PH Believes in an Independent Soul

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't commit to "humans exist independent of the human conditions" for the same reason I don't commit to "hotdogs exist independent of hotdog conditions". There's nothing particularly special about "humans" when it comes to this sentence structure. It's bizarre, from any perspective, realist or anti realist, to suggest that something exists independently from itself. You're focusing on humans, but... why not hotdogs? Why aren't you suggesting that realists believe hotdogs have souls? You can use your same little word play to imply the same thing about hotdogs, right?

Realists are stupid because they all think hotdogs have souls.

In general, Philosophical Realism is this;

• [Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.
  Wiki

As I had stated, from the above, the Philosophical Realist ultimate stance is this;

• 1. the moon exists regardless of any human looking at it [note Einstein],
  2. the moon pre-existed humans,
  3. the moon will exist even if the human species is extinct.

PH had always insisted [which you agreed as a realist],
'the description is not the-described'
'what is perceived, known and described is not the independent fact, i.e. feature of reality.'

From the above, it follows that,
the empirical "I" that you are aware, see, touch, etc. perceived, known and described is NOT that "the-described I".

As such, as a realist, you would have been aware of an empirical-I or self that is independent of the supposedly factual-I or self.
Note a realist claims a fact is independent of mind [human conditions].

Therefore, your factual-I or self must be independent of the mind [human conditions].

The above sounds silly to you as you declared;
FH: I don't commit to "humans exist independent of the human conditions"

It is only silly because you insist your Philosophical Realism [independent of mind] is absolute and realistic all the way.
As I had argued Philosophical Realism is a BOTTOM-UP approach which is not ultimately realistic and tenable.
In addition, Philosophical Realism is fundamentally compatible with believing in a mind-independent soul and God which are both illusory.

It will only work if you accept the TOP-DOWN approach to reality, i.e.
whilst there is mind-independence at the common sense and conventional levels of reality, ultimately, that "mind-independence" itself is not absolutely independent of mind, but rather entangled with the mind [human conditions] i.e. anti-realism [TOP-DOWN] prevails ultimately.

You need to be more analytical to overcome that evolutionary default, i.e. philosophical realism.

[Flannel Jesus]

Here, I'll take a paragraph from you op and make it about hot dogs

On the other hand, your ideology is things [including you & I] exist independent of the human conditions, i.e. things [including you & I] exist regards whether humans exist or not.
Logically, by the above principle, 'you' still exists if there are no humans [which include you as human].

On the other hand, your ideology is things [including this hotdog and that hotdog] exist independent of the hotdog conditions, i.e. things exist regards whether hotdogs exist or not.
Logically, by the above principle, 'this hotdog' still exists if there are no hotdogs [which include this hotdog as hotdog].

So realists must believe hotdogs have souls. Realists really do say the darnedest things, don't they?

The above is a strawman.

If you refer to hotdogs then it should be;

On the other hand, your ideology [Philosophical Realism] is things [including this hotdog and that hotdog] exist independent of the human conditions, i.e. things [including this hotdog and that hotdog] exist regardless of whether humans exist or not.

It's not a "straw man" at all. Realists believe stuff exists independent of hotdog conditions to exactly the same extent that they believe stuff exists independent of human conditions. You don't need to change my wording. You should just try to understand it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here, I'll take a paragraph from you op and make it about hot dogs



On the other hand, your ideology is things [including this hotdog and that hotdog] exist independent of the hotdog conditions, i.e. things exist regards whether hotdogs exist or not.
Logically, by the above principle, 'this hotdog' still exists if there are no hotdogs [which include this hotdog as hotdog].

So realists must believe hotdogs have souls. Realists really do say the darnedest things, don't they?

The above is a strawman.

If you refer to hotdogs then it should be;

On the other hand, your ideology [Philosophical Realism] is things [including this hotdog and that hotdog] exist independent of the human conditions, i.e. things [including this hotdog and that hotdog] exist regardless of whether humans exist or not.

