What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

'Fact: a thing that [is known] to exist, or to have occurred, or to be true.' (Concise Oxford)

Yes, that's one human conception of what facts are. Is this conception true?

Who is the knower? Does it have to be at least one human? And if so, why?

Who's asking such questions and why?

To clarify, then, a fact is 'a thing that exists, or has occurred, or is true.'

Yes, that's one human conception of what facts are. Is this conception true?

Anti-realism is incoherent - and absurdly anthropocentric.

There's no centricity, you idiot. Reason simply starts with the reasoner. That's all you are given.

Everything that follows is a human inference.

You fucking hate thinking, don't you, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can a non-moral premise entail a moral conclusion?

1 Humans generate facts through frameworks and systems. (This is false.)
2 Any framework and system can generate facts. (This is false.)
3 A moral framework and system can generate facts. (This begs the question.)
4 A non-moral (eg scientific) fact, fed into a moral framework and system, can generate a moral fact. (This begs the question.)
C Therefore, there can be moral facts, so morality is objective. (This is unsound.)

Your above is a strawman.

For a start, what is wrong with my P1 below?

• P1. A System takes in inputs to [enable emergence and] generate output [conditioned facts in this case] within a Framework.

How can scientific facts emerged and is realized without the scientific framework and system of emergence, realization of reality, therefrom perception and cognition and subsequently a description of the emerged facts.

1 Your P1 is wrong, because humans don't generate facts.
We generate different descriptions, using different discourses.
The 'inputs' you gloss over are the features of reality that we describe in different ways. And one of the posts you list is: 'VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts'. Agreed.

Strawman as usual.
I did not argue "humans generate facts".

I stated:

• P1. A System takes in inputs to [enable emergence and] generate output [conditioned facts in this case] within a Framework.

The above assert, it is the 'system' [comprising humans and other variables] that take in inputs to generate outputs as conditioned facts within a Framework.

I have presented, the FSERC comprised of the following system and framework [FS];
1. the emergence of reality FS - with a 13.7 billion years history [FSE]
2. the realization of reality FS - with a 3.5 billion years history [FSRR]
3. the cognition, and description FS - epistemological, scientific few '000s year of history [FSK].

You don't have the depth of knowledge to understand 1 & 2 even when you are in the middle of it.

What you can only perceive is 3, i.e. the later evolved FSK phase which is scientific and linguistic.
This is where human generate different knowledge and then descriptions.

But what is objective facts in my case is a culmination of processes 1, 2 and 3 and not merely 3.

2 Not all discourses generate objective (factual) descriptions, because they don't describe features of reality accurately, or at all. Astrology and alchemy are examples. So your argument from 'discourses generate facts' to 'therefore, moral discourse can generate facts' is fallacious.

According to my definition of FSERC objectivity, astrology and alchemy do enable their respective objective facts as defined, but their facts are not credible nor highly objective in contrast to scientific facts [as their best] as the gold standard.
The moral FSERC facilitate and enable objective moral facts which are equivalent to the scientific standard because most of its input are scientific facts.

To straw man an argument is to misrepresent it in order to refute the misrepresentation. But that's not what I'm doing. For example, here's a premise that I think we agree on, even though you put it differently:

P1 We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality (the universe) in human ways.

Now, from that premise, you make one or more of the following conclusions. Therefore...

C1 Reality is not independent from humans.
C2 Reality is relatively dependent on humans.
C3 Humans (somehow) construct reality.

And these and other similar conclusions are non sequiturs. Which means they don't follow from the premise.

You misrepresented my premises therefrom insist my argument if false, so that is strawmaning.

[Peter Holmes]

VA thinks my version of his P1 - 'we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways' - misrepresents it. And he denies the conclusion 'therefore, humans generate facts'. Instead, it's a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs - conditioned facts, within a framework.

So here's another go at polishing the turd.

P: Perception, knowledge and description is of a reality - that 'emerged' over 13.7 billion years, and 'realised' over 3.5 billion years - by humans and 'other variables' which together comprise a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs (conditioned facts) within a 'framework'.

C1: Therefore, reality is not independent from humans and other variables. Or
C2: Therefore, reality is only relatively independent from humans and other variables. Or
C3: Therefore, humans and other variables construct reality.

