK, sociology FSK and linguistic FSK.

Missing the point. If a paradigm 'creates' reality, and there's no perspective outside a paradigm, then there's no way to describe paradigm-shifts. There's no perspective 'above the fray'. The very idea of paradigm-shifts assumes the existence of a reality which can be described differently.

Strawman again, I did not use the term "creates".
I stated 'reality-as-it-is emerged and is realized within a paradigm".
The is no pre-existing paradigm nor reality, rather "within a paradigm" is a hindsight and emerged and is realized within a linguistic FSK.
So we describe a paradigm [not paradigm-shift in this case] as conditioned upon a linguistic FSK.

You are trapped by an evolutionary default that 'nothing can come from nothing.'
This is a psychological issue that is inherent in ALL humans via evolution.
It takes philosophical maturity to overcome the cold turkey to understand the reality behind it.

2 What is the truth-value of the claim that there's no such thing as classical truth-value?

From the philosophy-FSK and Analytical-critical-thinking FSK.

Missing the point. If the claim 'there's no such thing as classical truth-value' is true, then it demolishes itself.

There is only a truth-value [PH's] when one believe there is an absolutely mind independent reality out there to be mirrored, corresponded or obtained.
If the claim is not mirrored, corresponded or obtained with anything out there, then it is false, else it is true.
The above is grounded on philosophical realism.

(How many times?) The correspondence-theory-of-truth charge against realism is a straw man - one which antirealists need in order to justify their position. Correspondence theories are obviously incorrect - as Wittgenstein's 'meaning is use' insight demonstrates.

Strawman again, I did not mention the classic, "correspondence-theory-of-truth."
I am aware of the repetition and I think it is necessary because you are ignorant you are still entrapped by "correspondence" and mirroring of the subtle kind.

If something is true or false, then it has to be corresponded, mirrored and justified against something that is supposedly real.
But as I had argued from the anti-realist position, there is nothing pre-existing out there to be corresponded, mirrored and justified against.
Get the point?

Based on analytical-critical thinking, philosophical realism is not tenable.

3 How can a non-classical logic be described? Non-classically?

In any description we rely upon the human-based linguistic FSK.
In this case, we rely on 'meaning is use' i.e. how "non-classical logic" is used then defined by members who agree with it within a human-based linguistic FSK.

PH, I am researching in depth into "Semantic Realism" [a subset of philosophical-realism] which I believe most of your philosophical views are grounded upon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_realism
Suggest you look into it and more deeper besides the above.

I suggest you stop and think very deeply about the fundamental mistake you're making. You muddle up three separate and different things:
what there is;
what we believe and
[what we] know about
what there is;
and what we say about what there is.

Actually, you are the one who is ignorant, philosophically immature and incompetent.

The fact is what you are proposing is an evolutionary default that is inherent in ALL humans, they are all kindergarten stuffs.
It is still inherent in me, so, I don't have to stop and think very deeply about any fundamental mistake I could be making with this evolutionary default.
Rather I have already used reflective and critical thinking to understand what is really real beyond that evolutionary default that entrapped one to be dogmatic with a reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Relatively, on this issue, you are still stuck in kindergarten, while I am doing my PhD thesis.
In any case, you are not likely to understand the above difference.

[Peter Holmes]

Just been following, elsewhere, more antirealist blather about the impossibility of perceiving, knowing and describing reality from 'outside' any perspective - hence the supposed delusion of philosophical realism.

Question: from what perspective can it be known and asserted that knowledge and assertions must be perspectival? (How to eat your cake and still have it!)

VA: 'There are no such things as facts, features of reality, or things-in-themselves - independent from human beings. Humans intersubjectively 'emerge' and 'realise' reality. So we can 'emerge' and 'realise' moral facts. And in that way, morality is objective.'

Voila.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just been following, elsewhere, more antirealist blather about the impossibility of perceiving, knowing and describing reality from 'outside' any perspective - hence the supposed delusion of philosophical realism.

