"Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.

[Iwannaplato]

This science-biological-FSK fact of mirror neurons are inputted into the neuro-psychological -FSK, the neuro-psychiatric-FSK in their deliberation of empathy. Thus mirror neurons as a basis of empathy would be a neuro-psychological fact.
It is obvious the subject of psychology and psychiatry has to be confined within their Framework and Systems constituted by their various Associations as their authority, if not how else.
Do you dispute the above?

We accept this for the sake of argument and mirror it in relation to aggression...

This science-biological-FSK fact of neuronal patterns related to aggression and violence are inputted into the neuro-psychological -FSK, the neuro-psychiatric-FSK in their deliberation of aggression and violence. Thus aggression/violence related neurons are a basis of aggression and violence would be a neuro-psychological fact.
It is obvious the subject of psychology and psychiatry has to be confined within their Framework and Systems constituted by their various Associations as their authority, if not how else.
Does VA dispute the above? (he acknowledges that there is an oughtness to kill)

Thus when the science-biological-FSK fact of mirror neurons are inputted into a human-based moral FSK, then mirror-neurons as a basis of empathy is an objective moral fact.
So, morality is objective in this sense.

We accept this also and use it to mirror for aggression/violence...

Thus when the science-biological-FSK fact of neurons associated with aggression/violence are inputted into a human-based moral FSK, then the neurons are a basis of aggression/violence is an objective moral fact.
So, morality is objective in this sense.

Does VA dispute this?

Btw, it is not just empathy an element of morality that is a moral fact, but rather all elements of morality must be traceable to something ultimately physical and empirical which can be verified and justified as scientifically objective within the human-based scientific-FSK. In this case, morality is objective overall.

We accept this and use it as a mirror for aggression/violence...

Btw, it is not just aggression/violence is an element of morality that is a moral fact, but rather all elements of morality must be traceable to something ultimately physical and empirical which can be verified and justified as scientifically objective within the human-based scientific-FSK. In this case, morality is objective overall.

Now we note something that VA does not take up....

Current brains have these two sets of neuronal patterns, those for empathy and those for aggression/violence.
They are in specific ratios of influence. This is an objective fact. An objective moral fact, based on the neuroscience FSK.

For some reason VA wants to change the amount of influence, the ratio of influence of these neuronal patterns.

This is going against the objective moral fact of the presence of these two neuronal patterns in the brain in the degrees of influence they currently have over attitudes and behavior.

To enhance one, but not the other, would be going against the objective fact (neuroscience FSK) of their current degrees of influence and thus the objective moral fact of their relative strengths in human behavior and attitude.

On what ground does he want to go against the objective moral fact of their degrees of influence (neuroscience FSK)????????

[Sculptor]

"Realism" taken without qualification refers....

If this is an evolutionary default then you are a dinosaur.
And the asteroid of your objective morality is going to squash you like a bug.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Realism" taken without qualification refers....

If this is an evolutionary default then you are a dinosaur.
And the asteroid of your objective morality is going to squash you like a bug.

It is an evolutionary default that you have an oughtness to breathe, eat, flight or fight, fuck, .. then you are a dinosaur? or some prior breathing, fucking animals?

It should be so obvious to the one with average IQ that since the first living cell, all living things had directed their attention to what is external to them outside their cell boundary and this critical attention to the external is well embedded on the human DNA.
While this sense of externalness is still critical for survival, the problem is the so claimed 'realists' make this sense-of-externalness into an ideological 'ism' i.e. realism aka philosophical realism.

Based on the above ideology of externalness and and things are external [philosophical realism], to them facts are external to the subject. On this basis, the realists from their ignorance and evolutionary trapping deny there are objective moral facts.

This sort of dogmatic thinking in denying objective moral facts contribute the hindrance of moral progress.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had insisted the proclivity for the existence of an ultimate reality [illusory] that is independent of the human conditions, i.e. philosophical idealism is driven psychologically as an evolutionary default.