But I probably need to sod around with the conclusions too - replacing 'humans' with 'a system (etc)' - or some such execrable nonsense.

Question: who or what generates a system and framework that generates facts?

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA thinks my version of his P1 - 'we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways' - misrepresents it. And he denies the conclusion 'therefore, humans generate facts'. Instead, it's a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs - conditioned facts, within a framework.

So here's another go at polishing the turd.

P: Perception, knowledge and description is of a reality - that 'emerged' over 13.7 billion years, and 'realised' over 3.5 billion years - by humans and 'other variables' which together comprise a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs (conditioned facts) within a 'framework'.

C1: Therefore, reality is not independent from humans and other variables. Or
C2: Therefore, reality is only relatively independent from humans and other variables. Or
C3: Therefore, humans and other variables construct reality.

But I probably need to sod around with the conclusions too - replacing 'humans' with 'a system (etc)' - or some such execrable nonsense.

Question: who or what generates a system and framework that generates facts?

I do not agree with your:

• PH: P: Perception, knowledge and description is of a reality - that 'emerged' over 13.7 billion years, and 'realised' over 3.5 billion years - by humans and 'other variables' which together comprise a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs (conditioned facts) within a 'framework'.

Should be:

• P: Whatever is reality [facts, truth, objective] is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System comprising;
  1. the emergence of reality FS - with a 13.7 billion years history [FSE]
  2. the realization of reality FS - with a 3.5 billion years history [FSRR], and subsequently
  3. the cognition, and description FS - epistemological, scientific few '000s year of history [FSK].

The above systems take in inputs [humans and other variables] generating outputs as conditioned facts within a framework.

Since the above is human-based [antirealism], the resultants of 1,2 and 3 cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions [realism].

Suggest you hold on to your "turding" until you are sure your views are actually not turds; I am sure yours are.

Question: who or what generates a system and framework that generates facts?

You are too presumptuous here.
You assumed there pre-exists a what or who thing before proving that such a 'who' or 'what' exists are real.
That is leading to begging the question.

That is where I argued;
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. the FSERC sense -science the most objective
2. the realists' absolute human-independent sense which is illusory.

As I had argued, your impulse to finding a human independent 'what' or 'who' is driven by primal psychology.

My FSERC don't give a damn with any independent 'who' or 'what' that generate the FS and the facts.

It is the collective-of-subjects [thus intersubjectivity] that facilitates the FSERC e.g. the scientific FSERC is established with its framework and system, maintained and sustained by a group of like minded rational human scientists in consensus and supported by millions of other humans who have confidence in the scientific FSERC.

My FSERC like scientific antirealism's focus on what emerged, is realized as reality, cognized as knowledge and described; this based as far at the empirical evidences and rationality that support the FSERC as a FSERC fact.

My FSERC don't give a damn with a 'who' or 'what' that generate the FS and the facts beyond what the empirical evidences can be tested, verified and justified.

To reify what is beyond the empirical is chasing an illusion.

Take,
'snow is white' because
-the human-based common, conventional sense FSERC said so
-the human-based linguistic FSERC said so
-the human-based Eskimo FSERC said so
-the human-based science-physics-chemistry said so.

the question is, which of the above FSERC is more credible and objective.

it is frivolous to insist,
-'snow is white' because "it is a fact that 'snow is white' ".
-snow is white if and only if 'snow is white'.
The above are inflationary facts chasing for something that is illusory.

[Peter Holmes]

VA thinks my version of his P1 - 'we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways' - misrepresents it. And he denies the conclusion 'therefore, humans generate facts'. Instead, it's a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs - conditioned facts, within a framework.

So here's another go at polishing the turd.

P: Perception, knowledge and description is of a reality - that 'emerged' over 13.7 billion years, and 'realised' over 3.5 billion years - by humans and 'other variables' which together comprise a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs (conditioned facts) within a 'framework'.

C1: Therefore, reality is not independent from humans and other variables. Or
C2: Therefore, reality is only relatively independent from humans and other variables. Or
C3: Therefore, humans and other variables construct reality.

But I probably need to sod around with the conclusions too - replacing 'humans' with 'a system (etc)' - or some such execrable nonsense.

Question: who or what generates a system and framework that generates facts?