Question: from what perspective can it be known and asserted that knowledge and assertions must be perspectival? (How to eat your cake and still have it!)

VA: 'There are no such things as facts, features of reality, or things-in-themselves - independent from human beings. Humans intersubjectively 'emerge' and 'realise' reality. So we can 'emerge' and 'realise' moral facts. And in that way, morality is objective.'

Voila.

I have already provided the answer in the previous post.



Try this with deeper reflective thinking.
I presumed you are agree,
1. scientifically [human-based scientific FSK] the Universe began with the Big Bang with a bust of particles expanding in all direction; like the above image with no specific pattern of things.
2. Then the particles got together to form denser clusters or bundles of particles.
3. The process has been going for 13.7 billions years with denser and denser clusters or bundles of particles up the present.
4. Around 3.5 billions years ago, the first one-celled animals emerged. Do you think they perceived these dense clusters as stars in a sky. No, No, No..
5. Later after a few billion years, we have animal with pattern recognition abilities who would perceive these patterns as things within the specific cognitive FSK.
6. It is only at this stage that there is emergence and realization of particular things of reality [separating the discrete from the continuous] specific to these animals. There is no abilities for these animals to know and describe them.
7.The above continue till existence of humans with emergences and realization of reality specific to the FSR which is then perceive, known and described with the specific FSK.
8. But note these emergences and realization of the discrete is grounded on the ever present continuous soup of particles.
9. But this 'soup of particles' is the resultant of 1 above which is conditioned to the human based science-physic FSK.
10. Yes, it's circular and the point is there are no mind-independent reality, it is always entangled with the human conditions.
11. You may bring in ex nihilo nihil fit or principle of sufficient reason, all these are all human [subject] made.

What we have are only first-person experiences, thus subjective.
To make it less subjective, we have to rely on a collective-of-subjects' experiences via a human-based FSK to find shared views based on verified and justified empirical evidences, so that they are objective [independent of a subject's views].

From the above, there is no way, one's speculation of an absolute human independent reality can exist at all. That speculation is an illusion and to insist is delusional.
Yours is a psychological issue that need philosophical therapy.

[Peter Holmes]

Just been following, elsewhere, more antirealist blather about the impossibility of perceiving, knowing and describing reality from 'outside' any perspective - hence the supposed delusion of philosophical realism.

Question: from what perspective can it be known and asserted that knowledge and assertions must be perspectival? (How to eat your cake and still have it!)

VA: 'There are no such things as facts, features of reality, or things-in-themselves - independent from human beings. Humans intersubjectively 'emerge' and 'realise' reality. So we can 'emerge' and 'realise' moral facts. And in that way, morality is objective.'

Voila.

I have already provided the answer in the previous post.



Try this with deeper reflective thinking.
I presumed you are agree,
1. scientifically [human-based scientific FSK] the Universe began with the Big Bang with a bust of particles expanding in all direction; like the above image with no specific pattern of things.
2. Then the particles got together to form denser clusters or bundles of particles.
3. The process has been going for 13.7 billions years with denser and denser clusters or bundles of particles up the present.
4. Around 3.5 billions years ago, the first one-celled animals emerged. Do you think they perceived these dense clusters as stars in a sky. No, No, No..
5. Later after a few billion years, we have animal with pattern recognition abilities who would perceive these patterns as things within the specific cognitive FSK.
6. It is only at this stage that there is emergence and realization of particular things of reality [separating the discrete from the continuous] specific to these animals. There is no abilities for these animals to know and describe them.
7.The above continue till existence of humans with emergences and realization of reality specific to the FSR which is then perceive, known and described with the specific FSK.
8. But note these emergences and realization of the discrete is grounded on the ever present continuous soup of particles.
9. But this 'soup of particles' is the resultant of 1 above which is conditioned to the human based science-physic FSK.
10. Yes, it's circular and the point is there are no mind-independent reality, it is always entangled with the human conditions.
11. You may bring in ex nihilo nihil fit or principle of sufficient reason, all these are all human [subject] made.