Philosophical Realists are trapped in a the Spider Monkey Syndrome, i.e. unable to shift paradigms or toggle between them where necessary.
https://mikepalma.wordpress.com/2010/09 ... y-or-myth/


Also note Wittgenstein's fly bottle;
W: "What is your aim in philosophy? To show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle."

I believe Wittgenstein was intuitive with evolutionary defaults but he did not get them exactly right.

[Veritas Aequitas]

@flanneljesus .... in his defence, this is about his eighth language.
But he has openly boasted that he spent years learning Arabic for the sole purpose of making his own translation of the Quran... and specifically in order to perform that translation into an Excel spreadsheet where he has categorised every passage according to an excruciating taxonomy of 'evilness'. And that information should really fill in all the gaps.

I don't know what of this is meant as a joke, and what might be true

As usual FDP is bull shitting. I have never claimed to study 8 languages.

When rationalizing the truths to Muslims and Islam-apologists, one of their defense is 'don't comment on the Quran if you don't know Arabic'.
To counter the above, I have had learned sufficient Arabic to avoid the above and to understand the more complex words and their nuances and it is not to translate the Quran on my own.

The Excel Spreadsheet Analysis of the 6236 verses and review of the >70,000 words point is true. Such an analysis is critical to support why Islam is inherently and constitutionally evil.

My thesis is;
To be a Muslim, one must enter into a contract [covenant - mithaaq, ahd] with Allah,
The total terms of contract is within the Quran from Allah which all Muslims ought to comply with.
As analyzed, the terms of contract within the Quran contain commands from Allah to kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threats [fasadin].
Therefore ALL Muslims are contracted killers re the slightest threats.

Obviously Muslims are humans and some will not comply with the terms of the contract fully. But, they will face the threat of hell for non-compliance of the obligated terms.

If only 20% are driven by their obligation to comply fully with the terms of the contract [being a Muslim] to the best of their ability, then we have a potential of 300 million [20% of 1.5b] evil prone contracted killers out there.
This is the reality and this is evident with the terrible evil and violence committed by the evil prone Muslims.
>43000 Fatal Killings by Islamist since 911.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

[Iwannaplato]

The trick works by asserting that really-real-reality would be some indescribable metaphysical thing known only to God. The distinction becomes silly when you abandon that weirdness because reality is the stuff you see when you look around, not some shadow realm recreation of that stuff.

@flanneljesus .... in his defence, this is about his eighth language.
But he has openly boasted that he spent years learning Arabic for the sole purpose of making his own translation of the Quran... and specifically in order to perform that translation into an Excel spreadsheet where he has categorised every passage according to an excruciating taxonomy of 'evilness'. And that information should really fill in all the gaps.

Was it you who said VA said he would not present this information online due to concerns others would publish it first?

This is hard to imagine.

Above he suggests a possible 300 million killers.

The choice between public safety and his right to publish, from a moral standpoint, would be clearly in favor of immediate distribution of the his files demonstrating this threat from Muslims. We can't wait around for him to find a publisher.

Anyone who bases their whole morality on mirror neurons and thus EMPATHY would set aside future monetary gain and even credit to protect so many people from harm.

[Agent Smith]

"Look at those two Watson. One's blowing bubbles and the other's popping them. An English afternoon spent ... just like that, doing nothing!" Sherlock was a little too harsh on the two children but if it's any consolation he was smiling. "Holmes, I used to play with soap suds ... it's absolute fun when you're as young as them. I miss my sister," Watson was having a bout of nostalgia. "I'm not denying the pleasure of play Watson. It's just that ... you know what I'm talking about, right?" asked Sherlock, hoping his friend knew him ... well. "Of course, it's either a case or that," Watson was pointing to a small wooden box. "You're a true friend, Watson. Fortuna has been kind to me," Sherlock looked relieved. All of a sudden, "Watson! Do you have a camera?! Take a picture, quick!" exclaimed Sherlock. Watson was baffled but was quick to recover. "Yes, I have my camera! Take a picture of ...?" Watson queried. "The boys, the bubbles, quick, quick!" Sherlock screamed.

[Sculptor]

"Realism" taken without qualification refers....

