Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

[Iwannaplato]

Are you familiar with Hume's refutation of causation?

If his refutation is correct that causes problems for science, whether realist or antirealist both.

You are assuming whatever exists or constructed, there is an ultimate cause,

But Hume went further than that, his argument was against causation period, not just first causes.

Yes, Hume's position ,if correct undermines realist scientist models. But it also undermines antirealist scientists because then all their research conclusions are about mental habits and that is not what they think they are studying.

Causation gone, science undermined.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you familiar with Hume's refutation of causation?

If his refutation is correct that causes problems for science, whether realist or antirealist both.

You are assuming whatever exists or constructed, there is an ultimate cause,

But Hume went further than that, his argument was against causation period, not just first causes.

Yes, Hume's position ,if correct undermines realist scientist models. But it also undermines antirealist scientists because then all their research conclusions are about mental habits and that is not what they think they are studying.

Causation gone, science undermined.

Hume argued causation is influenced by human conditions.
Antirealists believe reality and things [including causation] are influenced by human conditions.
So Hume's argument is not a problem for antirealists in this case.

Rather Hume's causation is a problem for P-realists who insist reality and things [including causation] are not influenced by human conditions.

Because there is no mind-independent causation, antirealists [Kantian] reinforce their conclusions about causation by conditioning it upon an embodied human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
So far, in general despite exceptions, FSRK-ed conditioned facts of causation has facilitated the progress of humanity so far.

[Atla]

Since the 18th century, we had plenty of time to move on from naive realism. I tried hard to make VA understand the view of indirect perception and indirect realism, which is now standard in science and psychology.

What has the above to prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists?
It has never been the purpose of science and psychology to prove the above.

That while what we experience as reality, is probably a construct in the head dependent on VA's "human conditions", this construct is probably embedded in an objectively existing wider reality that's largely unrelated to the "human conditions".

Turns out VA is literally incapable of even imagining this view. He just can't do it. Forever stuck in the naive realism vs Kant's refutation of naive realism debate.

Are you familiar with Hume's refutation of causation?

You are assuming whatever exists or constructed, there is an ultimate cause, i.e. "an objectively existing wider reality that's largely unrelated to the "human conditions" to stop an inevitable infinite regress.
Hume had argued there is no real causation thus no ultimately objective existing wider reality that is unrelated to the "human conditions".

Hume argued whatever is deemed as causation is grounded on the human conditions, i.e. constant conjunction, habits and customs. The ultimate basis of causation is a psychological issue, not an epistemological or ontological issue.

Do you have any argument to refute Hume's view on causation?

While the view "ultimately objective existing wider reality that is unrelated to the "human conditions" " has some pros, Kant had demonstrated its cons outweigh its limited pros, thus Kant proposed his Copernican Revolution to counter the cons and promote further pros for the benefits of humans toward the future.

What are you on about now? Indirect realism has nothing to do with some kind of strictly one-way-causation. How dumb would that be?There is no infinite regress and I don't know what you mean by an ultimate cause.

Looks like you fell into some logical fallacy of your own making.

Again: VA just can't even imagine indirect perception.

[Iwannaplato]

Hume argued causation is influenced by human conditions.

The word influenced is not correct. He was saying that causation lacks necessity. The whole shebang is or might be hypothetical.

I guarantee that antirealist geologists and physicists do not think they fall into the psychology FSK in their work.

Antirealists believe reality and things [including causation] are influenced by human conditions.
So Hume's argument is not a problem for antirealists in this case.

But the word influenced shows you don't understand what Hume was saying.

Rather Hume's causation is a problem for P-realists who insist reality and things [including causation] are not influenced by human conditions.

Undermining causation is a problem for any scientist, regardless of where they fall on realism.

Because there is no mind-independent causation,

Still not getting it.

antirealists [Kantian] reinforce their conclusions about causation by conditioning it upon an embodied human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
So far, in general despite exceptions, FSRK-ed conditioned facts of causation has facilitated the progress of humanity so far.

Well realist models did that also, but none of that is the point.

[Skepdick]

Well realist models did that also, but none of that is the point.

Discrete realist models - sure.

Realism can't account for that which discretizes the non-discrete.

Realism can't account for the realsit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hume argued causation is influenced by human conditions.

The word influenced is not correct. He was saying that causation lacks necessity. The whole shebang is or might be hypothetical.