What we have are only first-person experiences, thus subjective.
To make it less subjective, we have to rely on a collective-of-subjects' experiences via a human-based FSK to find shared views based on verified and justified empirical evidences, so that they are objective [independent of a subject's views].

From the above, there is no way, one's speculation of an absolute human independent reality can exist at all. That speculation is an illusion and to insist is delusional.
Yours is a psychological issue that need philosophical therapy.

1 Your description is realist: this is how it all happened. And there's nothing subjective about it. Your empiricist skepticism/solipsism is fake.

2 There's no reason to think that reality is what one dog perceives, or what all dogs perceive, or that each dog perceives a different reality. And, pari passu, with humans. A bas, anthropocentrism!

[Angelo Cannata]

Question: from what perspective can it be known and asserted that knowledge and assertions must be perspectival? (How to eat your cake and still have it!)

Personally, I think that the perspective that forces us to admit that knowledge and assertions must be perspectival is the realist perspective. In other words, I think that relativism is just the logical conclusion that realism drives to. If you are a realist, as a consequence you must be a relativist, that is, an anti-realist. I have already described this mechanism in my post about reciprocal understanding.

I’m going to resume it here in short.

1) If you are a realist, you are claiming to be able to take into consideration any subjectivity, showing that reality is the same to any subject; if a subject perceives reality differently, you can give evidence that this is due to the different perception of the subject, while reality is actually always the same.
2) If you are able to consider every subjectivity, then you must be able to take into consideration your own subjectivity as well.
3) As a consequence, you are forced to admit that whatever you say about reality is conditioned by your subjectivity. In this context, as a consequence, even the concept of reality itself is radically conditioned by your subjectivity. This is equivalent to say that you are forced to be an anti-realist.

Now compare the premise and the conclusion: the premise was “If you are a realist”; the conclusion is “you are forced to be an anti-realist”. The key point, the middle point that makes possible the change, is that if you are a realist you shouldn’t ignore the presence of your subjectivity, that is actually what realists ignore.

So, in my opinion, in my perspective, when you say

1 Your description is realist

I would say that you are right. You cannot be an anti-realist without being based on the ground of realism as a starting point. Anti-realism cannot be produced by anything else than realism. Realism cannot but produce anti-realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just been following, elsewhere, more antirealist blather about the impossibility of perceiving, knowing and describing reality from 'outside' any perspective - hence the supposed delusion of philosophical realism.

Question: from what perspective can it be known and asserted that knowledge and assertions must be perspectival? (How to eat your cake and still have it!)

VA: 'There are no such things as facts, features of reality, or things-in-themselves - independent from human beings. Humans intersubjectively 'emerge' and 'realise' reality. So we can 'emerge' and 'realise' moral facts. And in that way, morality is objective.'

Voila.

I have already provided the answer in the previous post.



Try this with deeper reflective thinking.
I presumed you are agree,
1. scientifically [human-based scientific FSK] the Universe began with the Big Bang with a bust of particles expanding in all direction; like the above image with no specific pattern of things.
2. Then the particles got together to form denser clusters or bundles of particles.
3. The process has been going for 13.7 billions years with denser and denser clusters or bundles of particles up the present.
4. Around 3.5 billions years ago, the first one-celled animals emerged. Do you think they perceived these dense clusters as stars in a sky. No, No, No..
5. Later after a few billion years, we have animal with pattern recognition abilities who would perceive these patterns as things within the specific cognitive FSK.
6. It is only at this stage that there is emergence and realization of particular things of reality [separating the discrete from the continuous] specific to these animals. There is no abilities for these animals to know and describe them.
7.The above continue till existence of humans with emergences and realization of reality specific to the FSR which is then perceive, known and described with the specific FSK.
8. But note these emergences and realization of the discrete is grounded on the ever present continuous soup of particles.
9. But this 'soup of particles' is the resultant of 1 above which is conditioned to the human based science-physic FSK.
10. Yes, it's circular and the point is there are no mind-independent reality, it is always entangled with the human conditions.
11. You may bring in ex nihilo nihil fit or principle of sufficient reason, all these are all human [subject] made.

