What could make morality objective?

[Age]

Physical things aren't objective or subjective. For example, a dog isn't objective or subjective.

I never assumed nor said otherwise.

To repeat: what we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than opinions.

To repeat, also, I have already agreed with and accepted your definition here.

So, why are you repeating what you are here?

Did you forget, did you not comprehend, or has something else occured here?

Also, let us not forget that I have already pointed out that this is just your opinion, and thus not necessarily an objective fact all.

And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion. And I think you agree with these explanations of the terms

Do you only think?

It follows that the only thing that could 'make' morality objective is the existence of moral facts: moral features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion.

Okay.

Given this, I suggest you demonstrate the existence of any moral fact - which means showing that any moral assertion is true. Choose one you're convinced is a fact - and just do it.

If you had ever asked me to, over all of our discussions here, then I would have. However, considering you never have, and are now demanding me to, then I will not.

However, if you ever ask for clarification, in the future, then I certainly will.

Then you won't need to make unsubstantiated claims about it being easy to prove that morality is objective.

But, it seems that it is perfectly okay for you to make unsubstituted claims about morality being subjective only, correct?

'Oooo. Cos you're demanding an example of a moral fact - I won't provide one.'

Yes, at least you got this right, because you are demanding something from me I will not provide it. However, and once again, if you ever ask for clarification, in the future, then I certainly will.

Fine. Keep pretending you have the goods. No one's fooled.

What 'we' can clearly see here is 'confirmation bias' when one is 'currently' believing some thing is true, which then makes the belief even more stronger, and thus more more 'confirmation' is 'seen', with 'circular reasoning' stuck, and revolving, within this one's 'belief and confirmation system and cycle'

For example this one 'currently' believes that I have absolutely nothing here, so 'this' is what this one will keep 'seeing', only.

And I've explained 'a million times' why there are no moral facts, so that morality isn't and can't be objective. It's not an unsubstantiated claim.

What you are doing here is just making up things, which you believe, and hope, will back up and support what you 'currently' believe is true here.

Also, because of your 'current' beliefs here you are not open to understanding how there is, in fact, an actual moral fact, and thus why you keep missing why there is a moral fact.

Yours is the burden of proof. Choose any moral assertion you like - 'murder is morally wrong' (dick-for-brains' go-to), or 'humans killing humans is morally wrong' (VA's go-to), or 'abortion is morally wrong' or 'eating animals is not morally wrong', and so on - and show why it asserts a moral fact - a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion.

Once more, for you, when you demand, of me, you will not get, from me.

Do that, and you'll have won the argument. VA and moron sidekick dick-for-brains can't do it. So you'll be their new hero.

To me, noone so-called 'wins' 'the argument'. Arguments are spoken or written in a 'sound and valid' form, or not. And, when a sound and valid argument is presented, then this is a fact, which obviously could not be refuted by anyone.

Also, the way that you and others are 'looking at' things here and presenting your so-called 'arguments' here is exactly why things, which are being discussed here, had not been resolved for hundreds of years, if not thousands of years.

[Peter Holmes]

I never assumed nor said otherwise.


To repeat, also, I have already agreed with and accepted your definition here.

So, why are you repeating what you are here?

Did you forget, did you not comprehend, or has something else occured here?

Also, let us not forget that I have already pointed out that this is just your opinion, and thus not necessarily an objective fact all.


Do you only think?


Okay.


If you had ever asked me to, over all of our discussions here, then I would have. However, considering you never have, and are now demanding me to, then I will not.

However, if you ever ask for clarification, in the future, then I certainly will.


But, it seems that it is perfectly okay for you to make unsubstituted claims about morality being subjective only, correct?

'Oooo. Cos you're demanding an example of a moral fact - I won't provide one.'

Yes, at least you got this right, because you are demanding something from me I will not provide it. However, and once again, if you ever ask for clarification, in the future, then I certainly will.

