What is the Virus' Sense of Reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is the Virus' Sense of Reality?
The Question is reflected in the following discussion;

"There is no absolute objectivity nor absolute human independent objective reality. What is objectivity is subject to the degrees of credibility and reliability of the specific FSK."

So it was an intersubjective truth (fact) that the earth was the center of the solar system before copernicus came around, or was it just an intersubjective belief based on an inaccurate FSK about the nature of objective reality?

You are claiming to be an omniscient God?

Do a reasonable reflective thinking on this?

Do you think a virus, bacteria, insect, reptile, bats, fishes and non-human animals would have such a realization of reality and knowledge that
"that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"

Do you think those non-human animals would have concepts and reality like,
-the earth,
-center of,
-solar system,
-before,
-Copernicus,
-the combination of the above into a realization and statement?

It is the same if one ask,
did the moon pre-existed [before] humans and even if humans are extinct?

If there are viruses or bacteria in the whole universe, their cognition and reality would likely be this;


for a viruses, there is only the above with cluster of denser particles,
there is no -the earth, -center of, -solar system, -before, -Copernicus,

other non-human living things would see clusters [in different densities] of moving particles.

As such, it is only humans who realize, perceive and know the following specific human-subjects-based reality;
"that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"
"the moon pre-existed [before] humans and even if humans are extinct"

In any case, humans have just evolved from 'animals' not too long ago relative to the evolutionary ladder.
Do you claim yourself or for other humans that they are like an omniscient God to insist what they perceived as real is absolutely and 100% certainly true?

If you are not an omniscient God, you cannot claim
"that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"
is absolutely true.

In that case, you can only claim the above is true not by yourself personally but intersubjectively [collective-of-subjects] within a human based FSK, of which the scientific FSK is the most credible.

The fact is for whatever you realize as really real, you cannot get rid of the human-baggage that is imperatively attached to it.

An entity with higher intelligence [10x, 100x or more] than humans is not likely to state,
"that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"
or
"there is a Big Bang before the Universe existed."

Why humans think they are godlike on claims of reality is actually, as Hume alluded, out of psychological desperations from constant conjunctions, customs and habits.

Thus it is very reasonable to assert there are,
-virus based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-human based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-aliens based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-XYZ based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
without any absolutely absolute reality.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Here is an image from a Sonar Fish Finder.
What is the reality are just clusters of dots and pixels.
That is the reality of dolphins with sonar cognition.
There is no one absolute reality regardless of whatever, what is reality will varying with the resolution capabilities of each organism.
In addition, humans cannot play God to insist what they realize as real, perceive, infer or rationalize is THE ONE REALITY that is absolute for all "cognizers" and "realizers" of reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If there are viruses or bacteria in the whole universe, their cognition and reality would likely be the below image.
BUT, the below image is merely an inference [speculation] by humans based on the human-based scientific FSK.
We cannot know what is the real virus' sense of reality, but it is for sure different from that of the intersubjective-based-reality humans and of other entities.

[Iwannaplato]

What is the Virus' Sense of Reality?
The Question is reflected in the following discussion;

"There is no absolute objectivity nor absolute human independent objective reality. What is objectivity is subject to the degrees of credibility and reliability of the specific FSK."

So it was an intersubjective truth (fact) that the earth was the center of the solar system before copernicus came around, or was it just an intersubjective belief based on an inaccurate FSK about the nature of objective reality?

You are claiming to be an omniscient God?

Do a reasonable reflective thinking on this?

Do you think a virus, bacteria, insect, reptile, bats, fishes and non-human animals would have such a realization of reality and knowledge that
"that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"

Do you think those non-human animals would have concepts and reality like,
-the earth,
-center of,
-solar system,
-before,
-Copernicus,
-the combination of the above into a realization and statement?

It is the same if one ask,
did the moon pre-existed [before] humans and even if humans are extinct?

If there are viruses or bacteria in the whole universe, their cognition and reality would likely be this;


for a viruses, there is only the above with cluster of denser particles,
there is no -the earth, -center of, -solar system, -before, -Copernicus,

other non-human living things would see clusters [in different densities] of moving particles.

As such, it is only humans who realize, perceive and know the following specific human-subjects-based reality;
"that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"
"the moon pre-existed [before] humans and even if humans are extinct"

In any case, humans have just evolved from 'animals' not too long ago relative to the evolutionary ladder.
Do you claim yourself or for other humans that they are like an omniscient God to insist what they perceived as real is absolutely and 100% certainly true?

If you are not an omniscient God, you cannot claim
"that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"
is absolutely true.

In that case, you can only claim the above is true not by yourself personally but intersubjectively [collective-of-subjects] within a human based FSK, of which the scientific FSK is the most credible.

