VA's Contradictions?

[Veritas Aequitas]

And according to science the noumenon is partially knowable and Kant is wrong. Now read it again:

"Using science, which has the refutation of your 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy, as the main pillar of your philosophy."

Show me evidences and references where science refuted my 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy? i.e. where the noumenon [as defined by Kant] is proven by science.

[Atla]

And according to science the noumenon is partially knowable and Kant is wrong. Now read it again:

"Using science, which has the refutation of your 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy, as the main pillar of your philosophy."

Show me evidences and references where science refuted my 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy? i.e. where the noumenon [as defined by Kant] is proven by science.

For the 50th time: all of science is consistent with indirect perception where the noumenal world beyond appearances and cognitions, is the simple continuation of the phenomenal world. So this entire division based on your "human conditions" was refuted.

The ACTUAL 100% unknowable noumenon-X starts beyond the observable universe according to science.

[Iwannaplato]

And according to science the noumenon is partially knowable and Kant is wrong. Now read it again:

"Using science, which has the refutation of your 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy, as the main pillar of your philosophy."

Show me evidences and references where science refuted my 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy? i.e. where the noumenon [as defined by Kant] is proven by science.

For the 50th time: all of science is consistent with indirect perception where the noumenal world beyond appearances and cognitions, is the simple continuation of the phenomenal world. So this entire division based on your "human conditions" was refuted.

The ACTUAL 100% unknowable noumenon-X starts beyond the observable universe according to science.

Should blind people believe the supposedly visible observables that people with sight go on about and draw conclusions based on these? Should trackers with their tracking dogs, consider their dogs deluded realists, when the dogs follow the scent that is unobservable to the human tracker?
There is no reason to think there is a body under the ground here until we dig. Then the body that dog has been smelling magically appears in the hole we have dug. First only the hand exists, then more and more of the dead person.

We are deities all, with confused but oddly useful animal companions.

[Atla]

Show me evidences and references where science refuted my 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy? i.e. where the noumenon [as defined by Kant] is proven by science.

For the 50th time: all of science is consistent with indirect perception where the noumenal world beyond appearances and cognitions, is the simple continuation of the phenomenal world. So this entire division based on your "human conditions" was refuted.

The ACTUAL 100% unknowable noumenon-X starts beyond the observable universe according to science.

Should blind people believe the supposedly visible observables that people with sight go on about and draw conclusions based on these? Should trackers with their tracking dogs, consider their dogs deluded realists, when the dogs follow the scent that is unobservable to the human tracker?
There is no reason to think there is a body under the ground here until we dig. Then the body that dog has been smelling magically appears in the hole we have dug. First only the hand exists, then more and more of the dead person.

We are deities all, with confused but oddly useful animal companions.

And if we combine VA's philosophy with science, then even after you dug out the corpse, it's still not actually there. Nor was your dog ever actually there, for that matter.

[Iwannaplato]

For the 50th time: all of science is consistent with indirect perception where the noumenal world beyond appearances and cognitions, is the simple continuation of the phenomenal world. So this entire division based on your "human conditions" was refuted.

The ACTUAL 100% unknowable noumenon-X starts beyond the observable universe according to science.

Should blind people believe the supposedly visible observables that people with sight go on about and draw conclusions based on these? Should trackers with their tracking dogs, consider their dogs deluded realists, when the dogs follow the scent that is unobservable to the human tracker?
There is no reason to think there is a body under the ground here until we dig. Then the body that dog has been smelling magically appears in the hole we have dug. First only the hand exists, then more and more of the dead person.

We are deities all, with confused but oddly useful animal companions.

And if we combine VA's philosophy with science, then even after you dug out the corpse, it's still not actually there. Nor was your dog ever actually there, for that matter.

And, it also happened in the past, which has no reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And according to science the noumenon is partially knowable and Kant is wrong. Now read it again:

"Using science, which has the refutation of your 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy, as the main pillar of your philosophy."

Show me evidences and references where science refuted my 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy? i.e. where the noumenon [as defined by Kant] is proven by science.

For the 50th time: all of science is consistent with indirect perception where the noumenal world beyond appearances and cognitions, is the simple continuation of the phenomenal world. So this entire division based on your "human conditions" was refuted.

The ACTUAL 100% unknowable noumenon-X starts beyond the observable universe according to science.

All the above are noises.