Fine. Keep pretending you have the goods. No one's fooled.

What 'we' can clearly see here is 'confirmation bias' when one is 'currently' believing some thing is true, which then makes the belief even more stronger, and thus more more 'confirmation' is 'seen', with 'circular reasoning' stuck, and revolving, within this one's 'belief and confirmation system and cycle'

For example this one 'currently' believes that I have absolutely nothing here, so 'this' is what this one will keep 'seeing', only.

And I've explained 'a million times' why there are no moral facts, so that morality isn't and can't be objective. It's not an unsubstantiated claim.

What you are doing here is just making up things, which you believe, and hope, will back up and support what you 'currently' believe is true here.

Also, because of your 'current' beliefs here you are not open to understanding how there is, in fact, an actual moral fact, and thus why you keep missing why there is a moral fact.

Yours is the burden of proof. Choose any moral assertion you like - 'murder is morally wrong' (dick-for-brains' go-to), or 'humans killing humans is morally wrong' (VA's go-to), or 'abortion is morally wrong' or 'eating animals is not morally wrong', and so on - and show why it asserts a moral fact - a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion.

Once more, for you, when you demand, of me, you will not get, from me.

Do that, and you'll have won the argument. VA and moron sidekick dick-for-brains can't do it. So you'll be their new hero.

To me, noone so-called 'wins' 'the argument'. Arguments are spoken or written in a 'sound and valid' form, or not. And, when a sound and valid argument is presented, then this is a fact, which obviously could not be refuted by anyone.

Also, the way that you and others are 'looking at' things here and presenting your so-called 'arguments' here is exactly why things, which are being discussed here, had not been resolved for hundreds of years, if not thousands of years.

Good job you've resolved them then. And perhaps, when you decide to cut the crap, you'll bless us all with your wisdom. Perhaps you'll produce an example of a moral fact, and show why it's not a matter of opinion.

Not holding my breath. Cos I actually, really and irrefutably know you can't. You'll just carry on blathering.

[Age]

'Oooo. Cos you're demanding an example of a moral fact - I won't provide one.'

Yes, at least you got this right, because you are demanding something from me I will not provide it. However, and once again, if you ever ask for clarification, in the future, then I certainly will.

Fine. Keep pretending you have the goods. No one's fooled.

What 'we' can clearly see here is 'confirmation bias' when one is 'currently' believing some thing is true, which then makes the belief even more stronger, and thus more more 'confirmation' is 'seen', with 'circular reasoning' stuck, and revolving, within this one's 'belief and confirmation system and cycle'

For example this one 'currently' believes that I have absolutely nothing here, so 'this' is what this one will keep 'seeing', only.

And I've explained 'a million times' why there are no moral facts, so that morality isn't and can't be objective. It's not an unsubstantiated claim.

What you are doing here is just making up things, which you believe, and hope, will back up and support what you 'currently' believe is true here.

Also, because of your 'current' beliefs here you are not open to understanding how there is, in fact, an actual moral fact, and thus why you keep missing why there is a moral fact.

Yours is the burden of proof. Choose any moral assertion you like - 'murder is morally wrong' (dick-for-brains' go-to), or 'humans killing humans is morally wrong' (VA's go-to), or 'abortion is morally wrong' or 'eating animals is not morally wrong', and so on - and show why it asserts a moral fact - a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion.

Once more, for you, when you demand, of me, you will not get, from me.

Do that, and you'll have won the argument. VA and moron sidekick dick-for-brains can't do it. So you'll be their new hero.

To me, noone so-called 'wins' 'the argument'. Arguments are spoken or written in a 'sound and valid' form, or not. And, when a sound and valid argument is presented, then this is a fact, which obviously could not be refuted by anyone.

Also, the way that you and others are 'looking at' things here and presenting your so-called 'arguments' here is exactly why things, which are being discussed here, had not been resolved for hundreds of years, if not thousands of years.

Good job you've resolved them then.

