God? It is Only in the Brain

[Iwannaplato]

Hubris?

In principle and theoretical,

Those are two ways of saying the same thing.

it is a possibility based on the arguments and evidences I have presented.

YOu didn't say it was possible, you said your arguments will change the minds of Muslims, despite having no evidence they have changed anyone's mind.
I

On a small scale, note the mass suicide re
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
believing they will end up in heaven.

That's not relevant to the effectiveness of your texts.

[Iwannaplato]

I have also explained why theism is delusional, i.e. God is an illusion [albeit useful illusion] and that there are many cases of the mentally ill who insisted they have personal experiences of a God but somehow do not make such claims when they have taken the correct medicine to cure their delusion.
e.g.
Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

And mentally ill people will falsely experience real things also. The argument is without merit and that's why it isn't laid out. Just because someone can experience the presence of something during an episode of mental illness is no evidence that it isn't real OR it would be evidence that things we consider real are not real. People see living family members, animals, weather patterns that are not present but do exist and so on. They also see things, when mentally ill that are there. Weak argument if any at all.

There are cases where those who suffer brain damage and therefrom experience God or Godlike experiences;
My stroke of insight | Jill Bolte Taylor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&t=8s

And people who experience brain injuries and experience real things that are both present and not present. YOu haven't thought out the argument.

Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html
because as one grow older, the neurons that inhibit irrationality e.g. God existence, atrophied.

The only thing the article supports is that older people believe more in God. That's it. You have a hypothesis without any evidence. Try to get a scientific paper published based on the argument you have here and you find how respected your argument is here.

Experiences of God can also be trigger with a "God Helmet" using magnetic waves directed a certain parts of the brain.
Dr. Persinger's God Helmet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPOTaUyvA0

Yes, and we can trigger brains to smell things that are real, taste things that are real, see things that real but not present int he moment also. Poor logic again.

There are so much evidence that drugs, hallucinogens and other chemicals that can trigger the experience of the being of God, thus leading many to believe in theism.
Navy SEAL Takes DMT and Meets God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7cc_v_S34

And those drugs are now being found, when used in the right ways, to lead to greater mental health, regardless of whether there is a spritual experience involved. And, precisely, as in the other examples above, the brain can be triggered to experience things consider real in science.

Hey, if drugs can make you experience it then it isn't real.............that's a terrible argument.

The Mystery of DMT "God Encounter" Experiences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUOtrLM6LwY
"More that 50% of atheists who take DMT no longer identify as atheists"

Whatever that proves. That you can't see that sword cuts two ways is stunning.

DMT: The Spirit Molecule
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZqVqbkyLM&t=22s

Seeing the Brain 'seeing-God'
viewtopic.php?t=40337

Same deal.

I was once a theist for a long time and personally, have had god-linked altered states of consciousness; later I discovered they were all in the brain; there is no real God out there outside the human brain.

You said you weren't a Christian. What kind of theist were you. And I don't know what you mean by 'all in the brain'. You're an antirealist.

There are loads of other evidences that demonstrate the belief in God [theism] is due to happenings in the human brain.

Belief in evertying and anything is due to happenings in the brain. You sound so much like a realist here it's funny. Name one thing you believe where that believe isn't due to happenings in the brain.

How else would you come to believe something?

[Atla]

On a small scale, note the mass suicide re
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
believing they will end up in heaven.

That's not relevant to the effectiveness of your texts.

I think it's quite relevant, just in the opposite way to how VA intended. Allah promises heaven, which could be 10+ times more motivating than VA's philosophy. So again, why would they adopt the latter?

[Iwannaplato]

On a small scale, note the mass suicide re
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
believing they will end up in heaven.

That's not relevant to the effectiveness of your texts.

I think it's quite relevant, just in the opposite way to how VA intended. Allah promises heaven, which could be 10+ times more motivating than VA's philosophy. So again, why would they adopt the latter?

To me 'would' is the key word. Why would they? Not why have they already. You know, like evidence type stuff.
He moves from will to might possibly without batting an eye.