I guarantee that antirealist geologists and physicists do not think they fall into the psychology FSK in their work.

Antirealists believe reality and things [including causation] are influenced by human conditions.
So Hume's argument is not a problem for antirealists in this case.

But the word influenced shows you don't understand what Hume was saying.

Rather Hume's causation is a problem for P-realists who insist reality and things [including causation] are not influenced by human conditions.

Undermining causation is a problem for any scientist, regardless of where they fall on realism.

You are the one who did not understand Hume's thoroughly.
Hume argued the the compulsion of real causation is influenced by constant conjunction, customs and habits. You are not aware of this?

I borrowed 'influenced' from Peter, the main point is 'causation' cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Because there is no mind-independent causation,

Still not getting it.

You are the one who is not getting it.

"Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. He argued that because causation is defined by experience, any cause-and-effect relationship could be incorrect because thoughts are subjective and therefore causality cannot be proven. Simply put, Hume was skeptical of causality."
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-me ... heory.html#

antirealists [Kantian] reinforce their conclusions about causation by conditioning it upon an embodied human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.
So far, in general despite exceptions, FSRK-ed conditioned facts of causation has facilitated the progress of humanity so far.

Well realist models did that also, but none of that is the point.

Show me the evidence to support your point.
P-realists model insist that causation and relations of external reality are not conditioned by upon an embodied human-based FSRK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What are you on about now? Indirect realism has nothing to do with some kind of strictly one-way-causation. How dumb would that be?There is no infinite regress and I don't know what you mean by an ultimate cause.

Looks like you fell into some logical fallacy of your own making.

Again: VA just can't even imagine indirect perception.

Your above is stupidity based on ignorance, and your thinking is so narrow and shallow.

• The average person involved in philosophy is expected to understand the basic dichotomy between direct perception [realism] and indirect perception/realism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

• Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework. ibid

But there is a serious counter to the above;

• While there is superficial overlap, the indirect model is unlike the standpoint of idealism, which holds that only ideas are real, but there are no mind-independent objects. ibid

Indirect Realism claims that the mind-independent the external world as it really is caused the perception in the mind.

But this 'cause' or causation is a false thing as refuted by Hume.
Therefore there is no mind-independent the external world as it really is that caused the perception in the absolute or ultimate sense.

Therefore there is no way a human rely on a human-based causal theory to prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists [OP].

[Atla]

What are you on about now? Indirect realism has nothing to do with some kind of strictly one-way-causation. How dumb would that be?There is no infinite regress and I don't know what you mean by an ultimate cause.

Looks like you fell into some logical fallacy of your own making.

Again: VA just can't even imagine indirect perception.

Your above is stupidity based on ignorance, and your thinking is so narrow and shallow.

• The average person involved in philosophy is expected to understand the basic dichotomy between direct perception [realism] and indirect perception/realism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

• Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework. ibid

But there is a serious counter to the above;

• While there is superficial overlap, the indirect model is unlike the standpoint of idealism, which holds that only ideas are real, but there are no mind-independent objects. ibid

Indirect Realism claims that the mind-independent the external world as it really is caused the perception in the mind.

But this 'cause' or causation is a false thing as refuted by Hume.
Therefore there is no mind-independent the external world as it really is that caused the perception in the absolute or ultimate sense.

Therefore there is no way a human rely on a human-based causal theory to prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists [OP].

What are you on about now? Okay looks like Hume guessed that causility isn't universal, which may be one of the worst guesses in all of philosophy. We'll find few ideas that have been demolished as thoroughly, consistently as this one. Hume refuted nothing, don't be an idiot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What are you on about now? Indirect realism has nothing to do with some kind of strictly one-way-causation. How dumb would that be?There is no infinite regress and I don't know what you mean by an ultimate cause.

Looks like you fell into some logical fallacy of your own making.

Again: VA just can't even imagine indirect perception.

Your above is stupidity based on ignorance, and your thinking is so narrow and shallow.

• The average person involved in philosophy is expected to understand the basic dichotomy between direct perception [realism] and indirect perception/realism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

• Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework. ibid

But there is a serious counter to the above;

• While there is superficial overlap, the indirect model is unlike the standpoint of idealism, which holds that only ideas are real, but there are no mind-independent objects. ibid

Indirect Realism claims that the mind-independent the external world as it really is caused the perception in the mind.

