VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts

[Flannel Jesus]

And I don't think it's an accurate description of your view to say "there isn't one" anyway. I think you do think there's a deep down reality, based on what you've said, and that deep down reality has something to do with minds and how they relate to each other. You think it exists, you just think minds are at the center of it and are running the show.

Which is of course much stronger and less justified of a stance than "the deep down reality exists and we're ignorant of how it really works", which is the stance of everyone else you're arguing against.

[FlashDangerpants]

And I don't think it's an accurate description of your view to say "there isn't one" anyway. I think you do think there's a deep down reality, based on what you've said, and that deep down reality has something to do with minds and how they relate to each other. You think it exists, you just think minds are at the center of it and are running the show.

That's an easy mistake to make. You look at all the FSK and antirealism spiels VA does and, although they are arbitrary and contradictory in nature, you still would assume that something in those is the original principle of his philosophy. This is sadly a fallacy, VA constructed this weird mess piecemeal in order to answer to his own satisfaction each new question he encountered along the way.

What people don't get about VA is that he didn't start with the Kantian antirealism thing and then subvert it with constructivist scientism and then undermine both with a belief in natural moral facts. He started with the conclusion he wanted to reach, namely that it is scientific and philosophical fact that one particular religion is evil, and then somebody told him about Hume's is/ought thing, so he read up a bit until he learned about Kant and he became a Kantian for a while in order to say boo to Hume and the rest is all just incremental fuckups from there.

Any feeling you get when you look at his work and that leads you to assume there is a continous theory within is a form of anthropomorphism. It is projection based on your experiences of reading actual philosophers and assuming VA has done something similar.

[Iwannaplato]

That's an easy mistake to make. You look at all the FSK and antirealism spiels VA does and, although they are arbitrary and contradictory in nature, you still would assume that something in those is the original principle of his philosophy. This is sadly a fallacy, VA constructed this weird mess piecemeal in order to answer to his own satisfaction each new question he encountered along the way.

I just said something similar to FJ in a pm, but I'll now put it here:
I almost responded to this in-topic. I am not sure he has a full model. IOW I don't think (at least I don't know that) he has even thought throught the consequences of what he writes. So, he finds something in Plato/Hawking whomever that seems to back up something he's said or attacks something PH said, he flings it into the conversation, without really knowing if it fits other things he has said. And perhaps without ever having some overview. He wants objective moral facts and I think along the way he took on an antirealist stance because then his moral facts can't be judged. So, now he's an antirealist. I could be wrong about this, but that's what it seems like to me.

But if you could link me to where he's actually thought through an idealism where everything is thought or mind, let me know. I know he mentions idealism a lot, lately, but I am not sure if he actually is an idealist, which is what I think you are saying he is here.

What people don't get about VA is that he didn't start with the Kantian antirealism thing and then subvert it with constructivist scientism and then undermine both with a belief in natural moral facts. He started with the conclusion he wanted to reach, namely that it is scientific and philosophical fact that one particular religion is evil, and then somebody told him about Hume's is/ought thing, so he read up a bit until he learned about Kant and he became a Kantian for a while in order to say boo to Hume and the rest is all just incremental fuckups from there.

I actually think he's gotten more sophisticated. I get the history, but at the same time I do think he is invested in objective moral facts and is happy to be an antirealist (ontologically but not morally, an issue he hasn't addressed, though I've tried to throw it through others to him).

Any feeling you get when you look at his work and that leads you to assume there is a continous theory within is a form of anthropomorphism. It is projection based on your experiences of reading actual philosophers and assuming VA has done something similar.

I think this is true, but I wonder if in some sense this isn't inevitable, setting aside degree of this pattern and then also disingenuousness. We all hit our early 20s, at least in most of the West, with a mish mosh of paradigms and positions - we're free will one minute, determinist the next (in our conversations, perhaps even in intended to be more formal discussions), were' dualist here, monist there, rationalist here, epiricist there. So, most of our early philosophical discussions (if not for the rest of our lives) we defend X and then find holes in the dike hear Y and so we rush there or rob Peter to pay Paul, and at some point perhaps we get a cohesive whole of some kind. I agree as far as VA: he's not there and he acts as if he is.

But I think to some degree this ad hoc bricoleur process is inevitable, even if it can be carried our more responsibly and without such toxic goals as he has.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't think you're accomplishing anything by making Peter Holmes preface everything he says about chemistry with "according to the chemistry fsk".

It make a significant difference if PH and those of his like [Philosophical Realists] were to accept the anti-Philosophical Realist stance as I had claimed, i.e.

All facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned to a specific human-based FSK.

Thus whatever [chemistry, etc.] knowledge PH assert, it must be FSK_ed.

As such, there is a human-based moral FSK that has objective moral facts.
PH's current stance of delusional Philosophical Realism does not allow for objective moral facts within a human-based moral FSK.

