Why the Moon is not Absolutely Mind-Independent

[Atla]

As usual, you project your inability to comprehend onto my words. Is it my word salad or is it your mind salad?

There sure is a pattern...

If you can't speak human then don't try.

If you can't understand human - say so.

There's no shame in being dumber than you give yourself credit for. It's just pride - put it aside.

Well you had your chance

[Skepdick]

If you can't speak human then don't try.

If you can't understand human - say so.

There's no shame in being dumber than you give yourself credit for. It's just pride - put it aside.

Well you had your chance

How noble of you, giving what you need most to others...

[Skepdick]

You you complete flathead moron.

I don't know, if being a flathead moron were a competition I'd definitely lose you.

The humans could as easily be wiped out by an asteroid. no a moral content at all.

So then why did Hitler attempting to wipe out the Jews contain moral content?
And Stalin's genocide? And Pol Pot's genocide? No moral content there either?

Comparing the persistence of the moon without humans, and the persistence of morals without humans, has nothing to do with whether or not humans were wiped out morally or immorally. You are so trajically stupid, it is beyond reason.

What a fucking retard.

If morality is an objective phenomenon pertaining to human social interaction, behaviour and outcomes it's fucking obvious to every non-idiot (so why isn't it obvious to you?) that wiping humans out will also wipe morality out.

But hey, you are the fucking genius who insists there's no moral content in genocide.

[Sculptor]

You you complete flathead moron.

I don't know, if being a flathead moron were a competition I'd definitely lose you.

The humans could as easily be wiped out by an asteroid. no a moral content at all.

So then why did Hitler attempting to wipe out the Jews contain moral content?
And Stalin's genocide? And Pol Pot's genocide? No moral content there either?

Comparing the persistence of the moon without humans, and the persistence of morals without humans, has nothing to do with whether or not humans were wiped out morally or immorally. You are so trajically stupid, it is beyond reason.

What a fucking retard.

If morality is an objective phenomenon pertaining to human social interaction, behaviour and outcomes it's fucking obvious to every non-idiot (so why isn't it obvious to you?) that wiping humans out will also wipe morality out.

You are such a dumb fuck that you do not even know that is what I said.

But hey, you are the fucking genius who insists there's no moral content in genocide.

Take a breath, and try to read what is being written.
If you can't do that then fuck off back on ignore.
Don't say I do not give you a chance once in a while.

[Skepdick]

If you can't do that then fuck off back on ignore.
Don't say I do not give you a chance once in a while.

Lets take the "if" out of that, shall we?

Do me a favour and ignore me permanently.

The world would be a better place if I don't have to deal with idiots like you.

[seeds]

Note my argument above;

1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].

So far, so good.

2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.

As always, your syllogisms always seem to contain a fatal flaw.

No, V, that which is a "factual" aspect of reality exists independent of the human-based FSK, for (as you seem to have noted elsewhere) human-based FSKs pertaining to what humans presume are "facts" can be completely wrong.

3. The moon as a fact is conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.

Again, no. Whatever is absolutely factual (solid/written in the stone of ultimate truth) about the ontology of the moon is unaffected by human presumptions about its ontology. Indeed, that's what the word "fact" is all about.

4. Since 3, the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Again, the moon's actual (true and "factual") ontology is written in the fabric of reality, and thus nothing about its existence is dependent upon human *minds.

* (Except for perhaps the possibility proposed in quantum theory that our minds might be involved in a process that explicates the moon's phenomenal (3-D) features from pre-existing, noumenal-like waves of coded information.)
_______

[Iwannaplato]

Note my argument above;

1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].

So far, so good.

2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.

As always, your syllogisms always seem to contain a fatal flaw.

No, V, that which is a "factual" aspect of reality exists independent of the human-based FSK, for (as you seem to have noted elsewhere) human-based FSKs pertaining to what humans presume are "facts" can be completely wrong.

3. The moon as a fact is conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.

Again, no. Whatever is absolutely factual (solid/written in the stone of ultimate truth) about the ontology of the moon is unaffected by human presumptions about its ontology. Indeed, that's what the word "fact" is all about.

4. Since 3, the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Again, the moon's actual (true and "factual") ontology is written in the fabric of reality, and thus nothing about its existence is dependent upon human *minds.

* (Except for perhaps the possibility proposed in quantum theory that our minds might be involved in a process that explicates the moon's phenomenal (3-D) features from pre-existing, noumenal-like waves of coded information.)
_______

For me the problem comes in around 'fact' also. I think this deduction conflates 'fact', which is a kind of assertion, with the moon's existence. Yes, facts - which to me are a kind of framing of what is true - are conditioned on humans. And our knowledge is also conditioned on our minds. And those words, to me, are talking about ideas framed in sentences. Sentences that refer to things. I happen not to be a realist. But his deduction is not convincing because of the conflation.

[Sculptor]

Note my argument above;

So far, so good.

2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.

As always, your syllogisms always seem to contain a fatal flaw.

No, V, that which is a "factual" aspect of reality exists independent of the human-based FSK, for (as you seem to have noted elsewhere) human-based FSKs pertaining to what humans presume are "facts" can be completely wrong.

