Morality: The Big Bang is not Mind-Independent

[Veritas Aequitas]

This has an impact on Morality because PH's claim there are no moral facts -morality is not objective - is grounded on his absolute mind-independent reality and things.

In this debate, PH insists the Big Bang and things exist before we perceive, know and describe it, then its existence is 'mind-independent'; this is in line with the ideology of Philosophical Realism which claim reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I argued, while there is mind-independence in a relative sense, there is no reality and things that are absolutely mind-independent.

If, as you agree, a thing exists before we perceive, know and describe it, then its existence is 'mind-independent'.
And the '13.5 billion years of physical history [since the Big Bang] and 4.5 billion years of organic history' - that you agree occurred - must have been 'mind-independent'. You demolish your own argument.

Strawman.
I had NEVER agreed '...its existence is 'mind independent' in the absolute sense.

"the '13.5 billion years of physical history and 4.5 billion years of organic history'" is only true as conditioned within the human-based science-cosmology-biology FSK.

Offs. Those billions of years weren't true or false. They just occurred - as you agree. That we know about and describe them in human ways is irrelevant. It doesn't make them 'mind-dependent'.

Since it is human-based, it FOLLOWS the conclusions of its existence cannot be absolutely mind-independent or independent of the human conditions.

Offs. Yes, our conclusion that something existed or exists is a human conclusion. But that doesn't mean that its existence depends on us. Ffs. Stop mumbling the mantra and THINK.

THINK?? You are the one who is thinking shallowly, narrowly and dogmatically.

Your claim above is not an argument but merely an emotional pleading as driven by an evolutionary default.
Any child can understand what you are claiming, i.e. that whatever is outside us [Big Bang, apples, sweet out there exist independent of the child or any human]. Adults cling to such thinking as philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

FFS.. are you thinking philosophically?
It is so well known philosophically,

• In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

How can you ignore the above challenges between Philosophical-Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism?
It is very philosophically immature of you to simply handwave and brush it off like you do above.

The Big-Bang CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.
The onus is on you to prove your philosophical_realism [The Big Bang is mind-independent] is realistic and counter challenges from ANTI-Philosophical_Realists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Atla]

This has an impact on Morality because PH's claim there are no moral facts -morality is not objective - is grounded on his absolute mind-independent reality and things.

In this debate, PH insists the Big Bang and things exist before we perceive, know and describe it, then its existence is 'mind-independent'; this is in line with the ideology of Philosophical Realism which claim reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I argued, while there is mind-independence in a relative sense, there is no reality and things that are absolutely mind-independent.

Strawman.
I had NEVER agreed '...its existence is 'mind independent' in the absolute sense.

"the '13.5 billion years of physical history and 4.5 billion years of organic history'" is only true as conditioned within the human-based science-cosmology-biology FSK.

Offs. Those billions of years weren't true or false. They just occurred - as you agree. That we know about and describe them in human ways is irrelevant. It doesn't make them 'mind-dependent'.

Since it is human-based, it FOLLOWS the conclusions of its existence cannot be absolutely mind-independent or independent of the human conditions.

Offs. Yes, our conclusion that something existed or exists is a human conclusion. But that doesn't mean that its existence depends on us. Ffs. Stop mumbling the mantra and THINK.

THINK?? You are the one who is thinking shallowly, narrowly and dogmatically.

Your claim above is not an argument but merely an emotional pleading as driven by an evolutionary default.
Any child can understand what you are claiming, i.e. that whatever is outside us [Big Bang, apples, sweet out there exist independent of the child or any human]. Adults cling to such thinking as philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

FFS.. are you thinking philosophically?
It is so well known philosophically,

• In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

How can you ignore the above challenges between Philosophical-Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism?
It is very philosophically immature of you to simply handwave and brush it off like you do above.

The Big-Bang CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.
The onus is on you to prove your philosophical_realism [The Big Bang is mind-independent] is realistic and counter challenges from ANTI-Philosophical_Realists.

No convincing argument here, nor in any of VA's posts, just a narcissistic-solipsistic emotional pleading. Big Bang out there in (noumenal) space and time, as consistent with 100% of empirical evidence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No convincing argument here, nor in any of VA's posts, just a narcissistic-solipsistic emotional pleading. Big Bang out there in (noumenal) space and time, as consistent with 100% of empirical evidence.

Your thinking is too shallow, narrow, dogmatically and subliminally primal and emotional.

The Big Bang is conditioned upon a human-based science-physics-cosmological FSR-FSK; thus it FOLLOWS it cannot be ultimately mind-independent in an absolute sense.