But this 'cause' or causation is a false thing as refuted by Hume.
Therefore there is no mind-independent the external world as it really is that caused the perception in the absolute or ultimate sense.

Therefore there is no way a human rely on a human-based causal theory to prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists [OP].

What are you on about now? Okay looks like Hume guessed that causility isn't universal, which may be one of the worst guesses in all of philosophy. We'll find few ideas that have been demolished as thoroughly, consistently as this one. Hume refuted nothing, don't be an idiot.

What are you blabbering about Hume? Hume guessed??
Provide your argument and references that Hume was wrong?

Your indirect perception claim that An Independent Reality-in-Itself caused perception via some intermediate elements.
Hume refuted 'causation' as psychological, i.e. not independent of humans.
Therefore your claim of An Independent Reality-in-Itself is false.

[Atla]

Your above is stupidity based on ignorance, and your thinking is so narrow and shallow.

• The average person involved in philosophy is expected to understand the basic dichotomy between direct perception [realism] and indirect perception/realism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

• Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework. ibid

But there is a serious counter to the above;

• While there is superficial overlap, the indirect model is unlike the standpoint of idealism, which holds that only ideas are real, but there are no mind-independent objects. ibid

Indirect Realism claims that the mind-independent the external world as it really is caused the perception in the mind.

But this 'cause' or causation is a false thing as refuted by Hume.
Therefore there is no mind-independent the external world as it really is that caused the perception in the absolute or ultimate sense.

Therefore there is no way a human rely on a human-based causal theory to prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists [OP].

What are you on about now? Okay looks like Hume guessed that causility isn't universal, which may be one of the worst guesses in all of philosophy. We'll find few ideas that have been demolished as thoroughly, consistently as this one. Hume refuted nothing, don't be an idiot.

What are you blabbering about Hume? Hume guessed??
Provide your argument and references that Hume was wrong?

Your indirect perception claim that An Independent Reality-in-Itself caused perception via some intermediate elements.
Hume refuted 'causation' as psychological, i.e. not independent of humans.
Therefore your claim of An Independent Reality-in-Itself is false.

You're an idiot VA. It's not possible to prove that causality is psychological, even to you this should be obvious. Hume just guessed, in a circular reasoning, but as I said there are always two different circular reasonings. Kant adopted his huge mistake.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What are you on about now? Okay looks like Hume guessed that causility isn't universal, which may be one of the worst guesses in all of philosophy. We'll find few ideas that have been demolished as thoroughly, consistently as this one. Hume refuted nothing, don't be an idiot.

What are you blabbering about Hume? Hume guessed??
Provide your argument and references that Hume was wrong?

Your indirect perception claim that An Independent Reality-in-Itself caused perception via some intermediate elements.
Hume refuted 'causation' as psychological, i.e. not independent of humans.
Therefore your claim of An Independent Reality-in-Itself is false.

You're an idiot VA. It's not possible to prove that causality is psychological, even to you this should be obvious. Hume just guessed, in a circular reasoning, but as I said there are always two different circular reasonings. Kant adopted his huge mistake.

Don't just blabber.
Show proofs of your claim before accusing another is an idiot, else you are the real idiot.

Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. He argued that because causation is defined by experience, any cause-and-effect relationship could be incorrect because thoughts are subjective and therefore causality cannot be proven. Simply put, Hume was skeptical of causality.

I quoted the above, "experience" via constant conjunction, habits and customs imply psychological.

[Atla]

What are you blabbering about Hume? Hume guessed??
Provide your argument and references that Hume was wrong?

Your indirect perception claim that An Independent Reality-in-Itself caused perception via some intermediate elements.
Hume refuted 'causation' as psychological, i.e. not independent of humans.
Therefore your claim of An Independent Reality-in-Itself is false.

You're an idiot VA. It's not possible to prove that causality is psychological, even to you this should be obvious. Hume just guessed, in a circular reasoning, but as I said there are always two different circular reasonings. Kant adopted his huge mistake.

Don't just blabber.
Show proofs of your claim before accusing another is an idiot, else you are the real idiot.

Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. He argued that because causation is defined by experience, any cause-and-effect relationship could be incorrect because thoughts are subjective and therefore causality cannot be proven. Simply put, Hume was skeptical of causality.

I quoted the above, "experience" via constant conjunction, habits and customs imply psychological.