What we have are only first-person experiences, thus subjective.
To make it less subjective, we have to rely on a collective-of-subjects' experiences via a human-based FSK to find shared views based on verified and justified empirical evidences, so that they are objective [independent of a subject's views].

From the above, there is no way, one's speculation of an absolute human independent reality can exist at all. That speculation is an illusion and to insist is delusional.
Yours is a psychological issue that need philosophical therapy.

1 Your description is realist: this is how it all happened. And there's nothing subjective about it. Your empiricist skepticism/solipsism is fake.

2 There's no reason to think that reality is what one dog perceives, or what all dogs perceive, or that each dog perceives a different reality. And, pari passu, with humans. A bas, anthropocentrism!

Here is the missing argument;

• 1. Whatever is real is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.
  2. Whatever is human-based is subjective on a collective-of-subject basis, i.e. intersubjective.
  3. Therefore, a FSK is fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective.
  4. As such, whatever of a FSK cannot be a realist's claim, i.e. absolutely human-independent [or mind independent]

In the above argument 1-9, note 1;

• 1. scientifically [human-based scientific FSK] the Universe began with the Big Bang with a bust of particles expanding in all direction; like the above image with no specific pattern of things.

Since 1 is FSK-based, therefore it follows, the conclusion 9 is fundamentally subjective i.e. intersubjective.
As such, the above cannot be a realist's claim, i.e. absolutely human-independent [or mind independent].

[Peter Holmes]

Whatever is real is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.

No. There's no reason to think this is true. There's no evidence to indicate that this is the case. Indeed, all the empirical evidence we have indicates that it's not the case.

And it's arrogantly anthropocentric - why make a special case for humans and not dogs? And aliens would obviously not experience 'whatever is real...conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK' - so reality can't be what you say it is.

Your P1 is false, or at least not shown to be true. So your argument is unsound, or at least not shown to be sound.

And here's your fallacy:

P: We have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
C: Therefore, reality ('whatever is real') is the ways we perceive, know and describe it.

And, ironically, this grand conclusion goes way beyond what I and many realists claim.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whatever is real is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.

No. There's no reason to think this is true. There's no evidence to indicate that this is the case. Indeed, all the empirical evidence we have indicates that it's not the case.

All the empirical evidences, the most real is the one that is justified and verified within a human-based scientific FSK.
Which empirical evidence is more real and objective than from science which is a human-based FSK?

And it's arrogantly anthropocentric - why make a special case for humans and not dogs? And aliens would obviously not experience 'whatever is real...conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK' - so reality can't be what you say it is.

Correct.
Whatever is real must be qualified to humans, dogs or any other animals.
There is no unqualified or unconditional objective reality that is absolutely independent of humans, dog or other living things.

Your P1 is false, or at least not shown to be true. So your argument is unsound, or at least not shown to be sound.

And here's your fallacy:

P: We have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
C: Therefore, reality ('whatever is real') is the ways we perceive, know and describe it.

And, ironically, this grand conclusion goes way beyond what I and many realists claim.

P1 Whatever is real is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.

I have no problem changing to,

P1 Whatever is real is conditioned upon a specific (human, dog, whatever-living-things, aliens)-based FSK.

P: We have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
C: Therefore, reality ('whatever is real') is the ways we perceive, know and describe it.

This is you invention and a strawman.
I have corrected you on this a 'million' times.

I have already stated,
P1 Whatever is real is conditioned upon a specific (human, dog, whatever-living-things, aliens)-based FSK.

Thus if anyone claim X is real,
then the critical question is,
conditioned upon which human-based FSK.

Then we assess the credibility and objectivity of the human-based FSK it is conditioned upon and contrast it scientific FSK with the standard at 100/100 [as computed and justified].