Thanks.

And perhaps, when you decide to cut the crap, you'll bless us all with your wisdom. Perhaps you'll produce an example of a moral fact, and show why it's not a matter of opinion.

Perhaps.

Not holding my breath. Cos I actually, really and irrefutably know you can't.

Okay.

But, why do you 'currently' have this belief, and, what are you holding onto this belief for, exactly?

By the way, do you have any actual proof for this belief and claim of yours here?

You'll just carry on blathering.

Okay, if you say and believe so, then I must only do so, right?

[Peter Holmes]

Just one little moral fact. One little moral feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion. If morality is objective, that shouldn't be hard. But we get nothing.

[Skepdick]

Just one little moral fact. One little moral feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion. If morality is objective, that shouldn't be hard. But we get nothing.

We've been through this. Why are you lying?

It's known and it has been proven that murder is wrong. Thus a moral fact.

fact
/fakt/
noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is there any thing that exists [by itself] regardless of humans?
NO!

Every thing that existed before humans evolved - for billions of years - obviously existed [by itself] regardless of humans. So this question is fantastically stupid.

And the claim that, had humans not evolved, nothing would exist [by itself] - is mind-bogglingly absurd.

Yes, if based on the language-games of common sense and conventional sense, the above claims are OBVIOUSLY stupid, absurd and mind boggling.

One man's meat is another man's poison.
What is true within one language-game [FSRC-x] is false in another language game [FSRC-y] - Wittgenstein - PI and On Certainty.

Note example from AI[wR]:

Newtonian Claim (and its absurdity in Einsteinian and Quantum Physics):

Newtonian Claim: An object in motion will stay in motion at the same speed and in a straight line unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. (This is essentially Newton's First Law)

Absurdity in Einsteinian Physics (Special Relativity): This claim only holds true for objects moving at speeds much slower than the speed of light (c). According to Special Relativity, as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases, and it requires ever-increasing force to accelerate it further. Time also starts to slow down for the object relative to a stationary observer.

Absurdity in Quantum Physics: This Newtonian claim applies to macroscopic objects (things we can see). In the quantum world, particles don't have a definite position and momentum simultaneously (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). A particle can exist in a superposition of states, meaning it can be in multiple locations at once until measured.

So, while the Newtonian claim is a great foundation for understanding motion in our everyday world, it breaks down when dealing with extremely high speeds (relativity) or the microscopic realm (quantum mechanics).

QM is more realistic than Einsteinian which is more realistic than Newtonian Physics.
Can you see your problem?

As I had claimed,
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The realistic FSRC sense - mine
2. The Independence of human sense [illusory] - PH's.

While your 'independence' sense is reasonable within its specific language game [FSRC], it is 'Newtonian' relative to Einsteinian and QM.

But here, you insists your 'Newtonian' [kindi] is the absolute truth while Einsteinian and QM are absurd when in reality it is the other way round.

Even when QM is the most realistic relative to the Newtonian claims of reality, QM itself is still questionable to what is really real.
As such we are thrown into an infinite regress.
The fact is there is no way to make absolute claims like yours [independent things existing by themselves regardless of humans] which is driven by an existential crisis, i.e. psychological issue.

The fact of reality is all claims of reality end up with an ANTINOMY;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy
i.e. every thesis will inevitably have a corresponding antithesis.

This is why I recommended;
Thus most realistic attitude is to suspend judgment on whatever is triggered by the adaptive evolutionary default to grab onto finitude; and accept the concession that whatever is real must be conditioned upon a human-based FSRC, where the scientific FSRC is the gold standard of reality.

Because it is 'human-based' deductively, whatever follows, i.e. realization of reality and cognition [knowledge] of reality cannot be absolute independent of the human conditions [as you are claiming].