For my example,
say there is something 'moving',
it is only via the science-biology FSRK that can only infer it is a 'dog' belong to a certain species and breed, with specific features, shapes, size, furs [types, length, etc.], color, etc.
There is no noumena dog-in-itself.

Give me your examples, evidences and references to demonstrate there is a noumena dog or anything?

[Veritas Aequitas]

And if we combine VA's philosophy with science, then even after you dug out the corpse, it's still not actually there. Nor was your dog ever actually there, for that matter.

Strawman.

I have never claimed such things are still not there.
To an ANTI-p-realist [Kantian] all possible things of experience [verifiable by science] are there BUT they cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Even not in sight, I can speculate there are 'dogs' in Planet Jupiter, because 'dogs' and Planet Jupiter are possible empirical elements we have verified empirically. So it can be an empirical based hypothesis but subject to real evidence that can be verified and justified via the science FSRK.

Your thing-in-itself or noumena is an empirical impossibility thus cannot exists anywhere. It is a non-starter because your noumena is not empirical to start with.

[Atla]

Show me evidences and references where science refuted my 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy? i.e. where the noumenon [as defined by Kant] is proven by science.

For the 50th time: all of science is consistent with indirect perception where the noumenal world beyond appearances and cognitions, is the simple continuation of the phenomenal world. So this entire division based on your "human conditions" was refuted.

The ACTUAL 100% unknowable noumenon-X starts beyond the observable universe according to science.

All the above are noises.

For my example,
say there is something 'moving',
it is only via the science-biology FSRK that can only infer it is a 'dog' belong to a certain species and breed, with specific features, shapes, size, furs [types, length, etc.], color, etc.
There is no noumena dog-in-itself.

Give me your examples, evidences and references to demonstrate there is a noumena dog or anything?

You're the one who has been just making noises all these years by rejecting the science of perception. Rejecting all related physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience and even psychology. But pretending to still base your philisophy on the "science-fsk".

You're just bullshitting. Since Kant we had 250 years to move on from naive realism. You're a gnat.

[Atla]

And if we combine VA's philosophy with science, then even after you dug out the corpse, it's still not actually there. Nor was your dog ever actually there, for that matter.

Strawman.

I have never claimed such things are still not there.
To an ANTI-p-realist [Kantian] all possible things of experience [verifiable by science] are there BUT they cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Even not in sight, I can speculate there are 'dogs' in Planet Jupiter, because 'dogs' and Planet Jupiter are possible empirical elements we have verified empirically. So it can be an empirical based hypothesis but subject to real evidence that can be verified and justified via the science FSRK.

Your thing-in-itself or noumena is an empirical impossibility thus cannot exists anywhere. It is a non-starter because your noumena is not empirical to start with.

Lies. According to science, the dog isn't dependent on the "human conditions", so the dog doesn't exist according to you, just like the entire external world doesn't exist. Science doesn't actually exist either according to you.

I told you many times: that's why you need to prove what you're saying without relying on science.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And if we combine VA's philosophy with science, then even after you dug out the corpse, it's still not actually there. Nor was your dog ever actually there, for that matter.

Strawman.

I have never claimed such things are still not there.
To an ANTI-p-realist [Kantian] all possible things of experience [verifiable by science] are there BUT they cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Even not in sight, I can speculate there are 'dogs' in Planet Jupiter, because 'dogs' and Planet Jupiter are possible empirical elements we have verified empirically. So it can be an empirical based hypothesis but subject to real evidence that can be verified and justified via the science FSRK.

Your thing-in-itself or noumena is an empirical impossibility thus cannot exists anywhere. It is a non-starter because your noumena is not empirical to start with.

Lies. According to science, the dog isn't dependent on the "human conditions", so the dog doesn't exist according to you, just like the entire external world doesn't exist. Science doesn't actually exist either according to you.

I told you many times: that's why you need to prove what you're saying without relying on science.

Strawman again.

Where did I state "the dog is dependent on the "human conditions"?

To an ANTI-p-realist [Kantian] all possible things of experience [verifiable by science] are there BUT they cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Therefore where a dog exists according to science or common sense, those dogs exist cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

I am making an countering claim against the p-realists like you who claim dogs exist absolutely independent of the human conditions.
The onus is on you to prove your claim.

Where did I state or imply science does not exist?
Where science exists, it must be conditioned upon human conditions, i.e. no humans no science.

[Atla]

Strawman.

