"The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7969
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

"The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Re the existence of independent external world, the majority will default to counter the philosophical anti-realists with "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans."
But as explained below such a counter is a non-starter hypothesis.
popeye1945 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm That which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?
Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.
This is a bit tricky.
There should not be any concession to the above question.

The pursuit and impulse for things in the absence of humans is a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue.
As such the hypothesis "things in the absence of humans" e.g. "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans" is a non-starter which is very evident since humans first proposed such a non-starter hypothesis.

As such, we should address the psychological issue rather than try to find an answer to a non-starter hypothesis. This is what Buddhism [& others of the likes] does.
This is the same as the God exists hypothesis which is a non-starter.
An analogy is 'a square-circle exists' which is glaringly a non-starter.
Atla
Posts: 3779
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:59 am Re the existence of independent external world, the majority will default to counter the philosophical anti-realists with "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans."
But as explained below such a counter is a non-starter hypothesis.
popeye1945 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm That which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?
Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.
This is a bit tricky.
There should not be any concession to the above question.

The pursuit and impulse for things in the absence of humans is a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue.
As such the hypothesis "things in the absence of humans" e.g. "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans" is a non-starter which is very evident since humans first proposed such a non-starter hypothesis.

As such, we should address the psychological issue rather than try to find an answer to a non-starter hypothesis. This is what Buddhism [& others of the likes] does.
This is the same as the God exists hypothesis which is a non-starter.
An analogy is 'a square-circle exists' which is glaringly a non-starter.
Something doesn't need to be known by a human in order to exist. Your insistence that something needs to be known in order to exist, comes from a deep psychological issue that Buddhism and the likes could help resolve.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7969
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:59 am Re the existence of independent external world, the majority will default to counter the philosophical anti-realists with "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans."
But as explained below such a counter is a non-starter hypothesis.
popeye1945 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am
Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.
This is a bit tricky.
There should not be any concession to the above question.

The pursuit and impulse for things in the absence of humans is a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue.
As such the hypothesis "things in the absence of humans" e.g. "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans" is a non-starter which is very evident since humans first proposed such a non-starter hypothesis.

As such, we should address the psychological issue rather than try to find an answer to a non-starter hypothesis. This is what Buddhism [& others of the likes] does.
This is the same as the God exists hypothesis which is a non-starter.
An analogy is 'a square-circle exists' which is glaringly a non-starter.
Something doesn't need to be known by a human in order to exist. Your insistence that something needs to be known in order to exist, comes from a deep psychological issue that Buddhism and the likes could help resolve.
Strawman!

I did not personally claim "something needs to be known in order to exist".

What exists as real is a spontaneous emergence and realization.
What is known about such an emergence is subsequent via epistemology.
Atla
Posts: 3779
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:32 am
Atla wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:59 am Re the existence of independent external world, the majority will default to counter the philosophical anti-realists with "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans."
But as explained below such a counter is a non-starter hypothesis.


This is a bit tricky.
There should not be any concession to the above question.

The pursuit and impulse for things in the absence of humans is a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue.
As such the hypothesis "things in the absence of humans" e.g. "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans" is a non-starter which is very evident since humans first proposed such a non-starter hypothesis.

As such, we should address the psychological issue rather than try to find an answer to a non-starter hypothesis. This is what Buddhism [& others of the likes] does.
This is the same as the God exists hypothesis which is a non-starter.
An analogy is 'a square-circle exists' which is glaringly a non-starter.
Something doesn't need to be known by a human in order to exist. Your insistence that something needs to be known in order to exist, comes from a deep psychological issue that Buddhism and the likes could help resolve.
Strawman!

I did not personally claim "something needs to be known in order to exist".

What exists as real is a spontaneous emergence and realization.
What is known about such an emergence is subsequent via epistemology.
You just said it again. Something needs to be realized (known) by a human in order to exist.
Dontaskme
Posts: 12729
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Dontaskme »

The moon existed prior to it being conceptually labelled moon.

Until it was given a label the moon was but it wasn’t known as the concept defines it which is a human belief.

Not the object itself, just the label is a belief..
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7969
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:32 am
Atla wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:06 am
Something doesn't need to be known by a human in order to exist. Your insistence that something needs to be known in order to exist, comes from a deep psychological issue that Buddhism and the likes could help resolve.
Strawman!

I did not personally claim "something needs to be known in order to exist".

What exists as real is a spontaneous emergence and realization.
What is known about such an emergence is subsequent via epistemology.
You just said it again. Something needs to be realized (known) by a human in order to exist.
Recalcitrant strawmaning! - a psychological problem for you!
Why must you insist when it is not my intention to conflate 'realization' with 'knowing' in the generally accepted sense?