Once we have verified and justified objective moral facts, humanity can use them as a standard and guide to envision for the possibility of perpetual peace

And yes, we don't have access to the raw unreduced truths and we never will most likely. But you're taking a strong position about that - that there is no such thing - rather than the weaker position that we don't know what it is. You're acting like "there is no such thing" is this glorious philosophically profound lack-of-stance, but it's not, it's as much of a stance as saying "there is such a thing and it works exactly like this" - in other words, your stance is even more of a strong stance than the stance of someone like Peter Holmes, or general philosophical realists like Sean Carroll. At least Sean Carroll admits ignorance about what the fully reduced truth might be, you claim no such ignorance.

Actually your use of "unreduced truth" is misleading. We did discuss digging deeper into smaller matters but that is not the main point.

The main point is Philosophical Realism versus Anti-Philosophical_Realism.

Philosophical realism is about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
In general it meant, for every phenomena [mind-related] there is a noumena [mind-independent].
For example, 'what is perceived in mind' is not 'the-perceived independent of mind'.
Thus the apple on the tree as perceive in mind is not the real apple on the tree that is outside the mind.
Note the dualism above and thus the reality-gap.

Anti-Philosophical_Realism [mine] do not agree with the case.
In my case, there are two phases,
1. the apple on the tree is perceived as separate from the mind at one level X, and
2. what is at level X is subsumed in one whole schema of the mind at level Y.
As such, in one sense there is mind-independence at one level but overall, in another encompassing sense there is no mind-independence.

At least Sean Carroll admits ignorance about what the fully reduced truth might be, you claim no such ignorance.

This is circular.
Sean Carroll is admits ignorance about something he is ignorant about.
If he is ignorant, how can he know of that something he should be ignorant about.
Note Meno's Paradox.

Point is, Sean Carroll [PH and you] should simply stop where verifiable evidence and philosophical reasoning [FSK supported] and not speculate and insist there must be something real beyond the empirical possible.

Your claims about reality imply you think you have a stronger understanding of the deep down truths than any of Hawking, Carroll, Einstein, me or Peter Holmes claim. All we claim is that there is a reality, but we don't know the deep down true nature of it. Our ignorance is our strength here, compared to your certainty that you know the nature of it: that the nature of it is that it doesn't exist at all.

And please note that Stephen Hawkings quotes mostly go in the direction of "we can't know what the deep down reality is" which is very very different from "there isn't one."

Nope, as stated above,
my claim is to simply recognize reality as far as empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning can support.

Your ignorance cannot be a strength but is merely ignorance of your own human nature that is conditioned through 4 billion years old history of evolution.
What you are at is like the agnostic who cannot be sure whether God exists or not.

You are merely speculating there is an independent ultimate reality which is basically good for your psychology.
Such a speculation is an illusion and can be useful provided it is not reified as really real.

[Flannel Jesus]

Point is, Sean Carroll [PH and you] should simply stop where verifiable evidence and philosophical reasoning [FSK supported] and not speculate and insist there must be something real beyond the empirical possible.

Why should he do that but not you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Point is, Sean Carroll [PH and you] should simply stop where verifiable evidence and philosophical reasoning [FSK supported] and not speculate and insist there must be something real beyond the empirical possible.

Why should he do that but not you?

That is what I am doing.
I don't speculate beyond what is empirically possible.
I accept what is real as far as the empirically verifiable and justifiable evidence can support it.

[Flannel Jesus]

Point is, Sean Carroll [PH and you] should simply stop where verifiable evidence and philosophical reasoning [FSK supported] and not speculate and insist there must be something real beyond the empirical possible.

Why should he do that but not you?

That is what I am doing.
I don't speculate beyond what is empirically possible.
I accept what is real as far as the empirically verifiable and justifiable evidence can support it.

You are absolutely speculating beyond that, even more than those other people.

You aren't saying "I don't know what the deep down reality is, and I don't know if it exists". You are making extremely specific claims.

You are saying "I know that the deep down reality has a mind dependent nature". If you just claimed ignorance, then you wouldn't be so certain that there isn't a mind independent reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why should he do that but not you?

That is what I am doing.
I don't speculate beyond what is empirically possible.
I accept what is real as far as the empirically verifiable and justifiable evidence can support it.

You are absolutely speculating beyond that, even more than those other people.

You aren't saying "I don't know what the deep down reality is, and I don't know if it exists". You are making extremely specific claims.

You are saying "I know that the deep down reality has a mind dependent nature". If you just claimed ignorance, then you wouldn't be so certain that there isn't a mind independent reality.

"I know that the deep down reality has a mind dependent nature".
That is crazy strawmanning.

I don't speculate beyond what is empirically possible.
I accept what is real as far as the empirically verifiable and justifiable evidence can support it. That's it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Thus whatever [chemistry, etc.] knowledge PH assert, it must be FSK_ed.