If this is an evolutionary default then you are a dinosaur.
And the asteroid of your objective morality is going to squash you like a bug.

It is an evolutionary default that you have an oughtness to breathe, eat, flight or fight, fuck, .. then you are a dinosaur? or some prior breathing, fucking animals?

It should be so obvious to the one with average IQ that since the first living cell, all living things had directed their attention to what is external to them outside their cell boundary and this critical attention to the external is well embedded on the human DNA.

It is obvious to any won with an education in philosophy that this is just a childish anthropomorphisation.

While this sense of externalness is still critical for survival, the problem is the so claimed 'realists' make this sense-of-externalness into an ideological 'ism' i.e. realism aka philosophical realism.

Yes. You have correctly defined your personal fallacy. Congratualtion.

Based on the above ideology of externalness and and things are external [philosophical realism], to them facts are external to the subject. On this basis, the realists from their ignorance and evolutionary trapping deny there are objective moral facts.

WHooah. Now it's an "ideology". .

This sort of dogmatic thinking in denying objective moral facts contribute the hindrance of moral progress.

But for years now you have presented various (ahem!) "arguments" in favour of this proposal, flying in the face of some of the finest minds in philosophy. Despite all your efforts you have not been able to demonstrate the most simple objective moral fact. Not a single one!
It should occur to you that objectivity requires the collective agreement of your peers. That such criteria upon which any objective fact is founded must be in accord, at least, with your own language community. And yet, time and again you fail. You continue make make an arse of yourself.
There is a definition of madness related to doing the same thing again and again and expecting the same result.
THink about that.

Maybe you should try out your theories in the state of Florida where you might find a community of like minded people who share your notions of morality?

[Iwannaplato]

It should be so obvious to the one with average IQ that since the first living cell, all living things had directed their attention to what is external to them outside their cell boundary and this critical attention to the external is well embedded on the human DNA.

This is a realist model of what the first living cells would have been doing.
You are talking about 'things external' to the cells. You're not talking below about a 'sense of externalness', you're talking about 'things external to the cells'.

While this sense of externalness is still critical for survival, the problem is the so claimed 'realists' make this sense-of-externalness into an ideological 'ism' i.e. realism aka philosophical realism.

Here you go to 'sense of externalness' in relation to facts, but you have already granted externalness to 'things'.

External means outside the subject (the person or here cell) perceiving. But that is positing things that are the sources of perception that outside the proto-minds of the cells.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It should be so obvious to the one with average IQ that since the first living cell, all living things had directed their attention to what is external to them outside their cell boundary and this critical attention to the external is well embedded on the human DNA.

This is a realist model of what the first living cells would have been doing.
You are talking about 'things external' to the cells. You're not talking below about a 'sense of externalness', you're talking about 'things external to the cells'.

While this sense of externalness is still critical for survival, the problem is the so claimed 'realists' make this sense-of-externalness into an ideological 'ism' i.e. realism aka philosophical realism.

Here you go to 'sense of externalness' in relation to facts, but you have already granted externalness to 'things'.

External means outside the subject (the person or here cell) perceiving. But that is positing things that are the sources of perception that outside the proto-minds of the cells.

Did you read the term 'ideology' the dogmatic ideology of philosophical realism?


The first living cell up to the present non-human animals do not adopt this sense of external as a dogmatic ideology.
It is only the human philosophical realists who adopt this sense of externalness as a very dogmatic ideology to the extent that SOME will kill those who oppose their ideology.

[Iwannaplato]

Did you read the term 'ideology' the dogmatic ideology of philosophical realism?

Not relevant. I am talking about what you said, not what the living cells think. You framed it in realist terms - as do the relevant scientific FSKs, and I made this clear in a post you quote but do not seem to have read. I carefully quoted what I was responding to and pointed out the language, quite carefully again, in what I quote again below.

As I said....

This is a realist model of what the first living cells would have been doing.
You are talking about 'things external' to the cells. You're not talking below about a 'sense of externalness', you're talking about 'things external to the cells'.

you do this here....