I do not agree with your:

• PH: P: Perception, knowledge and description is of a reality - that 'emerged' over 13.7 billion years, and 'realised' over 3.5 billion years - by humans and 'other variables' which together comprise a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs (conditioned facts) within a 'framework'.

Should be:

• P: Whatever is reality [facts, truth, objective] is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System comprising;
  1. the emergence of reality FS - with a 13.7 billion years history [FSE]
  2. the realization of reality FS - with a 3.5 billion years history [FSRR], and subsequently
  3. the cognition, and description FS - epistemological, scientific few '000s year of history [FSK].

The above systems take in inputs [humans and other variables] generating outputs as conditioned facts within a framework.

Since the above is human-based [antirealism], the resultants of 1,2 and 3 cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions [realism].

Suggest you hold on to your "turding" until you are sure your views are actually not turds; I am sure yours are.

Question: who or what generates a system and framework that generates facts?

You are too presumptuous here.
You assumed there pre-exists a what or who thing before proving that such a 'who' or 'what' exists are real.
That is leading to begging the question.

That is where I argued;
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. the FSERC sense -science the most objective
2. the realists' absolute human-independent sense which is illusory.

As I had argued, your impulse to finding a human independent 'what' or 'who' is driven by primal psychology.

My FSERC don't give a damn with any independent 'who' or 'what' that generate the FS and the facts.

It is the collective-of-subjects [thus intersubjectivity] that facilitates the FSERC e.g. the scientific FSERC is established with its framework and system, maintained and sustained by a group of like minded rational human scientists in consensus and supported by millions of other humans who have confidence in the scientific FSERC.

My FSERC like scientific antirealism's focus on what emerged, is realized as reality, cognized as knowledge and described; this based as far at the empirical evidences and rationality that support the FSERC as a FSERC fact.

My FSERC don't give a damn with a 'who' or 'what' that generate the FS and the facts beyond what the empirical evidences can be tested, verified and justified.

To reify what is beyond the empirical is chasing an illusion.

Take,
'snow is white' because
-the human-based common, conventional sense FSERC said so
-the human-based linguistic FSERC said so
-the human-based Eskimo FSERC said so
-the human-based science-physics-chemistry said so.

the question is, which of the above FSERC is more credible and objective.

it is frivolous to insist,
-'snow is white' because "it is a fact that 'snow is white' ".
-snow is white if and only if 'snow is white'.
The above are inflationary facts chasing for something that is illusory.

1 We agree that the correspondence theory of truth is incorrect. There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion 'snow is white' and the feature of reality it asserts. But there's no reason to conclude from that observation that what we call snow and whiteness are illusions.

2 You say: 'To reify what is beyond the empirical is chasing an illusion.' But why is the empirical not an illusion too? Why is the empirical real? And what does it mean to say it is real? How can it be, if there is no reality beyond a human way of perceiving, knowing and describing reality?

3 Antirealist skepticism, like any kind of doubt, rests on certainty. If there's no certainty, there can be no doubt - because what would it be that we doubt?

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA thinks my version of his P1 - 'we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways' - misrepresents it. And he denies the conclusion 'therefore, humans generate facts'. Instead, it's a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs - conditioned facts, within a framework.

So here's another go at polishing the turd.

P: Perception, knowledge and description is of a reality - that 'emerged' over 13.7 billion years, and 'realised' over 3.5 billion years - by humans and 'other variables' which together comprise a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs (conditioned facts) within a 'framework'.

C1: Therefore, reality is not independent from humans and other variables. Or
C2: Therefore, reality is only relatively independent from humans and other variables. Or
C3: Therefore, humans and other variables construct reality.

But I probably need to sod around with the conclusions too - replacing 'humans' with 'a system (etc)' - or some such execrable nonsense.

Question: who or what generates a system and framework that generates facts?

I do not agree with your:

• PH: P: Perception, knowledge and description is of a reality - that 'emerged' over 13.7 billion years, and 'realised' over 3.5 billion years - by humans and 'other variables' which together comprise a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs (conditioned facts) within a 'framework'.

Should be:

• P: Whatever is reality [facts, truth, objective] is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System comprising;
  1. the emergence of reality FS - with a 13.7 billion years history [FSE]
  2. the realization of reality FS - with a 3.5 billion years history [FSRR], and subsequently
  3. the cognition, and description FS - epistemological, scientific few '000s year of history [FSK].