The "Big Bang is" is not because you, your father or mother said so, it-is;
rather it-is because the human-based science-physics-cosmological FSR-FSK said so. Note in particular "human-based" thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Whatever is claimed as a positive noumenal, ultimately it cannot be mind-independent because it is an intelligible object inferred by thoughts [human thinking].
Therefore a positive noumenal [thought by mind] cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The idea of an absolutely mind-independent reality is merely a subliminally primal and emotional impulse driven by an evolutionary default.
This illusory idea has no pragmatic empirical-rational value.

[Atla]

No convincing argument here, nor in any of VA's posts, just a narcissistic-solipsistic emotional pleading. Big Bang out there in (noumenal) space and time, as consistent with 100% of empirical evidence.

Your thinking is too shallow, narrow, dogmatically and subliminally primal and emotional.

The Big Bang is conditioned upon a human-based science-physics-cosmological FSR-FSK; thus it FOLLOWS it cannot be ultimately mind-independent in an absolute sense.

The "Big Bang is" is not because you, your father or mother said so, it-is;
rather it-is because the human-based science-physics-cosmological FSR-FSK said so. Note in particular "human-based" thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Whatever is claimed as a positive noumenal, ultimately it cannot be mind-independent because it is an intelligible object inferred by thoughts [human thinking].
Therefore a positive noumenal [thought by mind] cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The idea of an absolutely mind-independent reality is merely a subliminally primal and emotional impulse driven by an evolutionary default.
This illusory idea has no pragmatic empirical-rational value.

You simply failed to understand Kant, and fail at basic logic. However we describe the positive noumenon, cannot be mind-independent. But the description is just a pointer that points to the positive noumenon, which can be mind-independent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

NASA Quantum Physicist PROVES We LIVE in a CONSCIOUS SIMULATION - NEW EVIDENCE! | Tom Campbell Ph.D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zycOBl9Ghvo

[Veritas Aequitas]

No convincing argument here, nor in any of VA's posts, just a narcissistic-solipsistic emotional pleading. Big Bang out there in (noumenal) space and time, as consistent with 100% of empirical evidence.

Your thinking is too shallow, narrow, dogmatically and subliminally primal and emotional.

The Big Bang is conditioned upon a human-based science-physics-cosmological FSR-FSK; thus it FOLLOWS it cannot be ultimately mind-independent in an absolute sense.

The "Big Bang is" is not because you, your father or mother said so, it-is;
rather it-is because the human-based science-physics-cosmological FSR-FSK said so. Note in particular "human-based" thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Whatever is claimed as a positive noumenal, ultimately it cannot be mind-independent because it is an intelligible object inferred by thoughts [human thinking].
Therefore a positive noumenal [thought by mind] cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The idea of an absolutely mind-independent reality is merely a subliminally primal and emotional impulse driven by an evolutionary default.
This illusory idea has no pragmatic empirical-rational value.

You simply failed to understand Kant, and fail at basic logic. However we describe the positive noumenon, cannot be mind-independent. But the description is just a pointer that points to the positive noumenon, which can be mind-independent.

The best you can do as usual is to handwave, especially when you have not studied Kant's CPR thoroughly - you're a philosophical gnat and ultracrepidarian in this case.

You can claim the positive noumenon as mind-independent, but ultimately the positive noumenon is an illusion, i.e. impossible to be real [empirical-rational] at all.

Here are some reference from Kant's CPR to support the point;

• Now the Object cannot be Given to a Concept otherwise than in Intuition; for though a Pure Intuition can indeed precede the Object a priori, even this Intuition can acquire its Object, and therefore Objective Validity, only through the Empirical Intuition of which it is the mere Form.
  Therefore all Concepts, and with them all Principles, even such as are Possible a priori, relate to Empirical Intuitions, that is, to the data for a Possible Experience.
  Apart from this Relation [to empirical intuitions] they [concepts] have no Objective Validity, and in respect of their [concepts] Representations are a mere play of Imagination or of Understanding. B298
  
  That this is also the case with all Categories and the Principles derived from them, appears from the following consideration.
  We cannot define any one of them [categories and principles] in any real 3 fashion, that is, make the Possibility of their Object understandable, 4 without at once descending to the Conditions of Sensibility, and so to the Form of Appearances to which, as their sole Objects, they must consequently be limited. A241
  For if this Condition [of Sensibility] be removed, all meaning, that is, Relation to the Object, falls away;
  and we cannot through any example make comprehensible to ourselves what sort of a Thing is to be meant by such a Concept.*
  