[Veritas Aequitas]

SO "water= H2O" relies on a set of long held assumptions. These assumptions are endemic an this make it look universal, absolute and eternally objective.
However the history os science tells a different story.
In declaring this a fact beyond our interest you are no different from Veritas declaring a moral FSK.
If you think I am wrong that rather than dodge the bullet defend yourself.

Point is every claim is conditioned by its specific human-based language-game or formally, a FSRC.

PH's language-game is a linguistic language-game [FSRC] which is based on ordinary language and their meanings which is not based on the physical reality proper. PH's reality of facts in merely a linguistic-FSRC fact, not a real physical scientific fact.

On the other hand, you are claiming reality based on the language-game [paradigm, framework and System] of science or the Scientific FSRC, thus objective scientific facts [which are not absolute but changeable]

I have argued the language-game of science [scientific FSRC] is the most realistic, credible, reliable and objective, thus it is the Gold Standard all other language-games model [FSRCs] are compared to.
No rational person would deny this. Any one deny this?

From the above your claims [..I agree with] which are based on the language-game model of science [scientific FSRC] is definitely more credible, realistic and objective than PH's linguistic FSRC claims.

An intelligent Guess: if the scientific FSRC [at its best] is indexed at 100/100 degrees of reality and objectivity, PH's linguistic FSRC's would only be 20/100.
see: Methodology of Rating Objectivity of FSK
viewtopic.php?p=676756&hilit=weight#p676756

[Peter Holmes]

Because it is 'human-based' deductively, whatever follows, i.e. realization of reality and cognition [knowledge] of reality cannot be absolute independent of the human conditions [as you are claiming].

Well, who'd have thunk it? Human 'realisation' (?) and knowledge of reality cannot be independent (absolutely or in any way) from 'the human conditions'.

Or, as I put it: we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. All agreed. No argument.

But what doesn't follow is this: Therefore, reality cannot be independent (absolutely or in any way) from human beings. That is a grotesque non sequitur.

For example, reality (the universe) up until humans evolved was completely and utterly and absolutely independent from humans. That we have to perceive, know and describe this fact - the independence of reality from humans - in human ways is irrelevant.

All the natural sciences confirm that, before humans evolved, reality had nothing to do with humans. And the fact that those natural sciences are human creations or products is irrelevant.

Your main premise is completely and demonstrably false. So your argument fails at the first fence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Because it is 'human-based' deductively, whatever follows, i.e. realization of reality and cognition [knowledge] of reality cannot be absolute independent of the human conditions [as you are claiming].

Well, who'd have thunk it? Human 'realisation' (?) and knowledge of reality cannot be independent (absolutely or in any way) from 'the human conditions'.

Or, as I put it: we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. All agreed. No argument.

But what doesn't follow is this: Therefore, reality cannot be independent (absolutely or in any way) from human beings. That is a grotesque non sequitur.

For example, reality (the universe) up until humans evolved was completely and utterly and absolutely independent from humans. That we have to perceive, know and describe this fact - the independence of reality from humans - in human ways is irrelevant.

All the natural sciences confirm that, before humans evolved, reality had nothing to do with humans. And the fact that those natural sciences are human creations or products is irrelevant.

Your main premise is completely and demonstrably false. So your argument fails at the first fence.

Strawman. This is the > 'million times'.

PH: Or, as I put it: we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. All agreed. No argument.

My principle of FSRC reality is this;
All of reality is conditioned /contingent upon an embodied human-based Framework and System of
1. emergence of reality
2. realization of reality
3. cognition, perception, knowing, description of reality

As usual you construct your strawman with only [3] but ignoring the critical elements of [1] & [2].

Since you are always blind to 1 & 2, I have raised various threads for your easy reference;

• 1. Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
  2. What is Emergence & Realization
  viewtopic.php?t=40721
  3. VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
  4. Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
  viewtopic.php?t=40715

But you simply ignore the above or simply do not bother to understand or discuss to make it a point to understand [not agree with] the above.

All the natural sciences confirm that, before humans evolved, reality had nothing to do with humans. And the fact that those natural sciences are human creations or products is irrelevant.