The fact is for whatever you realize as really real, you cannot get rid of the human-baggage that is imperatively attached to it.

An entity with higher intelligence [10x, 100x or more] than humans is not likely to state,
"that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"
or
"there is a Big Bang before the Universe existed."

Why humans think they are godlike on claims of reality is actually, as Hume alluded, out of psychological desperations from constant conjunctions, customs and habits.

Thus it is very reasonable to assert there are,
-virus based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-human based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-aliens based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-XYZ based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
without any absolutely absolute reality.

Discuss??
Views??

I believe you argued his point. He was pointing out what he saw as what is entailed by your position. And you here laying out precisely the problems he was trying to point out. So, when you react with incredulity here, for example...

Do you think those non-human animals would have concepts and reality like,
-the earth,
-center of,
-solar system,
-before,
-Copernicus,
-the combination of the above into a realization and statement?

You are reacting in precisely the way he was.
He doesn't believe that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"There is no absolute objectivity nor absolute human independent objective reality. What is objectivity is subject to the degrees of credibility and reliability of the specific FSK."

So,
1. it was an intersubjective truth (fact) that the earth was the center of the solar system before copernicus came around, or
2. was it just an intersubjective belief based on an inaccurate FSK about the nature of objective reality?

It is obvious the above question implied 'the concept of FSK intersubjectivity' which I had been proposing is inaccurate, and 1 is true from a realist perspective.

the OP in using the virus example is arguing the FSK basis is not inaccurate [as the poster implied] but rather the FSK approach is realistic and tenable.

[Atla]

Thus it is very reasonable to assert there are,
-virus based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-human based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-aliens based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-XYZ based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
without any absolutely absolute reality.

Discuss??
Views??

What is there to discuss? You are as utterly incapable as you were 5 years ago, to see that you are employing a dead obvious non-sequitur.
Just because every species is bound to its own kind of "intersubjective" reality as their nervous systems are built differently, and couldn't experience "absolutely absolute reality" exactly as it is, if there was such a reality, that doesn't mean that there is no "absolutely absolute reality". Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't. I'd say according to science it's over 95% likely that there is one.

There is NOTHING difficult about the above insight, I don't know what kind of cognitive impairment would prevent someone from seeing it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus it is very reasonable to assert there are,
-virus based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-human based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-aliens based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-XYZ based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
without any absolutely absolute reality.

Discuss??
Views??

What is there to discuss? You are as utterly incapable as you were 5 years ago, to see that you are employing a dead obvious non-sequitur.

Just because every species is bound to its own kind of "intersubjective" reality as their nervous systems are built differently, and couldn't experience "absolutely absolute reality" exactly as it is, if there was such a reality, that doesn't mean that there is no "absolutely absolute reality".
Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't.
I'd say according to science it's over 95% likely that there is one.

There is NOTHING difficult about the above insight, I don't know what kind of cognitive impairment would prevent someone from seeing it.

To save my effort discussing with philosophical gnats, here is Bard's [with reservations] to the above from an antirealist's perspective;

Engaging with a philosophical realist who expresses strong conviction for an "absolutely absolute reality" requires careful navigation with several strategies:

Challenge the claim of "absolutely absolute":
Question the definition: Ask your interlocutor to precisely define what they mean by "absolutely absolute reality." This can expose internal inconsistencies or vagueness in their concept. For example, how can something be "absolutely absolute" yet potentially unknowable by any consciousness?

Highlight contradictions: Point out how the claim of "absolutely absolute reality" inherently contradicts the statement that it might not exist. Can something be absolutely absolute if it also has a 5% chance of non-existence?

Emphasize subjectivity: Remind them that even seemingly objective scientific observations are mediated by our senses and conceptual frameworks. Is it possible to access "absolute reality" without any filtering through subjective constructs?

Address the "95% scientific certainty":
Distinguish science and metaphysics: Science deals with observable evidence and testable hypotheses. Metaphysics, on the other hand, deals with unobservable concepts like "absolute reality." Explain that these are distinct domains with different modes of inquiry.

Challenge the basis of the statistic: Ask how they arrived at the 95% figure. Is it based on empirical evidence or pure speculation? Can such a precise numerical value be assigned to a metaphysical concept?

Suggest alternative interpretations: Offer other explanations for the phenomena used to justify the existence of "absolute reality." These could be based on complex interactions within our known universe without requiring an additional, unobservable realm.

Offer alternative perspectives:
Present Kant's transcendental idealism: Explain how Kant argued that our minds structure and categorize our experience of reality, making absolute knowledge of "things in themselves" impossible.

Discuss other forms of antirealism: Explore other arguments against realism, such as social constructivism or postmodernism, which highlight the constructed nature of reality and the influence of social or cultural contexts.