The above systems take in inputs [humans and other variables] generating outputs as conditioned facts within a framework.

Since the above is human-based [antirealism], the resultants of 1,2 and 3 cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions [realism].

Suggest you hold on to your "turding" until you are sure your views are actually not turds; I am sure yours are.

Question: who or what generates a system and framework that generates facts?

You are too presumptuous here.
You assumed there pre-exists a what or who thing before proving that such a 'who' or 'what' exists are real.
That is leading to begging the question.

That is where I argued;
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. the FSERC sense -science the most objective
2. the realists' absolute human-independent sense which is illusory.

As I had argued, your impulse to finding a human independent 'what' or 'who' is driven by primal psychology.

My FSERC don't give a damn with any independent 'who' or 'what' that generate the FS and the facts.

It is the collective-of-subjects [thus intersubjectivity] that facilitates the FSERC e.g. the scientific FSERC is established with its framework and system, maintained and sustained by a group of like minded rational human scientists in consensus and supported by millions of other humans who have confidence in the scientific FSERC.

My FSERC like scientific antirealism's focus on what emerged, is realized as reality, cognized as knowledge and described; this based as far at the empirical evidences and rationality that support the FSERC as a FSERC fact.

My FSERC don't give a damn with a 'who' or 'what' that generate the FS and the facts beyond what the empirical evidences can be tested, verified and justified.

To reify what is beyond the empirical is chasing an illusion.

Take,
'snow is white' because
-the human-based common, conventional sense FSERC said so
-the human-based linguistic FSERC said so
-the human-based Eskimo FSERC said so
-the human-based science-physics-chemistry said so.

the question is, which of the above FSERC is more credible and objective.

it is frivolous to insist,
-'snow is white' because "it is a fact that 'snow is white' ".
-snow is white if and only if 'snow is white'.
The above are inflationary facts chasing for something that is illusory.

1 We agree that the correspondence theory of truth is incorrect. There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion 'snow is white' and the feature of reality it asserts. But there's no reason to conclude from that observation that what we call snow and whiteness are illusions.

You agree the typical correspondence theory of truth is incorrect, but somehow you are still involved with some sort of subtle "correspondence theory of truth".
When you say 'snow is white' you believe there is still something [whatever that is] substantial out there that correspond to 'snow in white' which is absolutely independent of the human mind.
Point is, there is no something [whatever that is] which is absolutely independent of the human mind.
To insist there is a something [whatever that is] which is absolutely independent of the human mind is chasing an illusion [ a falsehood] thus delusional.

2 You say: 'To reify what is beyond the empirical is chasing an illusion.' But why is the empirical not an illusion too? Why is the empirical real? And what does it mean to say it is real? How can it be, if there is no reality beyond a human way of perceiving, knowing and describing reality?

My response in another post:

The empirical is the reality you get from what you observed and cognized.
This process must be verified and justified to be credible and objective; the human-based scientific FSERC justification is the gold standard of 'what is real' empirically.

There is no dividing line at all between what is scientifically [FSERC] real and a supposed reality existing independent out there which is illusory.
Because that mind-independent reality out there is illusory, it is a false thing thus should be taken as absolutely unconditional real regardless of whether human exists or not.

I have argued why you are thinking in the realists' reality in absolute sense is due to an evolutionary default which drive you to hold that belief of human-independence as an IDEOLOGY. This is a psychological issue.

3 Antirealist skepticism, like any kind of doubt, rests on certainty. If there's no certainty, there can be no doubt - because what would it be that we doubt?

Where did I insist upon antirealist skepticism?
I mentioned as an antirealist [Kant as Empirical Realist], in one perspective, I do believe there is a human-independent out there, so there is no skepticism at all; but that belief is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism where ultimately there is no mind-independence.

The difference with realist [philosophical] is you claim [without reservations and conditions] there is an absolutely and ultimately human-independent reality out there regardless of whether humans exist or not.

[Peter Holmes]

Here are four metaphysical assertions - assertions about reality.

1 We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.

2 There is no reality beyond the ways we humans perceive, know and describe it.

3 Humans enable reality to emerge, then to be realized as real and then cognized, known and described.

4 If there were no humans, reality could be a clusters of particles: i.e. nothing.

I think #1 is true, but that #2-4 constitute a conceptual mess, with contradictions and incoherence stirred in. And none of it has anything to do with morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here are four metaphysical assertions - assertions about reality.