We're not supposed to believe in noumena, but future events, those exist already. Even though no one is looking at them.

And in another thread he talks about moral potential...

Yes, we need wisdom but more so, what we need is morality-proper; to do so, we need to unfold the inherent moral potential within ALL humans.
How?
To do unfold the moral potential to its effective potential we need science to dig into the precision mechanism of the moral function to enable it to work effectively.

Another noumenon. It's not actualized. It can't be experienced. It's potential. But it's real.

When he needs a noumenon to be real it is. Some fsk gets called out to demonstrate its realness.

But use an Fsk to support some noumenon he doesn't want to be real, that's taboo.

[LuckyR]

Lack of perspective??

I have deliberated the issues in the common sense, conventional, scientific and various perspectives.
There is no question of uncertainty [not 100%] on the perspectives [models] I raised.
The various conclusions raised can be verified and justified as true and objective [subject to degrees] upon the conditions of the Qualified perspectives [Framework and System].

It is only within the common sense perspective that an apple is an apple .. is an apple and no other.
But within the science-chemistry, it is objective and true that 'apple' is a cluster of molecules, atom, particles, quarks.
Within QM, it is objective and true that 'apple' could be a bundle of waves or particles subject to the observers participation.

Within ANTI-philosophical_realism there is no philosophical_realism-objective-apple at all, there are only psychological perturbations in the brain.

It is also within ANTI-philosophical_realism there is no philosophical_realism-objective-God there are only psychological perturbations in the brain.

Reality is a human "construct".....note;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
There is no pre-existing things awaiting humans to "discover" them.

Why it is so important?
At least in one way, the above will convince theists (in particular Muslims) there is no objectively real God that had sent commands via a prophet to kill non-believers or giving sanction for Muslims to exterminate the human species.

If you believe there is no philosophical difference between a physical object and a human construct (idea), then I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

That is not the case.

I do believe, at the common sense perspective, there is a difference between what is a physical object, say a table and the thought [idea] of a table.

There is a difference between 'constructing the reality of an apple' and 'constructing the idea [thought] of an apple.'

My point is, that the table or apple exists, its existence cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
The claim that reality and things [e.g. apple] exist absolutely independent of the human conditions [e.g. you as a philosophical realist] is not tenable nor realistic. Such a claim is illusory.
Can you prove your positive claim that an apple exists independent of the human conditions?

Well before I answer what I think you're asking, let me verify. When you say: "apple exists", do you mean the physical entity that I think of as an apple, or do you mean the thought in my mind of said apple?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you believe there is no philosophical difference between a physical object and a human construct (idea), then I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

That is not the case.

I do believe, at the common sense perspective, there is a difference between what is a physical object, say a table and the thought [idea] of a table.

There is a difference between 'constructing the reality of an apple' and 'constructing the idea [thought] of an apple.'

My point is, that the table or apple exists, its existence cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
The claim that reality and things [e.g. apple] exist absolutely independent of the human conditions [e.g. you as a philosophical realist] is not tenable nor realistic. Such a claim is illusory.
Can you prove your positive claim that an apple exists independent of the human conditions?

Well before I answer what I think you're asking, let me verify. When you say: "apple exists", do you mean the physical entity that I think of as an apple, or do you mean the thought in my mind of said apple?

When I say: "apple exists", I mean the independent physical entity out there that you perceived and think [thought] of as an "apple".
To you, the apple exists even if there are no humans at all?
Philosophically, your view is grounded on philosophical realism.

Philosophical realism – .. is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

My view is that of an ANTI-Philosophical_Realism.

At the extreme, in the ultimate sense, I am arguing there is no mind-independent moon before there were humans or after humans are extinct.

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

There are loads of posts on the debate between Philosophical_Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism in the other sections [esp. in the Ethics Theory section], e.g.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

[Veritas Aequitas]

As a non-theist I have provided sound argument why 'It is impossible for God to exist as real"
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
You have not countered this argument.

No, your argument does not sound. I countered it but you don't pay attention to my counter argument.

