Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 4:06 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 10:03 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 9:48 am
1 The later Wittgenstein repudiated and painstakingly corrected his 'the world is the totality of facts, not of things' in the Tractatus.
2 If there's no such thing as 'mind', then talk of mind-independence is incoherent. What and where is mind or the mind, and in what way does it exist? How can a non-physical thing have a physical effect? What is the causal mechanism? (Answers come there none. Just indignation and bluster. How dare you say the emperor is naked!)
3 Correspondence and truth-maker/truth-bearer theories of truth amount to nothing more than tautological claims - purely linguistic matters. They explicitly mistake what we say about things for the way things are.
You argued your facts a feature of reality [state of affairs, complex entities, that is the case] that are independent of any individual's [mentally mind-based] opinions, beliefs and judgment which imply in the typical sense, the mind is involved somehow.
Thus those who claim there are mind-independent facts, their claims are the same as your 'independent'[objective] in whatever terms you assigned it.
'Mind' in this discussion is not referring that controversial concept of 'mind' as some specific organ in the brain.
What is general refer to mind is this;
The mind is the
set of faculties responsible for all mental phenomena.
Often the term is also identified with the phenomena themselves.[2][3][4]
These faculties include thought, imagination, memory, will, and sensation.
They are responsible for various mental phenomena, like perception, pain experience, belief, desire, intention, and emotion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind#Philosophy
If you don't like the term 'mind' then it has to be brain-independent facts or human-conditions independent fact? So what is your precise definition of what is fact?
Nevertheless, what is fact to you is grounded on Philosophical Realism with its basic principle that the moon pre-existed humanity and will exists [if not smash by meteorites] even there are no humans.
It's not that I don't like the term 'mind'. It's that the word 'mind' is not the name of a non-physical thing - because there's no evidence for the existence of any non-physical thing, and therefore any non-physical cause.
The passage you quote, referring to 'mental phenomena, thought, imagination, memory, will, sensation. perception, pain experience, belief, desire, intention, and emotion', is a lovely demonstration of the power of the myth of abstract or non-physical things.
And if you're now saying that nothing exists outside human brains - that there's nothing brain-independent - how ridiculous does your argument have to be before you recognise its stupidity?
Strawman!!
I did not state "nothing exists outside human brains".
If I did state the above, then I agree that would be very stupid.
But you are stupid not to exercise the Principle of Charity to understand my intent.
I have always state, mind-interdependent, human-interdependent or brain-interdependent mean whatever is reality is always
entangled somehow with the mind, human self or brain.
There are no things existing by themselves without a reference to the existence of the WHOLE [brain, body, 'mind'] of cognizer of that reality.
You cannot deny the table that you make [assumed] is totally independent of yourself.
It is the same for all man-made things that are 'outside' the brain and the human self.
Your farting in the UK could have created hurricane in Florida [chaos theory].
Whatever you do at time t1 would have changed the state of the Universe S1 to S2 at t2.
In addition, apart from common sense, more realistically, the moon [or the Universe] did not pre-exists humanity - note QM's thesis of the 2022 Nobel Prize of Physics.
I have asked you to give a precise meaning of what do YOU mean by 'what is a fact' but you have been shifty and running around on what suits you.
Note there are two ways of using 'fact';
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
The word “fact” is used in at least two different ways.
In the locution
“matters of fact”, facts are taken to be what is contingently the case, or that of which we may have empirical or a posteriori knowledge. Thus Hume famously writes at the beginning of Section IV of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding: “All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact”.
In this second use, the functor (operator, connective) “It is a fact that” takes a sentence to make a sentence (an alternative view has it that “It is a fact” takes a nominalised sentence, a that-clause, to make a sentence), and the predicate “is a fact” is either elliptic for the functor, or takes a nominalised sentence to make a sentence. It is locutions of this second sort that philosophers have often employed in order to claim (or deny) that facts are part of the inventory of what there is, and play an important role in semantics, ontology, metaphysics, epistemology and the philosophy of mind.
Similarly, we may understand the claim that a fact is an obtaining state of affairs to say that a state of affairs is something which contains one or more objects and at least one property or
relation and that a state of affairs obtains if an object exemplifies a property or one or more objects stand in a relation.
In the case, if you fact has anything to do with 'state of affairs' it include relations and process which are not physical as physical objects. In any case, there are no "state of affairs" in terms that is a human-independent fact.
So which of the above re the SEP article is the meaning of your 'human independent fact' as a feature of reality.
In addition, list some references to support your 'what is fact'.
It is very shocking that from what you have babble so much on 'morality is not objective' because there are no moral facts, you have not posted a single reference from any credible philosopher to support your argument.