Who cares how Hume saw causality. His guess isn't proof. And being skeptical is not even a negative claim. Nothing here so far.

[Iwannaplato]

You are the one who did not understand Hume's thoroughly.
Hume argued the the compulsion of real causation is influenced by constant conjunction, customs and habits. You are not aware of this?

Show how what you say here relates to what I wrote.

I borrowed 'influenced' from Peter, the main point is 'causation' cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

OK, fine. I say there is an issue with the word 'influenced'. Now you seem to be saying that really it is PH's fault that word entered the discussion. Does this mean that you agree it is problematic? If so, I think it would make sense to say that. If you don't think it is problematic, then it doesn't matter where it came from since you think it is appropriate.

Because there is no mind-independent causation,

Still not getting it.

You are the one who is not getting it.

Show me the evidence to support your point.

Which point?

P-realists model insist that causation and relations of external reality are not conditioned by upon an embodied human-based FSRK.

Do you think that antirealist scientists think they are only studying patterns in human psychology regardless of their field of inquiry?

IOW I am trying to bring your claims down into the world of minds. You are talking about what models insist. Models, don't insist anything.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are the one who did not understand Hume's thoroughly.
Hume argued the the compulsion of real causation is influenced by constant conjunction, customs and habits. You are not aware of this?

Show how what you say here relates to what I wrote.

I borrowed 'influenced' from Peter, the main point is 'causation' cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

OK, fine. I say there is an issue with the word 'influenced'. Now you seem to be saying that really it is PH's fault that word entered the discussion. Does this mean that you agree it is problematic? If so, I think it would make sense to say that. If you don't think it is problematic, then it doesn't matter where it came from since you think it is appropriate.

You think there is an issue with 'influenced' I did not say there is an issue.
I was just mentioning facts that I did borrow from PH which I think is appropriate in alignment with my main point. That you jumped to think I am blaming PH is childish.

P-realists model insist that causation and relations of external reality are not conditioned by upon an embodied human-based FSRK.

Do you think that antirealist scientists think they are only studying patterns in human psychology regardless of their field of inquiry?

Don't get your point.

IOW I am trying to bring your claims down into the world of minds. You are talking about what models insist. Models, don't insist anything.

Principle of Charity...
Obviously models are created and operated by human minds, thus the implied linkage.

[Iwannaplato]

You think there is an issue with 'influenced' I did not say there is an issue.

I said there was a problem with the word. I explained why I thought that. In your response you tell me that you borrowed the term from PH. I don't know why you told me that.

I was just mentioning facts that I did borrow from PH which I think is appropriate in alignment with my main point. That you jumped to think I am blaming PH is childish.

OK, but then you did not respond at all to what I wrote about the problem that term.

If someone says 'hey, your use of the term X is problematic for reason -Y' and you respond 'I borrowed the term X from PH AND do not respond to the objections, it's charitable to think you are distancing yourself from the term, rather than just telling me information that doesn't really matter. But even so, I tried to get clarification. I did not jump to a position. I asked if you were distancing yourself or if not if not, then why did you not respond to my objections.

Principle of charity. I did not jump to the assumption of your distancing yourself. I presented two options, one where you were and one where you weren't and presenting why, given you did not respond to my objection, neither option seems to fit with not responding.

P-realists model insist that causation and relations of external reality are not conditioned by upon an embodied human-based FSRK.

Do you think that antirealist scientists think they are only studying patterns in human psychology regardless of their field of inquiry?

Don't get your point.[/quote]Hume was saying that causation was only psychological. This would mean that an antirealist scientist considers him or herself to, when drawing conclusions about causation, to be only concluding about psychology. Every research paper dealing with causation (and most are) would be about habits of mind.

IOW I am trying to bring your claims down into the world of minds. You are talking about what models insist. Models, don't insist anything.

Principle of Charity...
Obviously models are created and operated by human minds, thus the implied linkage.

Right, and I assume then the principle of charity will go both ways. So, since model don't insist but humans can, we need to look at what individual humans minds are doing. Hence my exploration of antirealist scientific minds given that you think Hume is compatible with metaphysical antirealist in a scientific context.

And still no explanation of

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 5:46 am
You are the one who did not understand Hume's thoroughly.
Hume argued the the compulsion of real causation is influenced by constant conjunction, customs and habits. You are not aware of this?

Show how what you say here relates to what I wrote.