I am VERY serious with,
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

that is why I raised the following;

Objections to "It is Impossible for God to be Real"
viewtopic.php?t=40618

I would not have left your counter in suspension or avoided it IF I had not counter it effectively.
Perhaps you could raise a specific OP to lay down a summary of your argument and various supporting post.

I have also explained why theism is delusional, i.e. God is an illusion [albeit useful illusion] and that there are many cases of the mentally ill who insisted they have personal experiences of a God but somehow do not make such claims when they have taken the correct medicine to cure their delusion.
e.g.
Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

There are cases where those who suffer brain damage and therefrom experience God or Godlike experiences;
My stroke of insight | Jill Bolte Taylor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&t=8s

Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html
because as one grow older, the neurons that inhibit irrationality e.g. God existence, atrophied.

Experiences of God can also be trigger with a "God Helmet" using magnetic waves directed a certain parts of the brain.
Dr. Persinger's God Helmet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPOTaUyvA0

There are so much evidence that drugs, hallucinogens and other chemicals that can trigger the experience of the being of God, thus leading many to believe in theism.
Navy SEAL Takes DMT and Meets God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7cc_v_S34

The Mystery of DMT "God Encounter" Experiences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUOtrLM6LwY
"More that 50% of atheists who take DMT no longer identify as atheists"

DMT: The Spirit Molecule
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZqVqbkyLM&t=22s

Seeing the Brain 'seeing-God'
viewtopic.php?t=40337

I was once a theist for a long time and personally, have had god-linked altered states of consciousness; later I discovered they were all in the brain; there is no real God out there outside the human brain.

There are loads of other evidences that demonstrate the belief in God [theism] is due to happenings in the human brain.

Views??

Perhaps you need to face God. Until then you have to wait for it.

I was once a theist for a long time, but I have not 'faced' God.

But the above references represent those who had faced God and the reason is due to hallucinogens, brain damage, mental illness, psychological issues.
In many cases, many patients lost their direct experience of God when they are given the right medicine. cure of their brain damage or when they are off the hallucinogens.

So it is more likely your 'facing God' is likely to be due to certain activities in the brain and not that there is a real God out there.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have also explained why theism is delusional, i.e. God is an illusion [albeit useful illusion] and that there are many cases of the mentally ill who insisted they have personal experiences of a God but somehow do not make such claims when they have taken the correct medicine to cure their delusion.
e.g.
Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

And mentally ill people will falsely experience real things also. The argument is without merit and that's why it isn't laid out. Just because someone can experience the presence of something during an episode of mental illness is no evidence that it isn't real OR it would be evidence that things we consider real are not real. People see living family members, animals, weather patterns that are not present but do exist and so on. They also see things, when mentally ill that are there. Weak argument if any at all.

There are cases where those who suffer brain damage and therefrom experience God or Godlike experiences;
My stroke of insight | Jill Bolte Taylor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&t=8s

And people who experience brain injuries and experience real things that are both present and not present. YOu haven't thought out the argument.

Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html
because as one grow older, the neurons that inhibit irrationality e.g. God existence, atrophied.

The only thing the article supports is that older people believe more in God. That's it. You have a hypothesis without any evidence. Try to get a scientific paper published based on the argument you have here and you find how respected your argument is here.

Experiences of God can also be trigger with a "God Helmet" using magnetic waves directed a certain parts of the brain.
Dr. Persinger's God Helmet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPOTaUyvA0

Yes, and we can trigger brains to smell things that are real, taste things that are real, see things that real but not present int he moment also. Poor logic again.

There are so much evidence that drugs, hallucinogens and other chemicals that can trigger the experience of the being of God, thus leading many to believe in theism.
Navy SEAL Takes DMT and Meets God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7cc_v_S34

And those drugs are now being found, when used in the right ways, to lead to greater mental health, regardless of whether there is a spritual experience involved. And, precisely, as in the other examples above, the brain can be triggered to experience things consider real in science.

Hey, if drugs can make you experience it then it isn't real.............that's a terrible argument.