But all the facts of the natural sciences are contingent upon the scientific human-based FSRC. You cannot deny the deductive logic here.
You cannot deny this?
If you do, explain.

There are two senses of the scientific FSRC.
1. Scientific realism - independent reality - illusory
2. Scientific antirealism - no independent reality, just FSRC reality.

Scientific realism claim that scientific facts correspond-to or mirror an independent external reality out there. This is the Correspondence Theory of Truth you cannot deny.
This is fundamentally philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion as I had proven elsewhere.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

On the other hand, scientific antirealism claims that scientific-reality is interdependent between the observers and the empirical evidences that support the scientific facts. As such there is no scientific reality that is independent of scientific facts.
Btw, the most science can do is merely assume there is an external reality to be mirrored or corresponded.
It is no business of science [solely empirically driven] to confirm there is an external reality out there.

The point is we fallible humans cannot be so arrogant to make absolute claims. But on the contrary, you are making absolute claims, i.e. an independent reality exists regardless of humans.

This is why the most realistic claim we can make is the FSRC-ed reality that is interdependent with the human conditions, i.e. we cannot extricate the human factor from what is claimed as reality.

Why you are claiming there is an absolute reality that exists regardless of humans is due to an evolutionary default, it is driven psychologically and ideologically to soothe subliminal cognitive dissonance re ex nihilo nihil fit.

[Sculptor]

SO "water= H2O" relies on a set of long held assumptions. These assumptions are endemic an this make it look universal, absolute and eternally objective.
However the history os science tells a different story.
In declaring this a fact beyond our interest you are no different from Veritas declaring a moral FSK.
If you think I am wrong that rather than dodge the bullet defend yourself.

Point is every claim is conditioned by its specific human-based language-game or formally, a FSRC.

PH's language-game is a linguistic language-game [FSRC] which is based on ordinary language and their meanings which is not based on the physical reality proper. PH's reality of facts in merely a linguistic-FSRC fact, not a real physical scientific fact.

On the other hand, you are claiming reality based on the language-game [paradigm, framework and System] of science or the Scientific FSRC, thus objective scientific facts [which are not absolute but changeable]

I have argued the language-game of science [scientific FSRC] is the most realistic, credible, reliable and objective, thus it is the Gold Standard all other language-games model [FSRCs] are compared to.
No rational person would deny this. Any one deny this?

From the above your claims [..I agree with] which are based on the language-game model of science [scientific FSRC] is definitely more credible, realistic and objective than PH's linguistic FSRC claims.

An intelligent Guess: if the scientific FSRC [at its best] is indexed at 100/100 degrees of reality and objectivity, PH's linguistic FSRC's would only be 20/100.
see: Methodology of Rating Objectivity of FSK
viewtopic.php?p=676756&hilit=weight#p676756

I think the obvious difference is that if you claim that "abortion is wrong"; or "killing is wrong", there is little you can do to show that to be demonstrably right.
However given the edifice of chemical theory "water is H2O" is demonstrably correct, and involves no emotional input.

[Skepdick]

I think the obvious difference is that if you claim that "abortion is wrong"; or "killing is wrong", there is little you can do to show that to be demonstrably right.
However given the edifice of chemical theory "water is H2O" is demonstrably correct, and involves no emotional input.

Unless you've solved the symbol-grounding problem

There's no way to demonstrate correspondence between signifier (such as H2O) and the signified.

[Peter Holmes]

Perhaps we all agree that correspondence theories of truth are incorrect. For example, there's no correspondence between the factual assertion 'water is H2O' and the feature of reality that it asserts. For a start, a name no more corresponds with what it names than an arrow corresponds with its target.

And this is why Saussure's original mistake - that a sign consists of a signifier and a signified - is the delusion that Derrida ran with into the chaos of deconstruction. A sign does not contain a signified, so there is no necessary 'slippage' between it and the signifier. The so-called symbol grounding problem is just the same mistake updated - as is the 'mirror-up-to-nature' critique.