1 We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.

2 There is no reality beyond the ways we humans perceive, know and describe it.

3 Humans enable reality to emerge, then to be realized as real and then cognized, known and described.

4 If there were no humans, reality could be a clusters of particles: i.e. nothing.

I think #1 is true, but that #2-4 constitute a conceptual mess, with contradictions and incoherence stirred in. And none of it has anything to do with morality.

I have already argued:

There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The human-based FSERC sense
2. The realist absolutely mind-independent sense grounded on an illusion.

You simply hand wave #2-4 away without any argument; that is because you are unable to justify your argument which is grounded on an illusion.

It is your usual strawmaning again;
Your above should be;
2 There is no human-independent reality beyond the ways we humans perceive, know and describe it.

My claim is there is a human-based reality that emerged and is realized as real, existing beyond the ways we humans perceive, know and describe it.

PH: 3 Humans enable reality to emerge, then to be realized as real and then cognized, known and described.
Strawman again, should be
3 Reality to emerge, is realized as real spontaneously and then cognized, and is consciously known and described.

PH: 4 If there were no humans, reality could be a clusters of particles: i.e. nothing.
Should be;
If there were no humans, reality could be a clusters of particles: i.e. ultimately, nothing.
This is nothing new, this realization had emerged in philosophy [Eastern and Greek] more than 2500 years ago;
Śūnyatā
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net

[Atla]

Fun fact, one has to de-realize reality before one can accuse realists of reifying reality. Ultimately, reification and de-realization are two sides of the same coin.

Once we have this issue out of the way by neither reifying nor de-realizing reality, what remains is the question of direct vs indirect perception. Both VA and Peter Holmes subscribe to the primitive and barbaric evolutionary default of direct perception, which was thoroughly refuted by science and psychology long ago. Their debate belongs to the late 19th century or something.

[Peter Holmes]

Fun fact, one has to de-realize reality before one can accuse realists of reifying reality. Ultimately, reification and de-realization are two sides of the same coin.

Once we have this issue out of the way by neither reifying nor de-realizing reality, what remains is the question of direct vs indirect perception. Both VA and Peter Holmes subscribe to the primitive and barbaric evolutionary default of direct perception, which was thoroughly refuted by science and psychology long ago. Their debate belongs to the late 19th century or something.

It's quaint that you think indirect realism has vanquished direct realism. Here are some online paragraphs on the issue, which is still very much alive.

'Indirect realism is a philosophical and scientific view of perception that holds that we do not experience the external world directly, but through the intermediary of the senses and the mind. Indirect realism implies that we are only aware of internal, non-physical objects that represent the physical world, but do not correspond to it exactly. Indirect realism is a core tenet of the cognitivism paradigm in psychology and cognitive science.

In the philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, direct or naïve realism, as opposed to indirect or representational realism, are differing models that describe the nature of conscious experiences; out of the metaphysical question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by our conscious experience.'

My questions: what exactly is an internal, non-physical object? How exactly does it represent the physical world? Why exactly does it not correspond to the physical world - and what would such a correspondence be anyway? What exactly is an internal perceptual copy of the world; and what exactly is it that 'experiences' it?

Again, it's quaint that you've been suckered by this bs. And here's more of it.

'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.[3] Furthermore, indirect realism is a core tenet of the cognitivism paradigm in psychology and cognitive science. While there is superficial overlap, the indirect model is unlike the standpoint of idealism, which holds that only ideas are real, but there are no mind-independent objects.[4]

Conversely, direct realism postulates that conscious subjects view the world directly, treating concepts as a 1:1 correspondence. Furthermore, the framework rejects the premise that knowledge arrives via a representational medium, as well as the notion that concepts are interpretations of sensory input derived from a real external world.'

My questions: What exactly does 'perceiving the world through the lens of a conceptual framework' mean? What exactly is a concept? Of what exactly is consciousness conscious?

Indirect realism is on exactly the same supposed hook as direct realism. And the supposed naivety is identical.

[Atla]

Fun fact, one has to de-realize reality before one can accuse realists of reifying reality. Ultimately, reification and de-realization are two sides of the same coin.