The Mystery of DMT "God Encounter" Experiences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUOtrLM6LwY
"More that 50% of atheists who take DMT no longer identify as atheists"

Whatever that proves. That you can't see that sword cuts two ways is stunning.

DMT: The Spirit Molecule
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZqVqbkyLM&t=22s

Seeing the Brain 'seeing-God'
viewtopic.php?t=40337

Same deal.

I was once a theist for a long time and personally, have had god-linked altered states of consciousness; later I discovered they were all in the brain; there is no real God out there outside the human brain.

You said you weren't a Christian. What kind of theist were you. And I don't know what you mean by 'all in the brain'. You're an antirealist.

My point with the above is,
so far, theists had not been able to prove God is real in the empirical-rational sense with a reasonable degree of objectivity via a specific human-based FSK of which the science-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

With above examples, it is more likely that the experience of God and the belief there is an independent God is directly caused via the brain.

Kant had demonstrated it is impossible to prove the existence of God as real.

There are loads of other evidences that demonstrate the belief in God [theism] is due to happenings in the human brain.

Belief in everything and anything is due to happenings in the brain. You sound so much like a realist here it's funny. Name one thing you believe where that believe isn't due to happenings in the brain.

How else would you come to believe something?

As such, the belief [BF] that "God exists as an absolutely independent entity out there" MUST be due to happenings in the brain.
Therefore this belief [BF] cannot be absolutely independent of the brain, i.e. mind-independent.
Since there are no proofs of God's existence as real in the empirical-rational sense at all, the sense of the reality of God can only be confined to the brain.
Theists normally attempt to prove their God exists as real using merely reason, but reasoning is confined to the brain, therefore whatever their conclusions about God, it is all grounded to the brain.

A philosophical realist believes reality, things & God exist as absolutely mind-independent.
I have NEVER agreed with the above.
Therefore I can NEVER be a philosophical realist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And in another thread he talks about moral potential...

Yes, we need wisdom but more so, what we need is morality-proper; to do so, we need to unfold the inherent moral potential within ALL humans.
How?
To do unfold the moral potential to its effective potential we need science to dig into the precision mechanism of the moral function to enable it to work effectively.

Another noumenon. It's not actualized. It can't be experienced. It's potential. But it's real.

When he needs a noumenon to be real it is. Some fsk gets called out to demonstrate its realness.

But use an Fsk to support some noumenon he doesn't want to be real, that's taboo.

The moral potential and function is not a noumenal at all.
It is something that is physically real via the science-biology-ethics FSK.

The moral potential and function within ALL human beings is like the 'puberty potential' which exists and unfold upon certain age of the human life.
It is physically real because it exists with its physical neural correlates awaiting the right time to be triggered.
If damaged for various reasons, this real physical potential may not be fully realized, but it nevertheless exists as a real potential supported by its physical neural correlates and DNA codes.

It is the same with the physical moral potential and function in ALL humans [analogically, a sort of seed] which is unfolding very slowly in evolutionary time, not like the puberty potential which unfold at a certain time in a human life.

Why is such a potential [moral, puberty, intelligence] not real physically grounded on its neural correlates in a living person?

[LuckyR]

That is not the case.

I do believe, at the common sense perspective, there is a difference between what is a physical object, say a table and the thought [idea] of a table.

There is a difference between 'constructing the reality of an apple' and 'constructing the idea [thought] of an apple.'

My point is, that the table or apple exists, its existence cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
The claim that reality and things [e.g. apple] exist absolutely independent of the human conditions [e.g. you as a philosophical realist] is not tenable nor realistic. Such a claim is illusory.
Can you prove your positive claim that an apple exists independent of the human conditions?

Well before I answer what I think you're asking, let me verify. When you say: "apple exists", do you mean the physical entity that I think of as an apple, or do you mean the thought in my mind of said apple?

When I say: "apple exists", I mean the independent physical entity out there that you perceived and think [thought] of as an "apple".
To you, the apple exists even if there are no humans at all?
Philosophically, your view is grounded on philosophical realism.

Philosophical realism – .. is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

My view is that of an ANTI-Philosophical_Realism.