3. The moon as a fact is conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.

Again, no. Whatever is absolutely factual (solid/written in the stone of ultimate truth) about the ontology of the moon is unaffected by human presumptions about its ontology. Indeed, that's what the word "fact" is all about.

4. Since 3, the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Again, the moon's actual (true and "factual") ontology is written in the fabric of reality, and thus nothing about its existence is dependent upon human *minds.

* (Except for perhaps the possibility proposed in quantum theory that our minds might be involved in a process that explicates the moon's phenomenal (3-D) features from pre-existing, noumenal-like waves of coded information.)
_______

For me the problem comes in around 'fact' also. I think this deduction conflates 'fact', which is a kind of assertion, with the moon's existence. Yes, facts - which to me are a kind of framing of what is true - are conditioned on humans. And our knowledge is also conditioned on our minds. And those words, to me, are talking about ideas framed in sentences. Sentences that refer to things. I happen not to be a realist. But his deduction is not convincing because of the conflation.

The Moon clearly has an objective reality. Being a massie lump of matter in continual orbit around the earth. And like the earth its existence does not depend on our perception of it. But as far as objectivity goes that is where it ends.
So much for the physical.
Now we have what is "ideal"
However, simply for the fact that "The Moon" is nominated, conceptualised, has varing cultural significance, is perceived in all its various ways, subjected to our POVs, - having phases, angles of view, can only be seen with various weather conditions, and fro different aspects from different places on the earth - these things are not "mind independant". Add to that a mass of mystical and mythical beliefs about the moon, its goddess and even the bogus attachment to madness and the woman's menstrual cycles - such things as this are clearly culturally, historically and socially constructed.

In a Kantian sense no human can see the purely objective Moon, seaparated from all the things that are subject to their view, and culturally, historicall conditioned, both by connotation and denotation. The Moon is not completely independant of our perceptions of it, but is nonetheless phyically independant and does not rely on any nor all humans perceiveings.

The Moon abides and has no interest in; is not sustained by; and does not rely upon any "FSK" whatever the F that is, nor does it require any conscious being percieving it for it to continue to exist.
The moon did not spring into existence when conscious beings first saw it and when all consciousness in the universe ceases to exist, or is beyond viewing the Moon shall continue regardless.

Even VA knows this but is too up his own arse to admit it.
Skeptic is too confused to know what he thinks.
And I don't give a rat's kidney what ICan't thinks.

[seeds]

For me the problem comes in around 'fact' also. I think this deduction conflates 'fact', which is a kind of assertion, with the moon's existence. Yes, facts - which to me are a kind of framing of what is true - are conditioned on humans...

Yes, and that bolded bit is precisely the error that VA has made with his silly codswallop about the impossibility of God being real. And that's because he bases it on the human condition...

(or human presumptions, or human FSKs, or whatever new and compactible acronyms he comes up with)

...that if God is not some sort of platonically "perfect" entity, then he (she/it) simply cannot exist.

Why?

Because, according to VA's defense of that conclusion, absolute perfection is impossible to be real, therefore - ipso facto - a "perfect" Being such as humans envision God to be is impossible to be real.

However, what VA cannot seem to get into his thick skull is that humans can quibble over their tiny-minded misconceptions about God or moons or whatever and it would be completely irrelevant to the actual "facts" of reality.

The bottom line is that (aside from my reference to quantum theory) the existence of the phenomenal features of the universe are in no way dependent upon the minds and presumptions of us humans.

As Sculptor pointed out (and Skepdick clearly misinterpreted)...

It is a complete no brainer to suggest that were the human race to be wiped out the Moon would abide,... but morals would not.

This is all just another one of VA's non sequitur conclusions derived from another one of his rickety syllogisms of which he will attempt to keep afloat until the bitter end...


_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your argument is based on direct perception, where you seem to be claiming that the Moon as "thought" by humans and the Moon "out there" are one and the same thing. As you said, this is vulgar & kindergartenish.

Strawman again, the > "a million" times.

Hey, "seem" ???
I had NEVER claimed that the Moon as "thought" by humans and the Moon "out there" are one and the same thing.

I deny Philosophical Realism which claim there is an absolutely mind-independent moon 'out there".
So, how can I claim there is "a Moon 'out there'" then assuming it is the same things as the moon as "thought" by humans?
I do not have such a philosophical thought because it is vulgar & kindergartenish.

Rather, what is the real moon emerged and is realized in spontaneity with the human conditions, then it is only perceived, known and described subsequently.
I have presented this link a '1000' times.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Do you understand the significance of the above thread?

As such, in the ultimate sense [Transcendental Idealism], the moon CANNOT exists as an absolutely mind-independent thing by itself from the human conditions.

My argument is not based on direct perception aka naive/direct realism.
Rather my argument is based on Empirical Realism subsumed within Transcendental Idealism, comprendo??

Again:
Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

??? Prove your strawman is real?

Represent my argument properly before asking me to prove whatever.

Just in case you are unable to do so, there is my argument again.

• 1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
  2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
  3. All positive scientific claims as scientific facts are conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
  4. Since 3, all positive scientific claims as scientific facts CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA claims to have a proof, so ask him.