The fact that there's no correspondence between a factual assertion - 'water is H2O' - and the feature of reality it asserts doesn't mean there's no feature of reality, or that the assertion creates or constructs that feature.

To repeat. If to construct a model of reality (an 'FSRC') is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, how can we construct them in the first place? And how can we assess and, if necessary, change them?

I'd be grateful if anyone here has convincing answers to these questions - because it seems to me they hole philosophical anti-realism below the water line.

[Veritas Aequitas]

SO "water= H2O" relies on a set of long held assumptions. These assumptions are endemic an this make it look universal, absolute and eternally objective.
However the history os science tells a different story.
In declaring this a fact beyond our interest you are no different from Veritas declaring a moral FSK.
If you think I am wrong that rather than dodge the bullet defend yourself.

Point is every claim is conditioned by its specific human-based language-game or formally, a FSRC.

PH's language-game is a linguistic language-game [FSRC] which is based on ordinary language and their meanings which is not based on the physical reality proper. PH's reality of facts in merely a linguistic-FSRC fact, not a real physical scientific fact.

On the other hand, you are claiming reality based on the language-game [paradigm, framework and System] of science or the Scientific FSRC, thus objective scientific facts [which are not absolute but changeable]

I have argued the language-game of science [scientific FSRC] is the most realistic, credible, reliable and objective, thus it is the Gold Standard all other language-games model [FSRCs] are compared to.
No rational person would deny this. Any one deny this?

From the above your claims [..I agree with] which are based on the language-game model of science [scientific FSRC] is definitely more credible, realistic and objective than PH's linguistic FSRC claims.

An intelligent Guess: if the scientific FSRC [at its best] is indexed at 100/100 degrees of reality and objectivity, PH's linguistic FSRC's would only be 20/100.
see: Methodology of Rating Objectivity of FSK
viewtopic.php?p=676756&hilit=weight#p676756

I think the obvious difference is that if you claim that "abortion is wrong"; or "killing is wrong", there is little you can do to show that to be demonstrably right.
However given the edifice of chemical theory "water is H2O" is demonstrably correct, and involves no emotional input.

Off topic. I have argued elsewhere why 'killing another human' is absolutely wrong and that is only a moral guide not to be enforced upon individuals.

My point here is your reference to language-game [scientific] with intersubjective consensus is a subset of the FRSC [scientific] which I had been proposing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Perhaps we all agree that correspondence theories of truth are incorrect. For example, there's no correspondence between the factual assertion 'water is H2O' and the feature of reality that it asserts. For a start, a name no more corresponds with what it names than an arrow corresponds with its target.

And this is why Saussure's original mistake - that a sign consists of a signifier and a signified - is the delusion that Derrida ran with into the chaos of deconstruction. A sign does not contain a signified, so there is no necessary 'slippage' between it and the signifier. The so-called symbol grounding problem is just the same mistake updated - as is the 'mirror-up-to-nature' critique.

The fact that there's no correspondence between a factual assertion - 'water is H2O' - and the feature of reality it asserts doesn't mean there's no feature of reality, or that the assertion creates or constructs that feature.

There are many versions of "correspondence of truth".
The version I discussed here is not about 'the sign and the signified'.

Here is what it is about;

You see a candle as above and insist it is true there is an absolutely independent candle [fact, state of affair, that is the case] out there in correspondence to your perception of that candle.
This is the version of corresponding theory of truth I am referring to.

On the other hand, with the FSRC basis, there is no absolutely independent candle out there regardless of humans, but rather the existence of the candle cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

To repeat. If to construct a model of reality (an 'FSRC') is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, how can we construct them in the first place? And how can we assess and, if necessary, change them?

You misinterpreted and misunderstood the FSRC.