At the extreme, in the ultimate sense, I am arguing there is no mind-independent moon before there were humans or after humans are extinct.

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

There are loads of posts on the debate between Philosophical_Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism in the other sections [esp. in the Ethics Theory section], e.g.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

An interesting way of viewing history. BTW, if a Neanderthal viewed the moon, was there a moon? How about a velocoraptor?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well before I answer what I think you're asking, let me verify. When you say: "apple exists", do you mean the physical entity that I think of as an apple, or do you mean the thought in my mind of said apple?

When I say: "apple exists", I mean the independent physical entity out there that you perceived and think [thought] of as an "apple".
To you, the apple exists even if there are no humans at all?
Philosophically, your view is grounded on philosophical realism.

Philosophical realism – .. is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

My view is that of an ANTI-Philosophical_Realism.

At the extreme, in the ultimate sense, I am arguing there is no mind-independent moon before there were humans or after humans are extinct.

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

There are loads of posts on the debate between Philosophical_Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism in the other sections [esp. in the Ethics Theory section], e.g.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

An interesting way of viewing history. BTW, if a Neanderthal viewed the moon, was there a moon? How about a velocoraptor?

If a purely sonar bat view "the moon" was there a "moon"?

It is likely the bat would be perceiving something like,


I cannot visualize how a velocoraptor would have viewed the 'moon' but it is definitely NOT like what bats and humans are viewing that cluster of atoms and particles.
A Neanderthal may have viewed 'moon' like humans do, but definitely not exactly like modern humans.

Even with modern humans, every human will have a unique perception of the so-called moon, there is no way to verify the perception is the same for everyone.

As such, there is no absolutely mind-independent moon that exists or existed that is permanent at the same time and for every entity.

The fundamental of what is reality could be just this;

Whatever manifest from a denser cluster of particles out of that 'soup' as moon or whatever is relative to the entity in their different conditions and time.

Even the conception of the above a soup of particles or waves in conditioned by humans within the Physics community.

As such, it is a non-starter to the question of what is the fundamental essence of reality, i.e. a BOTTOM_UP approach.
What is most realistic and pragmatic is to rely on the TOP-DOWN approach, i.e. starting from what is experienced, verified and justified via a credible human model of reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.

As such it is meaningless [actually nonsensical] to insist there are mind-independent reality that exist as absolutely mind independent regardless whether there are humans or not.

Why you and philosophical realists are clinging to a mind-independent reality is due to an evolutionary default and psychological impulses. [note Hume]

[LuckyR]

When I say: "apple exists", I mean the independent physical entity out there that you perceived and think [thought] of as an "apple".
To you, the apple exists even if there are no humans at all?
Philosophically, your view is grounded on philosophical realism.



My view is that of an ANTI-Philosophical_Realism.

At the extreme, in the ultimate sense, I am arguing there is no mind-independent moon before there were humans or after humans are extinct.

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

There are loads of posts on the debate between Philosophical_Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism in the other sections [esp. in the Ethics Theory section], e.g.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

An interesting way of viewing history. BTW, if a Neanderthal viewed the moon, was there a moon? How about a velocoraptor?

If a purely sonar bat view "the moon" was there a "moon"?

It is likely the bat would be perceiving something like,


I cannot visualize how a velocoraptor would have viewed the 'moon' but it is definitely NOT like what bats and humans are viewing that cluster of atoms and particles.
A Neanderthal may have viewed 'moon' like humans do, but definitely not exactly like modern humans.

Even with modern humans, every human will have a unique perception of the so-called moon, there is no way to verify the perception is the same for everyone.

As such, there is no absolutely mind-independent moon that exists or existed that is permanent at the same time and for every entity.

The fundamental of what is reality could be just this;

Whatever manifest from a denser cluster of particles out of that 'soup' as moon or whatever is relative to the entity in their different conditions and time.

Even the conception of the above a soup of particles or waves in conditioned by humans within the Physics community.

As such, it is a non-starter to the question of what is the fundamental essence of reality, i.e. a BOTTOM_UP approach.
What is most realistic and pragmatic is to rely on the TOP-DOWN approach, i.e. starting from what is experienced, verified and justified via a credible human model of reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.