Whatever is claimed as real must always be conditioned and never be unconditional.

In your case when you claimed "X is real" as a human independent objective reality, it is a metaphysical and unconditional claim without qualifying this realness to any human-based FSK.
You are thus speculating and grasping at an illusion.
Can you counter this?

If you claim "X is real" because science said so,
then it is qualified to the human-based scientific FSK.
Because the human-based scientific FSK is grounded in the consensus of a collective-of-subjects [humans], it cannot be absolutely human independent.
Get it?

If you claim that science strive to discover something that is real and objective which is independent of the human conditions, this is merely an ASSUMPTION by science within a human-based scientific FSK.
Because it is an assumption, it is assumed subjectively by humans, therefore it follow whatever the resultant, it cannot be absolutely independent of humans.
Get it?

Can you counter all the above?

IYou will not be able to counter the above because your problem is psychological as claimed by many philosophers, e.g. Hume, Kant, Buddhists and others.
Your realist position of absolute human independence is very problems and psychological disturbing to realists and making irrational and illusory claims.
This is why there is the therapeutic solution from Pyrrhonian Skepticism to suspend judgments on such claims whenever it is triggered in the mind and focus on what is empirically verifiable and justifiable [with rationality and critical thinking] within a human-based FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

Whatever is real is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.

No. There's no reason to think this is true. There's no evidence to indicate that this is the case. Indeed, all the empirical evidence we have indicates that it's not the case.

All the empirical evidences, the most real is the one that is justified and verified within a human-based scientific FSK.
Which empirical evidence is more real and objective than from science which is a human-based FSK?

Yes. And all the scientific, empirical evidence we have indicates that there was a universe, including an earth, before life appeared on earth. So you demolish your own claim by appealing to natural science.

And it's arrogantly anthropocentric - why make a special case for humans and not dogs? And aliens would obviously not experience 'whatever is real...conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK' - so reality can't be what you say it is.

Correct.

Well done. You agree that reality can't be what you say it is.

Whatever is real must be qualified to humans, dogs or any other animals.
There is no unqualified or unconditional objective reality that is absolutely independent of humans, dog or other living things.

False. False. False. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that reality - the universe itself - is not independent from life forms, including humans. This is a stupid claim.

What you mean is that humans - and possibly other life forms - have to perceive, know and describe reality in specific ways. And this does not mean that reality is, in some way, dependent on - or not independent from - perception, knowledge and description by life forms, including humans.

Ffs. There was a universe long before life existed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No. There's no reason to think this is true. There's no evidence to indicate that this is the case. Indeed, all the empirical evidence we have indicates that it's not the case.

All the empirical evidences, the most real is the one that is justified and verified within a human-based scientific FSK.
Which empirical evidence is more real and objective than from science which is a human-based FSK?

Yes. And all the scientific, empirical evidence we have indicates that there was a universe, including an earth, before life appeared on earth. So you demolish your own claim by appealing to natural science.

Your claim is not logical [it does not follow] but rather appeal to emotions and psychology.

• 1. All scientific facts [natural or otherwise] are conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
  2. Human-based FSK means conditioned upon a collective-of-human-subjects.
  3. It is a scientific fact that "there was a universe, including an earth, before life appeared on earth."
  4. Therefore, it follows that the claim "there was a universe, including an earth, before life appeared on earth" cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions given it is conditioned upon a FSK which is grounded on a collective-of-human-subjects.

You just cannot claim "there was a universe, including an earth, before life appeared on earth." because you, your father, mother, sisters, brothers, friends, etc. said so.
Implicit in that claim is the grounding of it to the human-based scientific FSK.
Therefore it follows, that claim of reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Note how Hume insisted, no matter what the common sense of cause & effect, it is ultimately grounded psychologically to the human conditions of constant conjunction, habits and customs.