I have never claimed such things are still not there.
To an ANTI-p-realist [Kantian] all possible things of experience [verifiable by science] are there BUT they cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Even not in sight, I can speculate there are 'dogs' in Planet Jupiter, because 'dogs' and Planet Jupiter are possible empirical elements we have verified empirically. So it can be an empirical based hypothesis but subject to real evidence that can be verified and justified via the science FSRK.

Your thing-in-itself or noumena is an empirical impossibility thus cannot exists anywhere. It is a non-starter because your noumena is not empirical to start with.

Lies. According to science, the dog isn't dependent on the "human conditions", so the dog doesn't exist according to you, just like the entire external world doesn't exist. Science doesn't actually exist either according to you.

I told you many times: that's why you need to prove what you're saying without relying on science.

Strawman again.

Where did I state "the dog is dependent on the "human conditions"?

To an ANTI-p-realist [Kantian] all possible things of experience [verifiable by science] are there BUT they cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Therefore where a dog exists according to science or common sense, those dogs exist cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Where did I state or imply science does not exist?
Where science exists, it must be conditioned upon human conditions, i.e. no humans no science.

Look VA, from where I'm standing, you're simply borderline mentally retarded.

YOU
CAN
NOT
COMPREHEND
INDIRECT
PERCEPTION
WHICH
IS
WHAT
SCIENCE
HAS
FOUND
AND
IS
INCOMPATIBLE
WITH
YOUR
PHILOSOPHY

[Veritas Aequitas]

Lies. According to science, the dog isn't dependent on the "human conditions", so the dog doesn't exist according to you, just like the entire external world doesn't exist. Science doesn't actually exist either according to you.

I told you many times: that's why you need to prove what you're saying without relying on science.

Strawman again.

Where did I state "the dog is dependent on the "human conditions"?

To an ANTI-p-realist [Kantian] all possible things of experience [verifiable by science] are there BUT they cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Therefore where a dog exists according to science or common sense, those dogs exist cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Where did I state or imply science does not exist?
Where science exists, it must be conditioned upon human conditions, i.e. no humans no science.

Look VA, from where I'm standing, you're simply borderline mentally retarded.

YOU
CAN
NOT
COMPREHEND
INDIRECT
PERCEPTION
WHICH
IS
WHAT
SCIENCE
HAS
FOUND
AND
IS
INCOMPATIBLE
WITH
YOUR
PHILOSOPHY

Who is the one who is retarded in answering in a retarded manner as above.
That is your usual way to escape giving rational answers.

[Atla]

Strawman again.

Where did I state "the dog is dependent on the "human conditions"?

To an ANTI-p-realist [Kantian] all possible things of experience [verifiable by science] are there BUT they cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Therefore where a dog exists according to science or common sense, those dogs exist cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Where did I state or imply science does not exist?
Where science exists, it must be conditioned upon human conditions, i.e. no humans no science.

Look VA, from where I'm standing, you're simply borderline mentally retarded.

YOU
CAN
NOT
COMPREHEND
INDIRECT
PERCEPTION
WHICH
IS
WHAT
SCIENCE
HAS
FOUND
AND
IS
INCOMPATIBLE
WITH
YOUR
PHILOSOPHY

Who is the one who is retarded in answering in a retarded manner as above.
That is your usual way to escape giving rational answers.

Well you didn't understand it the first 50 times so you probably won't understand it this time either.

I guess it's true that people of average intelligence and below, tipically have no ability to understand indirect perception. They are forever bound to the evolutionary default "naive" view.

That's why schizophrenia is usually fatal for people with average and below intelligence. It is simply inconceivable to them that they are hallucinating in their heads, everything they see and hear is real and in the outside world to them and they think it can't be any other way.

[iambiguous]

Then this part...



Mine certainly did.

And again, this is obviously wrong as you aren't considering a third major factor, individual psychology which predisposes people towards certain values. And makes many people resistant to change.

Human psychology will always be tricky here. Why? Because, well, you tell me: when, in regard to it, do genes give way to memes? When does nature give way to nurture? When do so-called "biological imperatives" give way to ever evolving and changing human interactions given human history to date?

And the word "predisposed" is also rather ambiguous. Where, out in a particular world understood in a particular way, does one draw the line between 1] being predisposed existentially to embrace one or another moral and political philosophy, and 2] being certain that one's own moral and political convictions are the optimal frame of mind?

And once philosophers do acknowledge [given your take or my take here] that people are resistant to change, what do they propose as a way in which to entice them over to something in the way of a deontological moral and political agenda?