Once we have this issue out of the way by neither reifying nor de-realizing reality, what remains is the question of direct vs indirect perception. Both VA and Peter Holmes subscribe to the primitive and barbaric evolutionary default of direct perception, which was thoroughly refuted by science and psychology long ago. Their debate belongs to the late 19th century or something.

It's quaint that you think indirect realism has vanquished direct realism. Here are some online paragraphs on the issue, which is still very much alive.

'Indirect realism is a philosophical and scientific view of perception that holds that we do not experience the external world directly, but through the intermediary of the senses and the mind. Indirect realism implies that we are only aware of internal, non-physical objects that represent the physical world, but do not correspond to it exactly. Indirect realism is a core tenet of the cognitivism paradigm in psychology and cognitive science.

In the philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, direct or naïve realism, as opposed to indirect or representational realism, are differing models that describe the nature of conscious experiences; out of the metaphysical question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by our conscious experience.'

My questions: what exactly is an internal, non-physical object? How exactly does it represent the physical world? Why exactly does it not correspond to the physical world - and what would such a correspondence be anyway? What exactly is an internal perceptual copy of the world; and what exactly is it that 'experiences' it?

Again, it's quaint that you've been suckered by this bs. And here's more of it.

'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.[3] Furthermore, indirect realism is a core tenet of the cognitivism paradigm in psychology and cognitive science. While there is superficial overlap, the indirect model is unlike the standpoint of idealism, which holds that only ideas are real, but there are no mind-independent objects.[4]

Conversely, direct realism postulates that conscious subjects view the world directly, treating concepts as a 1:1 correspondence. Furthermore, the framework rejects the premise that knowledge arrives via a representational medium, as well as the notion that concepts are interpretations of sensory input derived from a real external world.'

My questions: What exactly does 'perceiving the world through the lens of a conceptual framework' mean? What exactly is a concept? Of what exactly is consciousness conscious?

Indirect realism is on exactly the same supposed hook as direct realism. And the supposed naivety is identical.

I googled the expression you quoted: "non-physical objects that represent the physical world", but got zero results. Source?

All things are "physical" in that sense, our internal mental phenomena are also "physical". Which I already told you several times, and you erased it from your memory several times.

The rest should be obvious common knowledge. Your problem that you are some kind of death cultist or something like that, you can't allow yourself to entertain the possibility that you actually exist, that your mind actually exists. So you can't allow yourself to grasp the simple concept of indirect realism.

[Peter Holmes]

Fun fact, one has to de-realize reality before one can accuse realists of reifying reality. Ultimately, reification and de-realization are two sides of the same coin.

Once we have this issue out of the way by neither reifying nor de-realizing reality, what remains is the question of direct vs indirect perception. Both VA and Peter Holmes subscribe to the primitive and barbaric evolutionary default of direct perception, which was thoroughly refuted by science and psychology long ago. Their debate belongs to the late 19th century or something.

It's quaint that you think indirect realism has vanquished direct realism. Here are some online paragraphs on the issue, which is still very much alive.

'Indirect realism is a philosophical and scientific view of perception that holds that we do not experience the external world directly, but through the intermediary of the senses and the mind. Indirect realism implies that we are only aware of internal, non-physical objects that represent the physical world, but do not correspond to it exactly. Indirect realism is a core tenet of the cognitivism paradigm in psychology and cognitive science.

In the philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, direct or naïve realism, as opposed to indirect or representational realism, are differing models that describe the nature of conscious experiences; out of the metaphysical question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by our conscious experience.'

My questions: what exactly is an internal, non-physical object? How exactly does it represent the physical world? Why exactly does it not correspond to the physical world - and what would such a correspondence be anyway? What exactly is an internal perceptual copy of the world; and what exactly is it that 'experiences' it?

Again, it's quaint that you've been suckered by this bs. And here's more of it.

'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.[3] Furthermore, indirect realism is a core tenet of the cognitivism paradigm in psychology and cognitive science. While there is superficial overlap, the indirect model is unlike the standpoint of idealism, which holds that only ideas are real, but there are no mind-independent objects.[4]

Conversely, direct realism postulates that conscious subjects view the world directly, treating concepts as a 1:1 correspondence. Furthermore, the framework rejects the premise that knowledge arrives via a representational medium, as well as the notion that concepts are interpretations of sensory input derived from a real external world.'