And it's arrogantly anthropocentric - why make a special case for humans and not dogs? And aliens would obviously not experience 'whatever is real...conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK' - so reality can't be what you say it is.

Correct.

Well done. You agree that reality can't be what you say it is.

Yes, reality cannot be what I said about it.

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

But my point is, what is reality cannot be absolutely independent of 'my and the collective human conditions' since humans first emerged to the point of the BB 13.7 billions years ago.

You are so ignorant in thinking like, you appeared out of nowhere and reality also appear out of nowhere, therefrom you start to discover it after birth.

Whatever is real must be qualified to humans, dogs or any other animals.
There is no unqualified or unconditional objective reality that is absolutely independent of humans, dog or other living things.

False. False. False. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that reality - the universe itself - is not independent from life forms, including humans. This is a stupid claim.

Your accusation of stupidity is actually based on your ignorance and stupidity.
Prove "the universe itself - is not independent from life forms, including humans"?
The best you can do is rely on natural science, but that has to depend on the human-based natural-science FSK as I had explained above.

What you mean is that humans - and possibly other life forms - have to perceive, know and describe reality in specific ways. And this does not mean that reality is, in some way, dependent on - or not independent from - perception, knowledge and description by life forms, including humans.
Ffs. There was a universe long before life existed.

FFS, how many times have I highlighted to you, your above is a strawman invented by you.
I have never meant what you mean above.
See my explanations;

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

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

PH, you have not addressed the above post:
viewtopic.php?p=685623#p685623

[Atla]

All the empirical evidences, the most real is the one that is justified and verified within a human-based scientific FSK.
Which empirical evidence is more real and objective than from science which is a human-based FSK?

Yes. And all the scientific, empirical evidence we have indicates that there was a universe, including an earth, before life appeared on earth. So you demolish your own claim by appealing to natural science.

Your claim is not logical [it does not follow] but rather appeal to emotions and psychology.

• 1. All scientific facts [natural or otherwise] are conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
  2. Human-based FSK means conditioned upon a collective-of-human-subjects.
  3. It is a scientific fact that "there was a universe, including an earth, before life appeared on earth."
  4. Therefore, it follows that the claim "there was a universe, including an earth, before life appeared on earth" cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions given it is conditioned upon a FSK which is grounded on a collective-of-human-subjects.

You just cannot claim "there was a universe, including an earth, before life appeared on earth." because you, your father, mother, sisters, brothers, friends, etc. said so.
Implicit in that claim is the grounding of it to the human-based scientific FSK.
Therefore it follows, that claim of reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Note how Hume insisted, no matter what the common sense of cause & effect, it is ultimately grounded psychologically to the human conditions of constant conjunction, habits and customs.

Correct.

Well done. You agree that reality can't be what you say it is.

Yes, reality cannot be what I said about it.

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

But my point is, what is reality cannot be absolutely independent of 'my and the collective human conditions' since humans first emerged to the point of the BB 13.7 billions years ago.

You are so ignorant in thinking like, you appeared out of nowhere and reality also appear out of nowhere, therefrom you start to discover it after birth.

Whatever is real must be qualified to humans, dogs or any other animals.
There is no unqualified or unconditional objective reality that is absolutely independent of humans, dog or other living things.

False. False. False. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that reality - the universe itself - is not independent from life forms, including humans. This is a stupid claim.

Your accusation of stupidity is actually based on your ignorance and stupidity.
Prove "the universe itself - is not independent from life forms, including humans"?
The best you can do is rely on natural science, but that has to depend on the human-based natural-science FSK as I had explained above.

What you mean is that humans - and possibly other life forms - have to perceive, know and describe reality in specific ways. And this does not mean that reality is, in some way, dependent on - or not independent from - perception, knowledge and description by life forms, including humans.
Ffs. There was a universe long before life existed.

FFS, how many times have I highlighted to you, your above is a strawman invented by you.
I have never meant what you mean above.
See my explanations;

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

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

I think it's time to give it a rest. VA simply doesn't seem to be capable of distinguishing between reality and our description of reality.