Is VA willing to explore those alleged "contradictions" with me over at the Applied Ethics board?

Given a context of his choice?

People have different personality types, let's say there are thousands of personality types that can be categorized in many ways. They come with different preferences for different values. (I for example can think of roughly 1000-100000 personality type combinations before even considering the zeitgeist, the social and philosophical environment, the personal upbringing, life events and world events etc. so the "external" factors.) My assumption is that you don't see this part very well as you've lived your entire life as an unaware and undiagnosed autistic, or something similar, or you're just roleplaying one, so you kinda see people as blank slates basically just shaped by the environment. Which would be a major factor on how you personally form your values, a factor that's non-existent for most people.

So overall we have to consider like say 20-50 different factors at the same time when it comes to understanding how people end up with their values. We can try to investigate them one by one but they also tend to be interrelated. The topic is imo too complex to investigate it with too much success, and it's mostly pointless to focus on things like free will/determinism.

Personalities, however, are often no less intertwined in that enormously complex intermingling of genes and memes, nature and nurture. And in a world no less revolving around our childhood indoctrination and the particular world we were adventitiously "thrown" into at birth.

Let's try this...

In the OPs of these two threads...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

...I examine the manner in which I construe my own value judgments as the embodiment of dasein. The second pertaining specifically to abortion.

Okay, how are your own set of assumptions different?

If there are "20-50 different factors" that are relevant here, let's examine a few in terms of both "biological imperatives" and "deontology". Make an attempt to note how they are pertinent to your own life, your own personal experiences of note.

Also, to what extent are these personality factors far more embedded in genes instead of memes, in nature instead of nurture. After all, the more deeply embedded in genes the more "beyond your control" it becomes.

[Atla]

Human psychology will always be tricky here. Why? Because, well, you tell me: when, in regard to it, do genes give way to memes? When does nature give way to nurture? When do so-called "biological imperatives" give way to ever evolving and changing human interactions given human history to date?

And the word "predisposed" is also rather ambiguous. Where, out in a particular world understood in a particular way, does one draw the line between 1] being predisposed existentially to embrace one or another moral and political philosophy, and 2] being certain that one's own moral and political convictions are the optimal frame of mind?

And once philosophers do acknowledge [given your take or my take here] that people are resistant to change, what do they propose as a way in which to entice them over to something in the way of a deontological moral and political agenda?

Is VA willing to explore those alleged "contradictions" with me over at the Applied Ethics board?

Given a context of his choice?

People have different personality types, let's say there are thousands of personality types that can be categorized in many ways. They come with different preferences for different values. (I for example can think of roughly 1000-100000 personality type combinations before even considering the zeitgeist, the social and philosophical environment, the personal upbringing, life events and world events etc. so the "external" factors.) My assumption is that you don't see this part very well as you've lived your entire life as an unaware and undiagnosed autistic, or something similar, or you're just roleplaying one, so you kinda see people as blank slates basically just shaped by the environment. Which would be a major factor on how you personally form your values, a factor that's non-existent for most people.

So overall we have to consider like say 20-50 different factors at the same time when it comes to understanding how people end up with their values. We can try to investigate them one by one but they also tend to be interrelated. The topic is imo too complex to investigate it with too much success, and it's mostly pointless to focus on things like free will/determinism.

Personalities, however, are often no less intertwined in that enormously complex intermingling of genes and memes, nature and nurture. And in a world no less revolving around our childhood indoctrination and the particular world we were adventitiously "thrown" into at birth.

Let's try this...

In the OPs of these two threads...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

...I examine the manner in which I construe my own value judgments as the embodiment of dasein. The second pertaining specifically to abortion.

Okay, how are your own set of assumptions different?

If there are "20-50 different factors" that are relevant here, let's examine a few in terms of both "biological imperatives" and "deontology". Make an attempt to note how they are pertinent to your own life, your own personal experiences of note.

Also, to what extent are these personality factors far more embedded in genes instead of memes, in nature instead of nurture. After all, the more deeply embedded in genes the more "beyond your control" it becomes.

No offense but as a non-autistic, this is mostly gibberish to me. I can't analyze my values with such crude 1-dimensional verbal/thinking tools, or I don't even know how to express this. It's too vague and too restrictive at the same time. Don't really want to talk about myself anyway as I'm way outside the ordinary.
Dasein doesn't mean anything, unless it just means the personal sense of being. The topic of abortion doesn't interest me.

Maybe if you were to ask something more specific, I would know how to reply.