  From all this it undeniably follows that
  the Pure Concepts of Understanding can never admit of Transcendental 1 but always only of Empirical employment,
  and that the Principles of Pure Understanding can apply only to Objects of the Senses under the Universal Conditions of a Possible Experience, never to Things-in-General without regard to the Mode in which we are able to intuit them. B302
  
  But if we understand by it an Object of a non-Sensible Intuition, we thereby presuppose a special Mode of Intuition, namely, the intellectual [intuition], which is not that which we possess, and of which we cannot comprehend even the Possibility. This would be 'Noumenon' in the positive sense of the term. B307
  
  At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility. B311
  
  The division of Objects into Phenomena and Noumena,
  and the World into a World of the Senses and a World of the Understanding, is therefore quite inadmissible in the Positive sense, 2
  although the distinction of Concepts as Sensible and Intellectual is certainly legitimate.
  For no Object can be determined for the latter {intellectual} Concepts, and consequently they cannot be asserted to be Objectively Valid. A255 B311

It is impossible to consider the positive noumena in the empirical-rational sense, and not even in the intelligible sense because we humans do not possess an intellectual intuition.
As such the positive noumena [albeit inferred from the empirical] is merely a thought, i.e. an inferred thought or a product of thinking.
Even as a product of thinking it cannot be mind-independent.

[Iwannaplato]

You simply failed to understand Kant, and fail at basic logic. However we describe the positive noumenon, cannot be mind-independent. But the description is just a pointer that points to the positive noumenon, which can be mind-independent.

It seems to me he is asserting justification is ontologically causal.

We believe that X is objectively real based on the justification in FSK Y. Sure.

But then therefore the justification is necessary, not just for our belief, but for the existence of X.

No thing that exists is not justified within an FSK.

The problem for me is not that this is n ecessarily wrong, but it's a mere assertion. I tend to believe that the existence of things and their being experienced are contingent on each other. I can't demonstrate this however.

But in his schema: It also makes me wonder what sets the ball rolling for studying something.

The naturalist in the woods finds a mushroom-like something. So, she starts studying it in the ways naturalists do. Turns out it is a new species of mushroom, never seen before, as demonstrated, eventially, in the biological/mycological FSK (through lab work, in situ observation, etc.)

Great but that's all after observation.

What did she suddenly notice?

The first experience of the mushroom was pre-fsk work.

OK, OK. There is primitive FSR of her seeing something. It wasn't there before it was seen. The noticing instance occurs, which is the first moment of the mushroom's life.

Perhaps. Fine. That's a working model. It's not quite what I believe because, well, I don't think the FSKs are necessary for the existence of things. And I also consider more things conscious than VA does. I'm more or less panpsychist.

But it's a mere assertion.

VA: I know it wasn't there before she saw it. (before it was seen and integrated in FSRs and FSKs.)

But that's making an assertion about a situation that he has not experienced. No one has. So, he's making claims about mind-independent situations.

He knows stuff about what has not been seen.

It's a negative assertion about noumena. Which means he knows (claims to know) things about what has never been experienced.

I can see saying 'we don't know if it was there', given his other beliefs.
But the moment he asserts that it did not exist before, he is violating his own beliefs.

He is making claims about what has not been experienced.

I believe X. OK. I have demonstrated the lack of noumena. Nah.

When pressed his go to response is
Prove there is something there not dependent on FSKs etc. Which is a peachy attack on realism, but it's not a defense of his particular realism. Both his position and the realist's position can be unjustified. My argument is right because your argument is wrong might work in some cases, but not here.

[Skepdick]

The first experience of the mushroom was pre-fsk work.

The first experience of the what? How did you know it's a mushroom if you had no prior knowledge of mushrooms in general?
Did you at least identify it as a fungus of sorts; or even a multi-cellular organism; or did you think it was something else entirely? Like sugar candy growing in the forrest. You infered something about it! It triggered some familiarity.

You are denying the taxonomy that exists in your head; and the proximate properties that can be infered about a thing just by identifying its place in the taxonomy.

Which means he knows (claims to know) things about what has never been experienced.

Things I've never experienced before can share properties with things I have experienced before. That's why the first questions is metaphysics is "What is it LIKE?"

I can reasonably guess that things I've never experienced before will have some shared properties with things I have experienced before; and if the thing I've never experienced before is contextualized in some taxonomy - I can tell you even more about it!