My questions: What exactly does 'perceiving the world through the lens of a conceptual framework' mean? What exactly is a concept? Of what exactly is consciousness conscious?

Indirect realism is on exactly the same supposed hook as direct realism. And the supposed naivety is identical.

I googled the expression you quoted: "non-physical objects that represent the physical world", but got zero results. Source?

Try reading. It's in the first paragraph I quoted above.

All things are "physical" in that sense, our internal mental phenomena are also "physical". Which I already told you several times, and you erased it from your memory several times.

And there's the problem that you think indirect realism solves. If all we can know are indirect representations of physical reality, then those supposed representations are themselves indirect. If 'our internal mental phenomena are also "physical" ', then they must also be indirect. Back on the hook.

The rest should be obvious common knowledge. Your problem that you are some kind of death cultist or something like that, you can't allow yourself to entertain the possibility that you actually exist, that your mind actually exists. So you can't allow yourself to grasp the simple concept of indirect realism.

Whoa. Who says that existence has anything to do with the existence of the mind? I think existence is physical or nothing. And if the mind and perception are physical, then the claim that perception has to be 'indirect' is incoherent. So we can ignore the direct/indirect realism issue.

[Atla]

It's quaint that you think indirect realism has vanquished direct realism. Here are some online paragraphs on the issue, which is still very much alive.

'Indirect realism is a philosophical and scientific view of perception that holds that we do not experience the external world directly, but through the intermediary of the senses and the mind. Indirect realism implies that we are only aware of internal, non-physical objects that represent the physical world, but do not correspond to it exactly. Indirect realism is a core tenet of the cognitivism paradigm in psychology and cognitive science.

In the philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, direct or naïve realism, as opposed to indirect or representational realism, are differing models that describe the nature of conscious experiences; out of the metaphysical question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by our conscious experience.'

My questions: what exactly is an internal, non-physical object? How exactly does it represent the physical world? Why exactly does it not correspond to the physical world - and what would such a correspondence be anyway? What exactly is an internal perceptual copy of the world; and what exactly is it that 'experiences' it?

Again, it's quaint that you've been suckered by this bs. And here's more of it.

'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.[3] Furthermore, indirect realism is a core tenet of the cognitivism paradigm in psychology and cognitive science. While there is superficial overlap, the indirect model is unlike the standpoint of idealism, which holds that only ideas are real, but there are no mind-independent objects.[4]

Conversely, direct realism postulates that conscious subjects view the world directly, treating concepts as a 1:1 correspondence. Furthermore, the framework rejects the premise that knowledge arrives via a representational medium, as well as the notion that concepts are interpretations of sensory input derived from a real external world.'

My questions: What exactly does 'perceiving the world through the lens of a conceptual framework' mean? What exactly is a concept? Of what exactly is consciousness conscious?

Indirect realism is on exactly the same supposed hook as direct realism. And the supposed naivety is identical.

I googled the expression you quoted: "non-physical objects that represent the physical world", but got zero results. Source?

Try reading. It's in the first paragraph I quoted above.

All things are "physical" in that sense, our internal mental phenomena are also "physical". Which I already told you several times, and you erased it from your memory several times.

And there's the problem that you think indirect realism solves. If all we can know are indirect representations of physical reality, then those supposed representations are themselves indirect. If 'our internal mental phenomena are also "physical" ', then they must also be indirect. Back on the hook.

The rest should be obvious common knowledge. Your problem that you are some kind of death cultist or something like that, you can't allow yourself to entertain the possibility that you actually exist, that your mind actually exists. So you can't allow yourself to grasp the simple concept of indirect realism.

Whoa. Who says that existence has anything to do with the existence of the mind? I think existence is physical or nothing. And if the mind and perception are physical, then the claim that perception has to be 'indirect' is incoherent. So we can ignore the direct/indirect realism issue.

I told this death cultist maybe 4 times before, that indirect realism isn't about a mental vs physical issue. (Unless we really want to force some kind of substance dualism into it, for which there is no good reason.) This was maybe the 5th time.

As you can see, his defense mechanism kicks in once again, and he ignores it, and continues with the massive strawman. He also can't link his source.