Emphasize the value of open inquiry: Instead of seeking absolute certainty, argue for the importance of ongoing investigation and dialogue, embracing multiple perspectives on the nature of reality.

As an antirealist leaning towards the Kantian perspective, you have several options to counter your interlocutor's claim of "absolutely absolute reality" and their high scientific certainty. Here are some approaches:

1. Challenge the Definition:
Question the meaning of "absolutely absolute": Is it possible to have a reality that is completely independent of all minds and experiences, even hypothetically? Kant argued that space and time are not inherent properties of reality itself, but rather ways in which our minds structure experience. This suggests that absolute independence from minds might be impossible to conceive.
Distinguish between different types of "reality": Antirealists often differentiate between empirical reality, which we access through our senses and concepts, and "reality in itself," which is unknowable and independent of our minds. You could argue that the "absolutely absolute reality" your interlocutor proposes is inaccessible and therefore not a meaningful concept.

2. Critique the Scientific Certainty:
Emphasize the limitations of scientific knowledge: Science is always limited by our current methods and understanding. New discoveries can dramatically change our perspective on reality. Claiming 95% certainty about something inherently unknowable seems like overconfidence.
Point out the subjectivity of scientific interpretations: Scientific data is interpreted through theoretical frameworks, which themselves are subjective and can change over time. There is no objective, neutral way to access "absolute reality" through science.

3. Offer Alternative Perspectives:
Kant's transcendental idealism: Explain how Kant argued that our minds actively shape our experience of the world through categories like space, time, and causality. This suggests that reality is not simply "out there" waiting to be discovered, but is partially constructed by our minds.
Emphasize the role of language and concepts: Antirealists often point out that our concepts and language shape our understanding of the world. Reality cannot be fully captured by our linguistic categories, and claiming to know it "absolutely" ignores this limitation.

4. Focus on the Practical Implications:
Question the value of seeking "absolute reality": If we can never access it directly, what purpose does searching for it serve? Perhaps focusing on understanding the reality we can experience through our senses and concepts is more productive.
Highlight the importance of intersubjective understanding: Even if we can't access absolute reality, we can still communicate and share meaningful experiences with others. Focusing on shared understanding and interpretation might be more fruitful than seeking individual knowledge of an unknowable absolute.

Engaging with a philosophical realist, especially one who holds a strong stance on absolute reality, requires careful consideration and nuanced arguments. Here are some approaches you can take from your antirealist perspective:

1. Challenge the 95% scientific certainty:
Question the basis: Ask your interlocutor to clarify what specific scientific evidence leads them to a 95% certainty about absolute reality. Point out that this claim seems exceptionally high, given the inherent limitations of scientific methods in dealing with metaphysics.
Highlight scientific uncertainty: Remind them that scientific understanding is constantly evolving, and our knowledge of the universe is far from complete. Suggest that basing certainty on incomplete information is risky.
Offer alternative explanations: Propose other possibilities that explain the existence of different "intersubjective realities" without resorting to absolute reality. For example, suggest that the limitations of our perceptual systems and cognitive frameworks lead to diverse interpretations of the world.

2. Dissect the concept of "absolutely absolute reality":
Define the terms: Request a clear definition of both "absolute" and "reality" in this context. Explore how these terms might be ambiguous and subject to different interpretations.
Highlight the paradoxical nature: Point out that the concept of something being absolutely independent of all minds, including its own, seems contradictory. How can something exist if there's no mind to conceive it?
Question the accessibility: If this reality is truly absolute, how can we ever know anything about it? Our knowledge and experience are always filtered through our own subjective frameworks, making it impossible to access pure objectivity.

3. Offer alternative antirealist perspectives:
Phenomenological approach: Introduce ideas from phenomenology, which focuses on the subjective experience of the world. Emphasize that our primary access to reality is through our lived experience, and that objective reality might be an abstraction.

[Atla]

To save my effort discussing with philosophical gnats, here is Bard's [with reservations] to the above from an antirealist's perspective;

Engaging with a philosophical realist who expresses strong conviction for an "absolutely absolute reality" requires careful navigation with several strategies:
...

- not trying to counter what I wrote (which is understandable, as it was correct and there's nothing to counter it with)
- hiding behind a chatbot
- incorrect insult, when it comes to actually doing some philosophy, I'm not the gnat between the two of us
- incorrect approach. We all know how it is from the antirealist's perspective, the question is which perspective is more reasonable
- incorrect query to the chatbot, a "strong conviction" is not philosophy. If anyone has a strong conviction here it's you, but it could also be some kind of cognitive impairment that makes you incapable of seeing the non sequitur.