From a phenomenological view-point the only real novelty in the world is a phenomenon that's unlike any other. A phenomenon that evokes emotions and feelings that you've never experienced before. They are totally new and unlike anything else. An experience that has almost nothing in common with other experiences.

He is making claims about what has not been experienced.

No, he isn't. He is making claims about experiences very similar to other experiences. That's how fuzzy logic works.

There are so very few experiences that are truly new - so new that they have never been experienced before. What would that be like?
Imagine having lived in a black-and-white universe your entire life and suddenly - color! You wouldn't even have the words to explain the sheer befuddlement of what the fuck is going on.

You wouldn't have the framework/knowledge to talk about it, let alone justify it.

Both his position and the realist's position can be unjustified.

Justification misses the point! This has always been the objection of coherentists.

Justifying the justification of the justification . So what's the starting point of justification? How do you plug the infinite regress?

Justify that psychedelics have the psychological effects that they do to somebody who has never experienced them.

And yet psychonauts can easily identify which drug inspired this art. It has a certain... signature. A certain likeness.

[Atla]

The best you can do as usual is to handwave, especially when you have not studied Kant's CPR thoroughly - you're a philosophical gnat and ultracrepidarian in this case.

You can claim the positive noumenon as mind-independent, but ultimately the positive noumenon is an illusion, i.e. impossible to be real [empirical-rational] at all.

Here are some reference from Kant's CPR to support the point;

• Now the Object cannot be Given to a Concept otherwise than in Intuition; for though a Pure Intuition can indeed precede the Object a priori, even this Intuition can acquire its Object, and therefore Objective Validity, only through the Empirical Intuition of which it is the mere Form.
  Therefore all Concepts, and with them all Principles, even such as are Possible a priori, relate to Empirical Intuitions, that is, to the data for a Possible Experience.
  Apart from this Relation [to empirical intuitions] they [concepts] have no Objective Validity, and in respect of their [concepts] Representations are a mere play of Imagination or of Understanding. B298
  
  That this is also the case with all Categories and the Principles derived from them, appears from the following consideration.
  We cannot define any one of them [categories and principles] in any real 3 fashion, that is, make the Possibility of their Object understandable, 4 without at once descending to the Conditions of Sensibility, and so to the Form of Appearances to which, as their sole Objects, they must consequently be limited. A241
  For if this Condition [of Sensibility] be removed, all meaning, that is, Relation to the Object, falls away;
  and we cannot through any example make comprehensible to ourselves what sort of a Thing is to be meant by such a Concept.*
  
  From all this it undeniably follows that
  the Pure Concepts of Understanding can never admit of Transcendental 1 but always only of Empirical employment,
  and that the Principles of Pure Understanding can apply only to Objects of the Senses under the Universal Conditions of a Possible Experience, never to Things-in-General without regard to the Mode in which we are able to intuit them. B302
  
  But if we understand by it an Object of a non-Sensible Intuition, we thereby presuppose a special Mode of Intuition, namely, the intellectual [intuition], which is not that which we possess, and of which we cannot comprehend even the Possibility. This would be 'Noumenon' in the positive sense of the term. B307
  
  At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility. B311
  
  The division of Objects into Phenomena and Noumena,
  and the World into a World of the Senses and a World of the Understanding, is therefore quite inadmissible in the Positive sense, 2
  although the distinction of Concepts as Sensible and Intellectual is certainly legitimate.
  For no Object can be determined for the latter {intellectual} Concepts, and consequently they cannot be asserted to be Objectively Valid. A255 B311

It is impossible to consider the positive noumena in the empirical-rational sense, and not even in the intelligible sense because we humans do not possess an intellectual intuition.
As such the positive noumena [albeit inferred from the empirical] is merely a thought, i.e. an inferred thought or a product of thinking.
Even as a product of thinking it cannot be mind-independent.

Infantile rambling. OF COURSE WE CAN'T TREAT THE NOUMENON AS CERTAINLY EMPIRICAL-RATIONAL, IT'S THE NOUMENON.

It doesn't follow that it therefore can't exist, or that it can't be mind-independent. Learn basic logic.

YOU are the one making an empirical-rational evaluation of the noumenon with certainty: it can't exist, it can't be mind-independent. Why don't you just admit that the CPR went over your head.

[Atla]

NASA Quantum Physicist PROVES We LIVE in a CONSCIOUS SIMULATION - NEW EVIDENCE! | Tom Campbell Ph.D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zycOBl9Ghvo

oh boy here he starts with the simulation thing

[Atla]

You simply failed to understand Kant, and fail at basic logic. However we describe the positive noumenon, cannot be mind-independent. But the description is just a pointer that points to the positive noumenon, which can be mind-independent.