Such a strong and nonsensical defence mechanism suggests that he doesn't want to consider indirect realism, or anything related to the idea of mind, because he is absolutely terrified by the possibility that he may actually exist.

And there's the problem that you think indirect realism solves. If all we can know are indirect representations of physical reality, then those supposed representations are themselves indirect. If 'our internal mental phenomena are also "physical" ', then they must also be indirect. Back on the hook.

No idea what you're talking about. Why must they also be indirect? What hook?

Whoa. Who says that existence has anything to do with the existence of the mind? I think existence is physical or nothing. And if the mind and perception are physical, then the claim that perception has to be 'indirect' is incoherent. So we can ignore the direct/indirect realism issue.

What are you talking about?

[Peter Holmes]

I googled the expression you quoted: "non-physical objects that represent the physical world", but got zero results. Source?

Try reading. It's in the first paragraph I quoted above.

All things are "physical" in that sense, our internal mental phenomena are also "physical". Which I already told you several times, and you erased it from your memory several times.

And there's the problem that you think indirect realism solves. If all we can know are indirect representations of physical reality, then those supposed representations are themselves indirect. If 'our internal mental phenomena are also "physical" ', then they must also be indirect. Back on the hook.

The rest should be obvious common knowledge. Your problem that you are some kind of death cultist or something like that, you can't allow yourself to entertain the possibility that you actually exist, that your mind actually exists. So you can't allow yourself to grasp the simple concept of indirect realism.

Whoa. Who says that existence has anything to do with the existence of the mind? I think existence is physical or nothing. And if the mind and perception are physical, then the claim that perception has to be 'indirect' is incoherent. So we can ignore the direct/indirect realism issue.

I told this death cultist maybe 4 times before, that indirect realism isn't about a mental vs physical issue. (Unless we really want to force some kind of substance dualism into it, for which there is no good reason.) This was maybe the 5th time.

As you can see, his defense mechanism kicks in once again, and he ignores it, and continues with the massive strawman. He also can't link his source.

Such a strong and nonsensical defence mechanism suggests that he doesn't want to consider indirect realism, or anything related to the idea of mind, because he is absolutely terrified by the possibility that he may actually exist.

And there's the problem that you think indirect realism solves. If all we can know are indirect representations of physical reality, then those supposed representations are themselves indirect. If 'our internal mental phenomena are also "physical" ', then they must also be indirect. Back on the hook.

No idea what you're talking about. Why must they also be indirect? What hook?

Whoa. Who says that existence has anything to do with the existence of the mind? I think existence is physical or nothing. And if the mind and perception are physical, then the claim that perception has to be 'indirect' is incoherent. So we can ignore the direct/indirect realism issue.

What are you talking about?

Well, you could try reading the quotations I reproduced above, which set out what indirect realism is about. Because you don't seem to understand it. For example there's this:

''Indirect realism is a philosophical and scientific view of perception that holds that we do not experience the external world directly, but through the intermediary of the senses and the mind."

Now, pay attention. This assumes a distinction between 'the external world' and we who perceive and experience it - as though we're not part of the external world. And it assumes that 'the senses and the mind' are, somehow, 'intermediaries' between us and the external world. And this is all bollocks.

So you can carry on saying that my rejection of indirect realism as bollocks is evidence for my denial of my own existence. Or you can actually address the issue here. No skin off my definitely existing nose.

But then - I forget. You're a dick-for-brains avatar. So trolling is all we can expect.

[Atla]

Well, you could try reading the quotations I reproduced above, which set out what indirect realism is about. Because you don't seem to understand it. For example there's this:

''Indirect realism is a philosophical and scientific view of perception that holds that we do not experience the external world directly, but through the intermediary of the senses and the mind."

Now, pay attention. This assumes a distinction between 'the external world' and we who perceive and experience it - as though we're not part of the external world. And it assumes that 'the senses and the mind' are, somehow, 'intermediaries' between us and the external world. And this is all bollocks.

So you can carry on saying that my rejection of indirect realism as bollocks is evidence for my denial of my own existence. Or you can actually address the issue here. No skin off my definitely existing nose.

And you still haven't given me the link for that first quotation. I can't find it anywhere on the internet.

Did you make that text up, or did some kind of AI produce it, or where is it from? I've never read anywhere before that indirect realism has to do with an intermediary.