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 2:37 am
It should be so obvious to the one with average IQ that since the first living cell, all living things had directed their attention to what is external to them outside their cell boundary and this critical attention to the external is well embedded on the human DNA.

Which I quoted in my previous post. You described the situation in realist terms, as do the relevant scientific FSKs and the scientists in those fields do.

The first living cell up to the present non-human animals do not adopt this sense of external as a dogmatic ideology.
It is only the human philosophical realists who adopt this sense of externalness as a very dogmatic ideology to the extent that SOME will kill those who oppose their ideology.

Yeah, a number of people have pointed out the various problems with the term ideology in this context and the unjustified accusation that realism (rather than say theism or something else) leads to murder. You have no justification for this from within any relevant FSK. It's insulting people in an extreme way and off topic.

But yeah, you only attack when attacked. BS,

[Veritas Aequitas]

Did you read the term 'ideology' the dogmatic ideology of philosophical realism?

Not relevant. I am talking about what you said, not what the living cells think. You framed it in realist terms - as do the relevant scientific FSKs, and I made this clear in a post you quote but do not seem to have read. I carefully quoted what I was responding to and pointed out the language, quite carefully again, in what I quote again below.

As I said....

This is a realist model of what the first living cells would have been doing.
You are talking about 'things external' to the cells. You're not talking below about a 'sense of externalness', you're talking about 'things external to the cells'.

you do this here....

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 2:37 am
It should be so obvious to the one with average IQ that since the first living cell, all living things had directed their attention to what is external to them outside their cell boundary and this critical attention to the external is well embedded on the human DNA.

Which I quoted in my previous post. You described the situation in realist terms, as do the relevant scientific FSKs and the scientists in those fields do.

The first living cell up to the present non-human animals do not adopt this sense of external as a dogmatic ideology.
It is only the human philosophical realists who adopt this sense of externalness as a very dogmatic ideology to the extent that SOME will kill those who oppose their ideology.

Yeah, a number of people have pointed out the various problems with the term ideology in this context and the unjustified accusation that realism (rather than say theism or something else) leads to murder. You have no justification for this from within any relevant FSK. It's insulting people in an extreme way and off topic.

But yeah, you only attack when attacked. BS,

Note I have stated my view of external_ness [or realism] is that of an Empirical Realist [Kantian] not a philosophical realist.

Philosophical Realism adopts mind-independence is an absolute basis to the extreme of the moon pre-existed before humans and will exist after humans are extinct. I add this is very ideological [with emphasis], i.e. very dogmatic and driven by strong psychological forces.

Empirical Realism [Kantian] on the other hand adopts mind-independence on a relative basis, i.e. it is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [mind-related]. As such this mind-independence is relative to Transcendental Idealism.

From an empirical-realist perspective, things are external to the cell but relative to Transcendental Idealism, it is not absolute. What is wrong with that?

Philosophical Realism adopts mind-independence on an absolute basis.


Don't go into the immature "a number of people' game. Give me the argument and evidences to support your claim or counter.
From my experiences, those who adopts philosophical realism will often go into irrational defenses and into rage after a while of debates and refutations of their 'doctrines'.
It is so evident within Academia where philosophical realism has dominated the academic philosophy scene based on numbers and intellectual aggression.

Re theism, note the blasphemy laws and theists had been killing non-believers which are so evident in the past to the present.
Note this 43,707 deadly attacks [number killed in 100Ks] on non-believers since 911.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[Atla]

Note I have stated my view of external_ness [or realism] is that of an Empirical Realist [Kantian] not a philosophical realist.

Philosophical Realism adopts mind-independence is an absolute basis to the extreme of the moon pre-existed before humans and will exist after humans are extinct. I add this is very ideological [with emphasis], i.e. very dogmatic and driven by strong psychological forces.

Empirical Realism [Kantian] on the other hand adopts mind-independence on a relative basis, i.e. it is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [mind-related]. As such this mind-independence is relative to Transcendental Idealism.

From an empirical-realist perspective, things are external to the cell but relative to Transcendental Idealism, it is not absolute. What is wrong with that?