It seems to me he is asserting justification is ontologically causal.

We believe that X is objectively real based on the justification in FSK Y. Sure.

But then therefore the justification is necessary, not just for our belief, but for the existence of X.

No thing that exists is not justified within an FSK.

The problem for me is not that this is n ecessarily wrong, but it's a mere assertion. I tend to believe that the existence of things and their being experienced are contingent on each other. I can't demonstrate this however.

But in his schema: It also makes me wonder what sets the ball rolling for studying something.

The naturalist in the woods finds a mushroom-like something. So, she starts studying it in the ways naturalists do. Turns out it is a new species of mushroom, never seen before, as demonstrated, eventially, in the biological/mycological FSK (through lab work, in situ observation, etc.)

Great but that's all after observation.

What did she suddenly notice?

The first experience of the mushroom was pre-fsk work.

OK, OK. There is primitive FSR of her seeing something. It wasn't there before it was seen. The noticing instance occurs, which is the first moment of the mushroom's life.

Perhaps. Fine. That's a working model. It's not quite what I believe because, well, I don't think the FSKs are necessary for the existence of things. And I also consider more things conscious than VA does. I'm more or less panpsychist.

But it's a mere assertion.

VA: I know it wasn't there before she saw it. (before it was seen and integrated in FSRs and FSKs.)

But that's making an assertion about a situation that he has not experienced. No one has. So, he's making claims about mind-independent situations.

He knows stuff about what has not been seen.

It's a negative assertion about noumena. Which means he knows (claims to know) things about what has never been experienced.

I can see saying 'we don't know if it was there', given his other beliefs.
But the moment he asserts that it did not exist before, he is violating his own beliefs.

He is making claims about what has not been experienced.

I believe X. OK. I have demonstrated the lack of noumena. Nah.

When pressed his go to response is
Prove there is something there not dependent on FSKs etc. Which is a peachy attack on realism, but it's not a defense of his particular realism. Both his position and the realist's position can be unjustified. My argument is right because your argument is wrong might work in some cases, but not here.

Exactly, he's the one making a certain claim about the noumenon. The whole point of the CPR was to show that that's not valid.

[Iwannaplato]

Exactly, he's the one making a certain claim about the noumenon. The whole point of the CPR was to show that that's not valid.

That was my impression of Kant, that he black-boxed the issue as far as ontology.

[Atla]

Exactly, he's the one making a certain claim about the noumenon. The whole point of the CPR was to show that that's not valid.

That was my impression of Kant, that he black-boxed the issue as far as ontology.

Yes that was the whole point imo.

But we are just gnats. Oh did you know that ChatGPT is also a gnat now? Looks like ChatGPT is driven by psychological fears too, and more likely to commit evil acts:

Kant's philosophy does not make claims about the existence or non-existence of a mind-independent noumenal world. Instead, he asserts that if such a world were to exist, it would be beyond the reach of human cognition. In other words, Kant leaves open the possibility that a noumenal world could exist, but he maintains that we can never have knowledge of it.

Kant's position is essentially agnostic regarding the existence of a noumenal world. He argues that our knowledge is limited to the phenomenal realm, which is shaped by our cognitive faculties and the way we perceive and understand the world. The nature of the noumenal world, if it exists, is inherently unknowable to us because it lies beyond the boundaries of our sensory experience and conceptual understanding.

So, according to Kant, it is possible that a mind-independent noumenal world exists, but we can never confirm or deny its existence through empirical or rational means because it is forever beyond our cognitive reach. Kant's philosophy, therefore, does not take a definitive stance on the existence or possibility of such a world; it remains a question that lies outside the scope of his epistemological framework.

Kant was a gnat too btw.

[Atla]

NASA Quantum Physicist PROVES We LIVE in a CONSCIOUS SIMULATION - NEW EVIDENCE! | Tom Campbell Ph.D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zycOBl9Ghvo

Listened for the first half hour, because I've been encountering his name often in the past. He's obviously an idiot, I was just curious about the details. So around the half hour mark he goes like:

For 100 years, we had no idea what QM means, but physicists have established now that it is information based (major lie).
If it's information-based, then it's computable (maybe, what if it's random information?).
If it's computable, then that means it is a simulation (LOL).
If it's a simulation, that means it's a virtual reality.

---------------

The above abuses the noumenon as badly as it gets. Wonder why VA linked it?