It's not a "straw man" at all. Realists believe stuff exists independent of hotdog conditions to exactly the same extent that they believe stuff exists independent of human conditions. You don't need to change my wording. You should just try to understand it.

If that is your context, then anti-philosophical_realists also believe the same, i.e.
".. that stuff exists independent of hotdog conditions to exactly the same extent that stuff exists independent of human conditions [sense 1]"
BUT in a more refined perspective,
the whole of the above [1] is ultimately IS NOT independent of the human conditions.

For example,
non-hotdog things are independent of hotdog conditions,
all non-human things are independent of the human conditions,
BUT all the above states are NOT independent of the human conditions [sense 2].

The principle is this,
Reality is all-there-is within a particle soup particles are actively interacting with each other,
In Reality as All-there-is includes Humans and their human conditions.
Thus, all things, hotdogs and other stuffs cannot be ultimately independent of the human conditions.
note chaos theory and system theory as a clue.

[Flannel Jesus]

I still have no idea why "human conditions" is in the conversation at all. A realist thinks "things that are true, are true regardless of whether any person knows it's true or not". Objectivity. You can think something and be wrong. Everyone on the planet could think something, and be wrong.

The common example we bring up on this forum, apparently, is whether the moon exists when no one is looking. "Conditions" is not really part of the equation, I don't think realists in general phrase it like that. I would never phrase it like that.

It's a word game based on wording you invented, wording you invented apparently for the purpose of playing the word game.

[Flannel Jesus]

I googled this, to see if maybe you're getting this wording from somewhere else:

reality exists independently of the human conditions

The top link was to Wikipedia, about realism, and it gave this blurb

The view that there is a reality independent of any beliefs, perceptions, etc., is called realism.

"Conditions" isn't a part of this. Perception and belief is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I googled this, to see if maybe you're getting this wording from somewhere else:

reality exists independently of the human conditions

The top link was to Wikipedia, about realism, and it gave this blurb

The view that there is a reality independent of any beliefs, perceptions, etc., is called realism.

"Conditions" isn't a part of this. Perception and belief is.

OK, noted my difficulty in getting the right term,

"Human Condition" is not what I was aiming for.

• The human condition can be defined as the characteristics and key events of human life, including birth, learning, emotion, aspiration, morality, conflict, and death.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition#:

I believe the term 'human nature' would be more appropriate.

• Human nature is a concept that denotes the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally.[1][2][3][4] The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind, or what it 'means' to be human. This usage has proven to be controversial in that there is dispute as to whether or not such an essence actually exists.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

As such, I will propose,

[Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind [human nature], as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind [human nature].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Generally, it is sufficient for most to accept the following,
[Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind...
so, the moon exists even if there are no human minds [human nature] to perceive it.

Mind [in the modern sense, not Descartes' dualism] in the above case, implied human nature...

I had to use "human conditions" [OK, that is insufficient], now to use 'human nature' because of PH's ignorance, dogmatism and being stuck with the issue re Descartes' Dualism and 'mind'.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't know why you're putting [human nature] in brackets like that. I imagine you're trying to increase clarity by doing that, but the effect it's having is the opposite.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't know why you're putting [human nature] in brackets like that. I imagine you're trying to increase clarity by doing that, but the effect it's having is the opposite.

Note most of the discussions on the matter of philosophical realism is with PH who will go berserk and crazy when he see the word 'mind' in relation to realism. That is why I have to qualify 'mind' in this case with 'human nature'.

Why do you say it is having the opposite effect?

[Flannel Jesus]

Because what is it doing? What is it there for? Human nature and a human mind aren't synonyms.

> holding that reality exists independent of the mind [human nature]

Are you saying independent of the mind, or are you saying independent of human nature? Or are you saying, independent of the mind and also independent of human nature? I don't understand what [human nature] is doing there in that sentence. I don't understand how the presence of those words modifies the meaning of the sentence.