As such, there is a human-based moral FSK that has objective moral facts.

Even if granted the benefit of the doubt for the first of those statements, the second would not follow from it.
It would be some sort of speculation on your part.

[Flannel Jesus]

That is what I am doing.
I don't speculate beyond what is empirically possible.
I accept what is real as far as the empirically verifiable and justifiable evidence can support it.

You are absolutely speculating beyond that, even more than those other people.

You aren't saying "I don't know what the deep down reality is, and I don't know if it exists". You are making extremely specific claims.

You are saying "I know that the deep down reality has a mind dependent nature". If you just claimed ignorance, then you wouldn't be so certain that there isn't a mind independent reality.

"I know that the deep down reality has a mind dependent nature".
That is crazy strawmanning.

I don't speculate beyond what is empirically possible.
I accept what is real as far as the empirically verifiable and justifiable evidence can support it. That's it.

Is it CRAZY strawmanning really? Have you not repeatedly referred to mind dependent reality? Have you not explicitly said "there is no mind independent reality" ?

Because if you have, that's not a statement of ignorance and skepticism, that's a statement about the nature of reality.

[Iwannaplato]

You are absolutely speculating beyond that, even more than those other people.

You aren't saying "I don't know what the deep down reality is, and I don't know if it exists". You are making extremely specific claims.

You are saying "I know that the deep down reality has a mind dependent nature". If you just claimed ignorance, then you wouldn't be so certain that there isn't a mind independent reality.

"I know that the deep down reality has a mind dependent nature".
That is crazy strawmanning.

I don't speculate beyond what is empirically possible.
I accept what is real as far as the empirically verifiable and justifiable evidence can support it. That's it.

Is it CRAZY strawmanning really? Have you not repeatedly referred to mind dependent reality? Have you not explicitly said "there is no mind independent reality" ?

Because if you have, that's not a statement of ignorance and skepticism, that's a statement about the nature of reality.

He has written about the Big Bang, what things were like 4 billion years ago, the primoridal soup. He has shown pictures of how the universe looks PRECISELY when the wave function has not collapsed - those images of the cloud of particles in superpostion. IOW by definition that is not being experienced, because the wave function has not collapsed. He has said that the Moon does not exist when it is not being looked at. That is making claims about something he is not experiencing and no one is experiencing, again by definition. IOW it is one thing to say we do not know if something no longer exists when we are not experiencing it, but he goes further to claim that it does not exist. That unexperienced things do not exist.

So, we have speculation about events and 'things' and processes before humans existed, and are thus not empirical, empirical being experiencable.
We also have by definition unexperiencable things, particles in superpositions, the quantum fog, noumena, etc.

So, he is regularly speculating beyond the empirical and his claim, which is in the quote above, is clearly false.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are absolutely speculating beyond that, even more than those other people.

You aren't saying "I don't know what the deep down reality is, and I don't know if it exists". You are making extremely specific claims.

You are saying "I know that the deep down reality has a mind dependent nature". If you just claimed ignorance, then you wouldn't be so certain that there isn't a mind independent reality.

"I know that the deep down reality has a mind dependent nature".
That is crazy strawmanning.

I don't speculate beyond what is empirically possible.
I accept what is real as far as the empirically verifiable and justifiable evidence can support it. That's it.

Is it CRAZY strawmanning really? Have you not repeatedly referred to mind dependent reality? Have you not explicitly said "there is no mind independent reality" ?

Because if you have, that's not a statement of ignorance and skepticism, that's a statement about the nature of reality.

While I do not agree with the mind-independent idea, I did not imply the following;
"I know that the deep down reality has a mind dependent nature".

Like theism, the onus is on the philosophical realist to prove there is such a mind-independent reality.

However, I can the whole of Kant's argument in his Critique of Pure Reason, there is no mind-independent reality which is claimed as ultimately real or an objective reality.

But there is no way I have reservation "I know that the deep down reality has a mind dependent nature".

[Flannel Jesus]

If you know it's not mind-independent, that doesn't leave a lot of alternatives...

[Skepdick]

If you know it's not mind -independent, that doesn't leave a lot of alternatives...

That's how truth works.

Least you wish to furnish us with some mind-independent knowledge.

[Iwannaplato]

Like theism, the onus is on the philosophical realist to prove there is such a mind-independent reality..

this is where VA goes regularly lost. Yes, the realits who claims there is a mind independent reality needs to support that, at least in philosophical contexts.
But when VA claims there is no mind independent reality he gets a burden. He's not been presenting himself as agnostic. He has a belief and a claim.

And further he often refers to things that were around when there were not minds, but also to things as they are when not experienced - particles in superpostion, the unexperienced quantum foam, which he even gave us pictures of.

And this despite him saying such things do not exist.