Philosophical Realism adopts mind-independence on an absolute basis.

What is wrong with it is, for the 100th time, that you are basing your transcendental idealism vs transcendental realism battle on direct (naive) perception. Which shows that you simply don't know how the human mind works. You have to rework your entire argument, it has to be based on indirect perception.

Most realists today (who follow science/psychology somewhat) are INDIRECT realists, not direct (naive) realists. The year is 2023, we are not in the 18th century.

[Iwannaplato]

Note I have stated my view of external_ness [or realism] is that of an Empirical Realist [Kantian] not a philosophical realist

.And I note that you do not address my points. You do not integrate them into what you write. You do not address, for example, your language use.

Philosophical Realism adopts mind-independence is an absolute basis

Nope. And many people have pointed out the various errors here.

to the extreme of the moon pre-existed before humans and will exist after humans are extinct.

Well, you've talked about things that exist before humans exist also. And you've never adequately answered how the pools with the first life forms arose. Was there suddenly a sun, gravity, an earth, a tidal pool, available nucleic acids when the first perception arose.

I add this is very ideological [with emphasis], i.e. very dogmatic and driven by strong psychological forces.

Oh yeah, like your not emtionally attached to your positions.

Empirical Realism [Kantian] on the other hand adopts mind-independence on a relative basis, i.e. it is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [mind-related]. As such this mind-independence is relative to Transcendental Idealism.

From an empirical-realist perspective, things are external to the cell but relative to Transcendental Idealism, it is not absolute. What is wrong with that?

I don't think that sentence makes any sense.

Philosophical Realism adopts mind-independence on an absolute basis.

Keep on repeating that.

Don't go into the immature "a number of people' game. Give me the argument and evidences to support your claim or counter.

I was one of those people. I already did this. You may be happy to repeat yourself endlessly, but I already pointed out the problems with using ideology in this way. You didn't directly respond. It's a pattern of yours.

From my experiences, those who adopts philosophical realism will often go into irrational defenses and into rage after a while of debates and refutations of their 'doctrines'.

Irrelevant.

It is so evident within Academia where philosophical realism has dominated the academic philosophy scene based on numbers and intellectual aggression.

What do you know about academia? It seems to me you've audited courses, which would reduce the amount of interaction you've had with academics. You really think the various non-realisms can't be brought up and discussed in philosophy classes. You've got to be joking. Of course individual professors may be dicks, but I've never experienced suddenly finding anti-realism taboo or triggering rage in academic contexts.

At what university did you experience rage hurled at you for challengeing realism and why do so many academics, like Van Frassen, manage to present arguments in favor of non-realisms, get them published in academic journals and get to work at Universities like Princeton. I mean, that's about as central to the US academia you can get. Thought of as an extremely presitigious university. If you looked at the links to the Stanford (also a university) Philosophy Encyclopedia with arguments against realism, you will again find academics. And the most academic of online philosophical resources is treating their positions with great respect.

And amazingly the antirealists manage to present extremely well thought out critiques of realism without mindreading, ad homs, insults or stingers. If you think they are making a mistake, you should contact them.

Re theism, note the blasphemy laws and theists had been killing non-believers which are so evident in the past to the present.

Right, I've responded to this idiotic argument before. Is it theism or realism that leads to violence? Or ideologies that are non-theistic but lead to killing?

This is basic fallacious argument on your part.

You would need to show that non-realists are less violent. You would need to show that it is realism and not religious beliefs that lead to the violence.

But I've said this before to you and you don't respond to my precise arguments.

You're too emotionally attached to your positions, it seems.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note I have stated my view of external_ness [or realism] is that of an Empirical Realist [Kantian] not a philosophical realist

.And I note that you do not address my points. You do not integrate them into what you write. You do not address, for example, your language use.

Btw, I do not apply a serious attitude in responding to your posts, since I am trying to avoid interaction as much as possible.
So I will just pick and choose what I prefer to address.
You can keep repeating them if you think any points are not address [if it strike me as relevant to my interest I will address it], that is your discretion.