If I said "I'm attracted to women", I'm sure you know what that means. If I said "I'm attracted to women [reebok]", you'd probably not know what the fuck [reebok] is doing in the middle of that sentence. Am I saying I'm attracted to women who wear Reebok shoes? Am I just advertising Reebok in the middle of my sentence? What is the word doing there?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Because what is it doing? What is it there for? Human nature and a human mind aren't synonyms.

> holding that reality exists independent of the mind [human nature]

Are you saying independent of the mind, or are you saying independent of human nature? Or are you saying, independent of the mind and also independent of human nature? I don't understand what [human nature] is doing there in that sentence. I don't understand how the presence of those words modifies the meaning of the sentence.

If I said "I'm attracted to women", I'm sure you know what that means. If I said "I'm attracted to women [reebok]", you'd probably not know what the fuck [reebok] is doing in the middle of that sentence. Am I saying I'm attracted to women who wear Reebok shoes? Am I just advertising Reebok in the middle of my sentence? What is the word doing there?

Did you read what I wrote above?

Note most of the discussions on the matter of philosophical realism is with PH who will go berserk and crazy when he see the word 'mind' in relation to realism. That is why I have to qualify 'mind' in this case with 'human nature'.

The human mind is part of human nature which is the essential of what it takes to be a human being.
As such in the philosophical realist's ultimate stance, i.e.
the moon exists regardless of human beings [implied human nature] is perceiving it or not.

If you still cannot get it, then, I will use 'human beings'

[Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind [human being], as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own self as human being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Point is I have to qualify 'mind' when dealing with ignoramus like PH or where there is a need for more precision.

Btw, you do accept the typical definition of Philosophical Realism, e.g. the one below;

• [Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't know if you know this, but [word] doesn't have a specific meaning as a grammatical structure in English. I don't know what "women [reebok]" means. I don't know what "mind [human nature]" means. I don't know what "mind [human being]" means. Are you trying to say "human mind"?

[Flannel Jesus]

Let's try to cut the word game short and just go straight to this: can you, VA, imagine a world where things are objectively true about that world independent of any conscious beings awareness of those truths (like for example, a moon existing around a planet even though no mind is aware of that moon), and where conscious beings exist, but those conscious beings don't have "souls" separate from their physical bodies in that world?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't know if you know this, but [word] doesn't have a specific meaning as a grammatical structure in English. I don't know what "women [reebok]" means.
I don't know what "mind [human nature]" means. I don't know what "mind [human being]" means. Are you trying to say "human mind"?

For me, a word only has meaning within a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Thus "women [reebok]" may mean something if you specify the FSK it is used.

I thought it is very obvious that 'mind' [not Descartes' dualism] refer to human mind as it is used in the modern sense within common sense, psychology, psychiatry, socially and philosophically [avoiding Descartes' dualism].

[Veritas Aequitas]

Let's try to cut the word game short and just go straight to this:
can you, VA, imagine

a world where things are objectively true about that world independent of any conscious beings awareness of those truths (like for example, a moon existing around a planet even though no mind is aware of that moon), and where conscious beings exist, but those conscious beings don't have "souls" separate from their physical bodies in that world?

Note you have to resort to 'imagine which inevitably engages a human mind.

Yes, I can imagine the above imaginations,
but what is imagined above cannot be independent of a human mind imagining that which is imagined.

This is a serious conundrum why a God's Eye View i.e. an absolutely independent view, is an impossibility.
This is the reason why Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution to avoid chasing illusions and so, to facilitate the progress of knowledge and the well-being of humanity.

As I had stated, why you are so dogmatic with the realist's mind-independent view is due to psychology driven by a primal evolution default which must be modulated for progress.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, I can imagine the above imaginations

Fantastic! Then you can ostensibly understand why all these word games toward deductive proofs of what you're trying to prove actually don't serve to make that world view impossible.

I can't imagine a monster with 2 legs and no legs, because that's contradictory.

I can't imagine a drawer with everything in it and nothing in it, because that's contradictory.

You and I both CAN imagine a world where realism is the case, and souls don't exist, because regardless of the word games, it is not in fact contradictory.

The end