I am asking the person demanding the proof.

Surely you know what it is that you are demanding from others?

Yes, to show that he has indeed proven what he claims to have proven.

The point is you are making a positive claim, i.e.
'the moon exists as absolutely mind-independent'
protocol wise, the onus is on you to prove the positive claim.

It is not obligatory on me but I have give you a bonus out of charity to prove the negative claim, here;
Why the Moon CANNOT exists as absolutely mind-independent; by itself or as a thing-in-itself.
viewtopic.php?p=660236#p660236

You cannot run like a coward,
the onus is still on you to prove the positive claim.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note my argument above;

1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].

So far, so good.

2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.

As always, your syllogisms always seem to contain a fatal flaw.

No, V, that which is a "factual" aspect of reality exists independent of the human-based FSK, for (as you seem to have noted elsewhere) human-based FSKs pertaining to what humans presume are "facts" can be completely wrong.

3. The moon as a fact is conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.

Again, no. Whatever is absolutely factual (solid/written in the stone of ultimate truth) about the ontology of the moon is unaffected by human presumptions about its ontology. Indeed, that's what the word "fact" is all about.

4. Since 3, the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Again, the moon's actual (true and "factual") ontology is written in the fabric of reality, and thus nothing about its existence is dependent upon human *minds.

* (Except for perhaps the possibility proposed in quantum theory that our minds might be involved in a process that explicates the moon's phenomenal (3-D) features from pre-existing, noumenal-like waves of coded information.)
_______

See my arguments [added later] here
viewtopic.php?p=660236#p660236

You're a Johnny-Come-Lately to this issue;
See my
What is a [FSK-ed] Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

FSK Conditioned Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39405

PH's (& Seed's) "What is Fact" is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
I have raised lots of threads supporting this point.

Comprehendo?

You counter the above arguments then only get back here.

[Atla]

Your argument is based on direct perception, where you seem to be claiming that the Moon as "thought" by humans and the Moon "out there" are one and the same thing. As you said, this is vulgar & kindergartenish.

Strawman again, the > "a million" times.

Hey, "seem" ???
I had NEVER claimed that the Moon as "thought" by humans and the Moon "out there" are one and the same thing.

I deny Philosophical Realism which claim there is an absolutely mind-independent moon 'out there".
So, how can I claim there is "a Moon 'out there'" then assuming it is the same things as the moon as "thought" by humans?
I do not have such a philosophical thought because it is vulgar & kindergartenish.

Rather, what is the real moon emerged and is realized in spontaneity with the human conditions, then it is only perceived, known and described subsequently.
I have presented this link a '1000' times.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Do you understand the significance of the above thread?

As such, in the ultimate sense [Transcendental Idealism], the moon CANNOT exists as an absolutely mind-independent thing by itself from the human conditions.

My argument is not based on direct perception aka naive/direct realism.
Rather my argument is based on Empirical Realism subsumed within Transcendental Idealism, comprendo??

Again:
Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

??? Prove your strawman is real?

Represent my argument properly before asking me to prove whatever.

Just in case you are unable to do so, there is my argument again.

• 1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
  2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
  3. All positive scientific claims as scientific facts are conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
  4. Since 3, all positive scientific claims as scientific facts CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

Your argument is still based on direct perception. As you said, this is vulgar & kindergartenish. Again:

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

If you STILL pretend not to get it, I'm asking you to actually prove your claim that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent under



either. For starters, prove that there can't be a Moon "out there", or that there is a Moon "out there" but it's mind-dependent, or that indirect perception is otherwise impossible.
At this point you are probably already preparing to lie again, so here it is again: indirect perception has two things, the "Moon as perceived/thought", and "the Moon out there", and these two are not one and the same thing. They are two different things.

The point is you are making a positive claim, i.e.
'the moon exists as absolutely mind-independent'
protocol wise, the onus is on you to prove the positive claim.

Science has proven it as much as it is possible to prove something scientifically. Which you pretend didn't happen even though it did.

[Iwannaplato]

I had NEVER claimed that the Moon as "thought" by humans and the Moon "out there" are one and the same thing.

No one is saying you claim it. But the deduction only works if they are the same thing.

Notice that you constantly say things like: I have said this a thousand times. Or I never said X or I have demonstrated again and again.

Consider the possibility that a diverse set of people, people with different belief systems, all keep noticing certain problems in your arguments, generally the same problems. It might be a communication or language use issue.

But we keep repeating ourselves and also try to find a variety of ways to point out the problems.

It doesn't mean your conclusions are wrong, not does it necessarily mean that whatever deduction you did in you head is worng, but at the very least there are problems with your communication.

Just consider that possibility.

[Skepdick]

I had NEVER claimed that the Moon as "thought" by humans and the Moon "out there" are one and the same thing.

No one is saying you claim it. But the deduction only works if they are the same thing.

Your conception of "sameness" is somewhat opaque.

How can two different things be "the same"?
Is this A the same as this A? Figuratively speaking - yes, but they have different locations in spacetime so they aren't "the same".

Whatever abstract notion of sameness you are appealing to requires clarification.