Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 12:23 pm
I don't think you're accomplishing anything by making Peter Holmes preface everything he says about chemistry with "according to the chemistry fsk".
It make a significant difference if PH and those of his like [Philosophical Realists] were to accept the anti-Philosophical Realist stance as I had claimed, i.e.
All facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned to a specific human-based FSK.
Thus whatever [chemistry, etc.] knowledge PH assert, it must be FSK_ed.
As such, there is a human-based moral FSK that has objective moral facts.
PH's current stance of delusional Philosophical Realism does not allow for objective moral facts within a human-based moral FSK.
Once we have verified and justified objective moral facts, humanity can use them as a standard and guide to envision for the possibility of perpetual peace
And yes, we don't have access to the raw unreduced truths and we never will most likely. But you're taking a strong position about that - that there is no such thing - rather than the weaker position that we don't know what it is. You're acting like "there is no such thing" is this glorious philosophically profound lack-of-stance, but it's not, it's as much of a stance as saying "there is such a thing and it works exactly like this" - in other words, your stance is even more of a strong stance than the stance of someone like Peter Holmes, or general philosophical realists like Sean Carroll. At least Sean Carroll admits ignorance about what the fully reduced truth might be, you claim no such ignorance.
Actually your use of "unreduced truth" is misleading. We did discuss digging deeper into smaller matters but that is not the main point.
The main point is Philosophical Realism versus Anti-Philosophical_Realism.
Philosophical realism is about a certain kind of
thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has
mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
In general it meant, for every phenomena [mind-related] there is a noumena [mind-independent].
For example, 'what is perceived in mind' is not 'the-perceived independent of mind'.
Thus the apple on the tree as perceive in mind is not the real apple on the tree that is outside the mind.
Note the dualism above and thus the
reality-gap.
Anti-Philosophical_Realism [mine] do not agree with the case.
In my case, there are two phases,
1. the apple on the tree is perceived as separate from the mind at one level X, and
2. what is at level X is subsumed in one whole schema of the mind at level Y.
As such, in one sense there is mind-independence at one level but overall, in another encompassing sense there is no mind-independence.
At least Sean Carroll admits ignorance about what the fully reduced truth might be, you claim no such ignorance.
This is circular.
Sean Carroll is admits ignorance about
something he is ignorant about.
If he is ignorant, how can he know of that something he should be ignorant about.
Note Meno's Paradox.
Point is, Sean Carroll [PH and you] should simply stop where verifiable evidence and philosophical reasoning [FSK supported] and not speculate and insist there must be something real beyond the
empirical possible.
Your claims about reality imply you think you have a stronger understanding of the deep down truths than any of Hawking, Carroll, Einstein, me or Peter Holmes claim. All we claim is that there is a reality, but we don't know the deep down true nature of it. Our ignorance is our strength here, compared to your certainty that you know the nature of it: that the nature of it is that it doesn't exist at all.
And please note that Stephen Hawkings quotes mostly go in the direction of "we can't know what the deep down reality is" which is very very different from "there isn't one."
Nope, as stated above,
my claim is to simply recognize reality
as far as empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning can support.
Your ignorance cannot be a strength but is merely ignorance of your own human nature that is conditioned through 4 billion years old history of evolution.
What you are at is like the agnostic who cannot be sure whether God exists or not.
You are merely speculating there is an independent ultimate reality which is basically good for your psychology.
Such a speculation is an illusion and can be useful provided it is not
reified as really real.