Philosophical Realism adopts mind-independence is an absolute basis

Nope. And many people have pointed out the various errors here.

Whatever is countered I have not encountered any serious argument against this point.
Perhaps you can raise a thread to address this issue which to me is a critical point.

to the extreme of the moon pre-existed before humans and will exist after humans are extinct.

Well, you've talked about things that exist before humans exist also. And you've never adequately answered how the pools with the first life forms arose. Was there suddenly a sun, gravity, an earth, a tidal pool, available nucleic acids when the first perception arose.

I have already answered this point many times.
There was no humans at the time of the Big Bang, but yet I insist it cannot be mind-independent. I have explained this many times.
Perhaps they are in this thread;
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

It will not be easy for philosophical realists to understand the above because they are dogmatically locked within their rigid philosophical realism paradigm.

I add this is very ideological [with emphasis], i.e. very dogmatic and driven by strong psychological forces.

Oh yeah, like your not emotionally attached to your positions.

I have the same inherent psychological forces that is driving philosophical realism but I have risen by modulating the related primal and emotional impulses.
I don't deny there are emotional forces working within me when I present my anti-philosophical_realism thesis, but they are not related to the very ideological philosophical realism

Empirical Realism [Kantian] on the other hand adopts mind-independence on a relative basis, i.e. it is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [mind-related]. As such this mind-independence is relative to Transcendental Idealism.

From an empirical-realist perspective, things are external to the cell but relative to Transcendental Idealism, it is not absolute. What is wrong with that?

I don't think that sentence makes any sense.

Philosophical Realism adopts mind-independence on an absolute basis.

Keep on repeating that.

That is central to my thesis.

From my experiences, those who adopts philosophical realism will often go into irrational defenses and into rage after a while of debates and refutations of their 'doctrines'.

Irrelevant.

It is so evident within Academia where philosophical realism has dominated the academic philosophy scene based on numbers and intellectual aggression.

What do you know about academia? It seems to me you've audited courses, which would reduce the amount of interaction you've had with academics. You really think the various non-realisms can't be brought up and discussed in philosophy classes. You've got to be joking. Of course individual professors may be dicks, but I've never experienced suddenly finding anti-realism taboo or triggering rage in academic contexts.

At what university did you experience rage hurled at you for challengeing realism and why do so many academics, like Van Frassen, manage to present arguments in favor of non-realisms, get them published in academic journals and get to work at Universities like Princeton. I mean, that's about as central to the US academia you can get. Thought of as an extremely presitigious university. If you looked at the links to the Stanford (also a university) Philosophy Encyclopedia with arguments against realism, you will again find academics. And the most academic of online philosophical resources is treating their positions with great respect.

And amazingly the antirealists manage to present extremely well thought out critiques of realism without mindreading, ad homs, insults or stingers. If you think they are making a mistake, you should contact them.

FYI, I've read very extensively, if you have done so you would have noticed the terrible "intellectual violence" from philosophical realists against Kant, Berkeley, and other idealists up the present era.
It also happened even between realist as in the case of Wittgenstein vs Popper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein's_Poker

Re theism, note the blasphemy laws and theists had been killing non-believers which are so evident in the past to the present.

Right, I've responded to this idiotic argument before. Is it theism or realism that leads to violence? Or ideologies that are non-theistic but lead to killing?

This is basic fallacious argument on your part.

You would need to show that non-realists are less violent. You would need to show that it is realism and not religious beliefs that lead to the violence.

But I've said this before to you and you don't respond to my precise arguments.

You're too emotionally attached to your positions, it seems.

I have already explained philosophical realism is grounded on an evolutionary default.
Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

The evolutionary default generate terrible cognitive dissonances [from an existential crisis] which are terribly painful at the subliminal level.
By dogmatically clinging to philosophical realism [mind-independence] one is soothed from those terrible subliminal existential pains.
When the philosophical realists' ideology is challenged it become a terrible threat thus the counter by violence [triggered subliminally] of various sort to defend their position.

This is why I insist this psychological basis of philosophical realism is so critical.