Why the FSRK Basis of Reality?

[Atla]

Kant argued there is nothing real out there to mirror with.
However, Kant stated, it is very instinctual and natural [an evolutionary default]for the majority to do the mirroring of the phenomenal with the 'speculated' unreal noumenal.
While there is no issue with 'thinking' about the noumena, it is serious mistake to reify the noumenal as real, that would only result in an illusion.

Kant was an idiot of a special kind, plain and simple (if that's what he said). The healthy and pragmatic thing to do is to reify the noumenal objects that can be confirmed to exist beyond reasonable doubt.

Once we understand indirect perception, we have to return to treating the appearances in a naive realist fashion, acting as if they were 'out there'. But this time deep down we are aware of the actual appearance vs thing-in-itself dichotomy. It's by far the best solution for life.

(But you lack the capacity to comprehend what I wrote, carry on.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant argued there is nothing real out there to mirror with.
However, Kant stated, it is very instinctual and natural [an evolutionary default]for the majority to do the mirroring of the phenomenal with the 'speculated' unreal noumenal.
While there is no issue with 'thinking' about the noumena, it is serious mistake to reify the noumenal as real, that would only result in an illusion.

Kant was an idiot of a special kind, plain and simple (if that's what he said). The healthy and pragmatic thing to do is to reify the noumenal objects that can be confirmed to exist beyond reasonable doubt.

Once we understand indirect perception, we have to return to treating the appearances in a naive realist fashion, acting as if they were 'out there'. But this time deep down we are aware of the actual appearance vs thing-in-itself dichotomy. It's by far the best solution for life.

(But you lack the capacity to comprehend what I wrote, carry on.)

Yes, that is what Kant said in his CPR.

When reality is out there independent of the human conditions, it can be anything, e.g. an independent God, soul, the independent universe, ghosts, spirits, evil spirits and all sorts of evil beings where they cannot be verified and justified as real by Science [FSRK] which reliance is restricted to observations, measurements via induction.
Such narrow thinking also generate all sorts of dilemmas, paradoxes, contradiction and antinomies.

The best solution is a human-based reality [FSRK-ed] which is controllable within humans themselves as such generate the most optimal and best solutions for life.

You are ignorant of the limitations of your beliefs.
If so, list the pros and cons of your belief and show you have a net-pros over the cons in view of future progress for humanity.

How can your mind-independent noumenal be optimal and best solution for life when you have no control over reality in some ways but is left totally to the mercy of what is external?
The most your belief of a mind-independent noumenal is to soothe the cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis which is insufficient to promote greater goods to humanity in the future.

[Atla]

Kant argued there is nothing real out there to mirror with.
However, Kant stated, it is very instinctual and natural [an evolutionary default]for the majority to do the mirroring of the phenomenal with the 'speculated' unreal noumenal.
While there is no issue with 'thinking' about the noumena, it is serious mistake to reify the noumenal as real, that would only result in an illusion.

Kant was an idiot of a special kind, plain and simple (if that's what he said). The healthy and pragmatic thing to do is to reify the noumenal objects that can be confirmed to exist beyond reasonable doubt.

Once we understand indirect perception, we have to return to treating the appearances in a naive realist fashion, acting as if they were 'out there'. But this time deep down we are aware of the actual appearance vs thing-in-itself dichotomy. It's by far the best solution for life.

(But you lack the capacity to comprehend what I wrote, carry on.)

When it is out there independent of the human conditions, it can be anything, i.e. an independent God, soul, the independent universe, ghosts, spirits, evil spirits and all sorts of evil beings where they cannot be verified and justified as real by Science which reliance is restricted to observations, measurements via induction.
Such thinking also generate all sorts of dilemmas, paradoxes, contradiction and antinomies.

The best solution is a human-based reality which is controllable within humans themselves as such generate the most optimal and best for life.

How can your mind-independent noumenal be optimal and best solution for life when you have no control over reality in some ways but left totally to the mercy of what is external?
The most your belief of a mind-independent noumenal is to soothe the cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis which is insufficient to promote greater goods to humanity in the future.

You lacked the capacity to comprehend what I wrote. I said to reify the noumenal objects that can be confirmed to exist beyond reasonable doubt.

That's what science is for, it shows that tables and trees and other people exist beyond reasonable doubt. And it also shows that there's no sign of ghosts and evil spirits, so we dismiss those.

[Atla]

The best solution is a human-based reality [FSRK-ed] which is controllable within humans themselves as such generate the most optimal and best solutions for life.