As such it is meaningless [actually nonsensical] to insist there are mind-independent reality that exist as absolutely mind independent regardless whether there are humans or not.

Why you and philosophical realists are clinging to a mind-independent reality is due to an evolutionary default and psychological impulses. [note Hume]

You seem to attach quite a bit of importance to individuals having identical experiences. Why is that?

[Iwannaplato]

An interesting way of viewing history. BTW, if a Neanderthal viewed the moon, was there a moon? How about a velocoraptor?

No one can look at a Neanderthal, so Neanderthals don't exist. Nor does the past. You realists are speculating about ether. Do brains exist when no neurosurgeon is operating on it or in some other way we can see brains while they still work?

I've been wondering about time lags also. When does the moon not exist? Light from the sun hits the moon and starts heading towards earth. If no one looks, it's not there, but if I suddenly turn my head and looked then it existed in the past when the sun's light hit it so that I could see it.

It's a lot of work just for me to be able to see it later.

But potentials exist, even if they are unobservable. They're like the moon suddenly having been present in the past so the suns rays didn't just head out into the Milkly way unimpeded in that area.

[Veritas Aequitas]

An interesting way of viewing history. BTW, if a Neanderthal viewed the moon, was there a moon? How about a velocoraptor?

If a purely sonar bat view "the moon" was there a "moon"?

It is likely the bat would be perceiving something like,


I cannot visualize how a velocoraptor would have viewed the 'moon' but it is definitely NOT like what bats and humans are viewing that cluster of atoms and particles.
A Neanderthal may have viewed 'moon' like humans do, but definitely not exactly like modern humans.

Even with modern humans, every human will have a unique perception of the so-called moon, there is no way to verify the perception is the same for everyone.

As such, there is no absolutely mind-independent moon that exists or existed that is permanent at the same time and for every entity.

The fundamental of what is reality could be just this;

Whatever manifest from a denser cluster of particles out of that 'soup' as moon or whatever is relative to the entity in their different conditions and time.

Even the conception of the above a soup of particles or waves in conditioned by humans within the Physics community.

As such, it is a non-starter to the question of what is the fundamental essence of reality, i.e. a BOTTOM_UP approach.
What is most realistic and pragmatic is to rely on the TOP-DOWN approach, i.e. starting from what is experienced, verified and justified via a credible human model of reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.

As such it is meaningless [actually nonsensical] to insist there are mind-independent reality that exist as absolutely mind independent regardless whether there are humans or not.

Why you and philosophical realists are clinging to a mind-independent reality is due to an evolutionary default and psychological impulses. [note Hume]

You seem to attach quite a bit of importance to individuals having identical experiences. Why is that?

I stated [in general] each individual have a unique experience of a supposed same thing [say, seeing the 'same' apple] but they seek consensus as to what is identical and common to them because all humans are programmed with the same basic DNA code as human.

[Iwannaplato]

Potentials, including moral potential, is only in the brain. And when I say this I do not mean there are moral potentials in the brain, for example. I mean there is only something ABOUT moral potentials in the brain. It's a story we make up.

Why?

You cannot sense potentials. Someone has notice that sometimes or often state A follows from state B. So they say that somewhere in state A there is a potential, even though we cannot sense it, that will possibily manifest in state B.

In state B we can often sense something. Something is now there.

But we couldn't sense it before. It is only intelligible. By definition.

That is if you hold to empirical realism or anti-realism. These potentials are unobervables. Scientific antirealism rules these out at the ontological level. They might allow for statistical prediction: w hen you experience X, there is a good chance you will later experience Y. Fine.

But that doesn't mean that there was a quasi real Y hidden in the first situation. If it's unobservable, it isn't. Or at least, we cannot say it is.

It is confusing statistical causation with ontological identity. If X follows from Y then Y had a hidden Z in it that might manifest. What manifest we call Z. The thing that was hidden was potential Z.

Sorry, verboten in antirealism and empirical realism.