It's a monumental claim that those two are one and the same thing, a claim overwhelmingly contradicted by scientific knowledge. Yes there is such a philosophical position, but there is a philosophical position for anything.

But VA can't even entertain the possibility that he's wrong. He doesn't seem to be capable of the above distinction between the description and the described.

Looks like he's not simply rejecting this kind of "realism", but can't even comprehend it. He seems to have a major cognitive deficit that makes him incapable of critical thinking, and incapable of ever participating in any more serious philosophical discussion.

[Peter Holmes]

Yes. And all the scientific, empirical evidence we have indicates that there was a universe, including an earth, before life appeared on earth. So you demolish your own claim by appealing to natural science.

Your claim is not logical [it does not follow] but rather appeal to emotions and psychology.

• 1. All scientific facts [natural or otherwise] are conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
  2. Human-based FSK means conditioned upon a collective-of-human-subjects.
  3. It is a scientific fact that "there was a universe, including an earth, before life appeared on earth."
  4. Therefore, it follows that the claim "there was a universe, including an earth, before life appeared on earth" cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions given it is conditioned upon a FSK which is grounded on a collective-of-human-subjects.

You just cannot claim "there was a universe, including an earth, before life appeared on earth." because you, your father, mother, sisters, brothers, friends, etc. said so.
Implicit in that claim is the grounding of it to the human-based scientific FSK.
Therefore it follows, that claim of reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Note how Hume insisted, no matter what the common sense of cause & effect, it is ultimately grounded psychologically to the human conditions of constant conjunction, habits and customs.

Well done. You agree that reality can't be what you say it is.

Yes, reality cannot be what I said about it.

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

But my point is, what is reality cannot be absolutely independent of 'my and the collective human conditions' since humans first emerged to the point of the BB 13.7 billions years ago.

You are so ignorant in thinking like, you appeared out of nowhere and reality also appear out of nowhere, therefrom you start to discover it after birth.

False. False. False. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that reality - the universe itself - is not independent from life forms, including humans. This is a stupid claim.

Your accusation of stupidity is actually based on your ignorance and stupidity.
Prove "the universe itself - is not independent from life forms, including humans"?
The best you can do is rely on natural science, but that has to depend on the human-based natural-science FSK as I had explained above.

What you mean is that humans - and possibly other life forms - have to perceive, know and describe reality in specific ways. And this does not mean that reality is, in some way, dependent on - or not independent from - perception, knowledge and description by life forms, including humans.
Ffs. There was a universe long before life existed.

FFS, how many times have I highlighted to you, your above is a strawman invented by you.
I have never meant what you mean above.
See my explanations;

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

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

I think it's time to give it a rest. VA simply doesn't seem to be capable of distinguishing between reality and our description of reality.

It's a monumental claim that those two are one and the same thing, a claim overwhelmingly contradicted by scientific knowledge. Yes there is such a philosophical position, but there is a philosophical position for anything.

But VA can't even entertain the possibility that he's wrong. He doesn't seem to be capable of the above distinction between the description and the described.

Looks like he's not simply rejecting this kind of "realism", but can't even comprehend it. He seems to have a major cognitive deficit that makes him incapable of critical thinking, and incapable of ever participating in any more serious philosophical discussion.

Agreed. Maybe another way to show the fallacy is this - and it's staggeringly obvious:

P: A human description of reality cannot be 'independent from the human conditions'. [sic]
C: Therefore, reality is not 'independent from the human conditions'. [sic]

But to confess - I have a perverse desire to reach a million hits, even if it's from bots. And also - maybe - our determination to counter VA's argument is a minor contribution to the wider discussion. I've certainly learnt stuff along the way.

[Iwannaplato]

exxit

[Atla]

But to confess - I have a perverse desire to reach a million hits, even if it's from bots.

Buddhism-proper could maybe help you with that - sometimes it's better to just conquer some of our desires.