No, you just want to play God because you're weak. This is a good example of soothing the existential crisis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant was an idiot of a special kind, plain and simple (if that's what he said). The healthy and pragmatic thing to do is to reify the noumenal objects that can be confirmed to exist beyond reasonable doubt.

Once we understand indirect perception, we have to return to treating the appearances in a naive realist fashion, acting as if they were 'out there'. But this time deep down we are aware of the actual appearance vs thing-in-itself dichotomy. It's by far the best solution for life.

(But you lack the capacity to comprehend what I wrote, carry on.)

When it is out there independent of the human conditions, it can be anything, i.e. an independent God, soul, the independent universe, ghosts, spirits, evil spirits and all sorts of evil beings where they cannot be verified and justified as real by Science which reliance is restricted to observations, measurements via induction.
Such thinking also generate all sorts of dilemmas, paradoxes, contradiction and antinomies.

The best solution is a human-based reality which is controllable within humans themselves as such generate the most optimal and best for life.

How can your mind-independent noumenal be optimal and best solution for life when you have no control over reality in some ways but left totally to the mercy of what is external?
The most your belief of a mind-independent noumenal is to soothe the cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis which is insufficient to promote greater goods to humanity in the future.

You lacked the capacity to comprehend what I wrote. I said to reify the noumenal objects that can be confirmed to exist beyond reasonable doubt.

That's what science is for, it shows that tables and trees and other people exist beyond reasonable doubt. And it also shows that there's no sign of ghosts and evil spirits, so we dismiss those.

You are very desperate, i.e. psychologically to nail something that is absolute real, i.e. the noumenal.

Science do not reify the noumenal objects.
Do you understand what reify means?
reify = to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea).
When one reify an abstract as real, one is generating an illusion.

No scientists would ever do that to confirm the noumenal objects are 100% real.
The most scientists do is to ASSUME the noumenal exists.
When it is assumed, it cannot be taken to be real.

What science confirms cannot be taken as absolutely real because there is a possibility it could be unreal and false. This is very common in science when many scientific theories had been abandoned upon the availability of new evidences.
What scientist can claim is whatever is scientifically real must be qualified to the evidence and the scientific framework and system [FSRK].

[Atla]

When it is out there independent of the human conditions, it can be anything, i.e. an independent God, soul, the independent universe, ghosts, spirits, evil spirits and all sorts of evil beings where they cannot be verified and justified as real by Science which reliance is restricted to observations, measurements via induction.
Such thinking also generate all sorts of dilemmas, paradoxes, contradiction and antinomies.

The best solution is a human-based reality which is controllable within humans themselves as such generate the most optimal and best for life.

How can your mind-independent noumenal be optimal and best solution for life when you have no control over reality in some ways but left totally to the mercy of what is external?
The most your belief of a mind-independent noumenal is to soothe the cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis which is insufficient to promote greater goods to humanity in the future.

You lacked the capacity to comprehend what I wrote. I said to reify the noumenal objects that can be confirmed to exist beyond reasonable doubt.

That's what science is for, it shows that tables and trees and other people exist beyond reasonable doubt. And it also shows that there's no sign of ghosts and evil spirits, so we dismiss those.

You are very desperate, i.e. psychologically to nail something that is absolute real, i.e. the noumenal.

Science do not reify the noumenal objects.
Do you understand what reify means?
reify = to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea).
When one reify an abstract as real, one is generating an illusion.

No scientists would ever do that to confirm the noumenal objects are 100% real.
The most scientists do is to ASSUME the noumenal exists.
When it is assumed, it cannot be taken to be real.

What science confirms cannot be taken as absolutely real because there is a possibility it could be unreal and false. This is very common in science when many scientific theories had been abandoned upon the availability of new evidences.
What scientist can claim is whatever is scientifically real must be qualified to the evidence and the scientific framework and system [FSRK].

Fact is that you're very desperate, to insist on something so wrong. Of course most scientists treat the world as real, almost all of them are p-realists.

You are mentally retarded. The noumenon isn't abstract to p-realists who understand indirect perception, just mostly unknowable and so the appearance of the unknowable but real part often has to be reified.

According to you, Kant put the 100% unknowable noumenon beyond the human conditions. Maybe, maybe not. Scientists put it beyond the observable universe however and they are fully justified in it. Between the human conditions and the edge of the observable universe, they have the MOSTLY unknowable noumenon.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You lacked the capacity to comprehend what I wrote. I said to reify the noumenal objects that can be confirmed to exist beyond reasonable doubt.