There is no conscious construction of the fundamental FSRC by an individual or group of humans.
A FSRC is something that is evolving and had pre-existed, evolved & adapted within humans inherently; a FSRC is grounded on a 13.7b years physical history since the BB and 3.5b of organic history.

Analogy:
The fundamental FSRC is like an inherent human function like the digestive system which has evolved and adapted by humans initiated since 3.5b years ago in relation to nutritional elements of a living organisms.
As such, the fundamental principles of the FSRC do not change while the certain of its fringe form may vary with circumstances and conditions.

I'd be grateful if anyone here has convincing answers to these questions - because it seems to me they hole philosophical anti-realism below the water line.

Anyone who is dogmatic with metaphysical or philosophical realism of the same feathers of yours will not be able to give a balanced view on the above.

[Peter Holmes]

Perhaps we all agree that correspondence theories of truth are incorrect. For example, there's no correspondence between the factual assertion 'water is H2O' and the feature of reality that it asserts. For a start, a name no more corresponds with what it names than an arrow corresponds with its target.

And this is why Saussure's original mistake - that a sign consists of a signifier and a signified - is the delusion that Derrida ran with into the chaos of deconstruction. A sign does not contain a signified, so there is no necessary 'slippage' between it and the signifier. The so-called symbol grounding problem is just the same mistake updated - as is the 'mirror-up-to-nature' critique.

The fact that there's no correspondence between a factual assertion - 'water is H2O' - and the feature of reality it asserts doesn't mean there's no feature of reality, or that the assertion creates or constructs that feature.

There are many versions of "correspondence of truth".
The version I discussed here is not about 'the sign and the signified'.

Here is what it is about;

You see a candle as above and insist it is true there is an absolutely independent candle [fact, state of affair, that is the case] out there in correspondence to your perception of that candle.
This is the version of corresponding theory of truth I am referring to.

On the other hand, with the FSRC basis, there is no absolutely independent candle out there regardless of humans, but rather the existence of the candle cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

To repeat. If to construct a model of reality (an 'FSRC') is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, how can we construct them in the first place? And how can we assess and, if necessary, change them?

You misinterpreted and misunderstood the FSRC.

There is no conscious construction of the fundamental FSRC by an individual or group of humans.
A FSRC is something that is evolving and had pre-existed, evolved & adapted within humans inherently; a FSRC is grounded on a 13.7b years physical history since the BB and 3.5b of organic history.

Analogy:
The fundamental FSRC is like an inherent human function like the digestive system which has evolved and adapted by humans initiated since 3.5b years ago in relation to nutritional elements of a living organisms.
As such, the fundamental principles of the FSRC do not change while the certain of its fringe form may vary with circumstances and conditions.

I'd be grateful if anyone here has convincing answers to these questions - because it seems to me they hole philosophical anti-realism below the water line.

Anyone who is dogmatic with metaphysical or philosophical realism of the same feathers of yours will not be able to give a balanced view on the above.

You don't answer my questions, so here they are again:

If to construct a model of reality (an 'FSRC') is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, how can we construct them in the first place? And how can we assess and, if necessary, change them?

And now you say humans have an evolved 'framework and system of reality and cognition' - a fundamental FSRC - which we didn't consciously construct as a model. Presumably the sub-FSRCs or sub-FSKs, such as in physics, chemistry and so on, fit into the bigger, fundamental FSRC.

So, please answer these questions, adapted to accommodate your new dodge.

1 What is our evolved fundamental FSRC model of reality (EFFSRCMR) - a model of?

2 If all we can know about reality is our evolved fundamental FSRC model of reality (EFFSRCMR), how can we know that? From which perspective?

3 How can we assess that EFFSRCMR and, if necessary, change it? Iow, whence quantum mechanics?

4 Why does the fact that we have an EFFSRCMR mean that there is no reality outside or unconditioned by our EFFSRCMR?

PS 5 What was the universe for the billions of years before humans and our EFFSRCMR evolved?