That's what science is for, it shows that tables and trees and other people exist beyond reasonable doubt. And it also shows that there's no sign of ghosts and evil spirits, so we dismiss those.

You are very desperate, i.e. psychologically to nail something that is absolute real, i.e. the noumenal.

Science do not reify the noumenal objects.
Do you understand what reify means?
reify = to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea).
When one reify an abstract as real, one is generating an illusion.

No scientists would ever do that to confirm the noumenal objects are 100% real.
The most scientists do is to ASSUME the noumenal exists.
When it is assumed, it cannot be taken to be real.

What science confirms cannot be taken as absolutely real because there is a possibility it could be unreal and false. This is very common in science when many scientific theories had been abandoned upon the availability of new evidences.
What scientist can claim is whatever is scientifically real must be qualified to the evidence and the scientific framework and system [FSRK].

Fact is that you're very desperate, to insist on something so wrong. Of course most scientists treat the world as real, almost all of them are p-realists.

You are mentally retarded. The noumenon isn't abstract to p-realists who understand indirect perception, just mostly unknowable and so the appearance of the unknowable but real part often has to be reified.

According to you, Kant put the 100% unknowable noumenon beyond the human conditions. Maybe, maybe not. Scientists put it beyond the observable universe however and they are fully justified in it. Between the human conditions and the edge of the observable universe, they have the MOSTLY unknowable noumenon.

How are scientists fully justified that there is real universe beyond the observable when they only ASSUME it is real.
If Science's reality is limited to what is observed and verified within a human-based FSRK how can it confirmed something is real beyond what is outside the empirical and its FSRK?
Show me evidence where science has verified justified and confirmed the noumena is real?

[Atla]

You are very desperate, i.e. psychologically to nail something that is absolute real, i.e. the noumenal.

Science do not reify the noumenal objects.
Do you understand what reify means?
reify = to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea).
When one reify an abstract as real, one is generating an illusion.

No scientists would ever do that to confirm the noumenal objects are 100% real.
The most scientists do is to ASSUME the noumenal exists.
When it is assumed, it cannot be taken to be real.

What science confirms cannot be taken as absolutely real because there is a possibility it could be unreal and false. This is very common in science when many scientific theories had been abandoned upon the availability of new evidences.
What scientist can claim is whatever is scientifically real must be qualified to the evidence and the scientific framework and system [FSRK].

Fact is that you're very desperate, to insist on something so wrong. Of course most scientists treat the world as real, almost all of them are p-realists.

You are mentally retarded. The noumenon isn't abstract to p-realists who understand indirect perception, just mostly unknowable and so the appearance of the unknowable but real part often has to be reified.

According to you, Kant put the 100% unknowable noumenon beyond the human conditions. Maybe, maybe not. Scientists put it beyond the observable universe however and they are fully justified in it. Between the human conditions and the edge of the observable universe, they have the MOSTLY unknowable noumenon.

How are scientists fully justified that there is real universe beyond the observable when they only ASSUME it is real.
If Science's reality is limited to what is observed and verified within a human-based FSRK how can it confirmed something is real beyond what is outside the empirical and its FSRK?
Show me evidence where science has verified justified and confirmed the noumena is real?

You were told a thousand times how.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Fact is that you're very desperate, to insist on something so wrong. Of course most scientists treat the world as real, almost all of them are p-realists.

You are mentally retarded. The noumenon isn't abstract to p-realists who understand indirect perception, just mostly unknowable and so the appearance of the unknowable but real part often has to be reified.

According to you, Kant put the 100% unknowable noumenon beyond the human conditions. Maybe, maybe not. Scientists put it beyond the observable universe however and they are fully justified in it. Between the human conditions and the edge of the observable universe, they have the MOSTLY unknowable noumenon.

How are scientists fully justified that there is real universe beyond the observable when they only ASSUME it is real.
If Science's reality is limited to what is observed and verified within a human-based FSRK how can it confirmed something is real beyond what is outside the empirical and its FSRK?
Show me evidence where science has verified justified and confirmed the noumena is real?

You were told a thousand times how.

Where?
Why not just a quick summary?

[Atla]

How are scientists fully justified that there is real universe beyond the observable when they only ASSUME it is real.
If Science's reality is limited to what is observed and verified within a human-based FSRK how can it confirmed something is real beyond what is outside the empirical and its FSRK?
Show me evidence where science has verified justified and confirmed the noumena is real?

You were told a thousand times how.

Where?
Why not just a quick summary?

No I take it back. I read your reply again and realized that you failed to process again what I actually said, and posted a strawman that wasn't even wrong.