I stated the following sequences, i.e. spontaneous emergence, realization, then only known via epistemology.
Spontaneous emergence also implied 'experienced'. What is emergence and experienced need not be known [knowledge] per se.

In philosophy, 'knowing' and thus 'knowledge' is extended to Justified True Belief [Gettier aside],
The term "knowledge" can refer to a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); formal or informal; systematic or particular.[1] The philosopher Plato argued that there was a distinction between knowledge and true belief in the Theaetetus, leading many to attribute to him a definition of knowledge as "justified true belief".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
Atla
Posts: 3779
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:01 am Recalcitrant strawmaning! - a psychological problem for you!
Why must you insist when it is not my intention to conflate 'realization' with 'knowing' in the generally accepted sense?

I stated the following sequences, i.e. spontaneous emergence, realization, then only known via epistemology.
Spontaneous emergence also implied 'experienced'. What is emergence and experienced need not be known [knowledge] per se.

In philosophy, 'knowing' and thus 'knowledge' is extended to Justified True Belief [Gettier aside],
The term "knowledge" can refer to a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); formal or informal; systematic or particular.[1] The philosopher Plato argued that there was a distinction between knowledge and true belief in the Theaetetus, leading many to attribute to him a definition of knowledge as "justified true belief".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
In you understood English which you don't, you would know that "know" has at least two meanings. I used the other one, to be aware of something's existence.

You just said it again. Something needs to be experienced (realized (known)) by a human in order to exist.

Your insistence that something needs to be experienced by a human in order to exist, comes from a deep psychological issue that Buddhism and the likes could help resolve.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7969
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:01 am Recalcitrant strawmaning! - a psychological problem for you!
Why must you insist when it is not my intention to conflate 'realization' with 'knowing' in the generally accepted sense?

I stated the following sequences, i.e. spontaneous emergence, realization, then only known via epistemology.
Spontaneous emergence also implied 'experienced'. What is emergence and experienced need not be known [knowledge] per se.

In philosophy, 'knowing' and thus 'knowledge' is extended to Justified True Belief [Gettier aside],
The term "knowledge" can refer to a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); formal or informal; systematic or particular.[1] The philosopher Plato argued that there was a distinction between knowledge and true belief in the Theaetetus, leading many to attribute to him a definition of knowledge as "justified true belief".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
In you understood English which you don't, you would know that "know" has at least two meanings. I used the other one, to be aware of something's existence.

You just said it again. Something needs to be experienced (realized (known)) by a human in order to exist.

Your insistence that something needs to be experienced by a human in order to exist, comes from a deep psychological issue that Buddhism and the likes could help resolve.
You lack intellectual integrity, i.e. trying to be blatantly and violently deceptive.
Every time when I noticed posters are using loose terms, i.e. words with different meaning, I will ask them of their intended meaning before I counter them.

In any communication the onus is on the other party [communicatee] to understand what the communicator intended in the first place.

Are you aware of principle of charity
In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn,[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."
-wiki
Atla
Posts: 3779
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:47 am You lack intellectual integrity, i.e. trying to be blatantly and violently deceptive.
Every time when I noticed posters are using loose terms, i.e. words with different meaning, I will ask them of their intended meaning before I counter them.

In any communication the onus is on the other party [communicatee] to understand what the communicator intended in the first place.

Are you aware of principle of charity
In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn,[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."
-wiki
You lack intellectual integrity, i.e. trying to be blatantly and violently deceptive.

You started with quoting Iwannaplato asking "That which exists is that which is experienced?" and then changed the subject.

Every time when I noticed posters are using loose terms, i.e. words with different meaning, I will ask them of their intended meaning before I counter them.

In any communication the onus is on the other party [communicatee] to understand what the communicator intended in the first place.

Are you aware of principle of charity
In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn,[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."
-wiki
Iwannaplato
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:59 am Re the existence of independent external world, the majority will default to counter the philosophical anti-realists with "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans."
But as explained below such a counter is a non-starter hypothesis.
popeye1945 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm That which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?
Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.
This is a bit tricky.
There should not be any concession to the above question.

The pursuit and impulse for things in the absence of humans is a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue.
As such the hypothesis "things in the absence of humans" e.g. "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans" is a non-starter which is very evident since humans first proposed such a non-starter hypothesis.

As such, we should address the psychological issue rather than try to find an answer to a non-starter hypothesis. This is what Buddhism [& others of the likes] does.
This is the same as the God exists hypothesis which is a non-starter.
An analogy is 'a square-circle exists' which is glaringly a non-starter.
Right off the bat you idiotically imply that I made a claim that the moon pre-existed humans, when in fact I challenged someone who was claiming it did not and other things not experienced do not exist.
The next fundamental but related problem with your post is you are changing to the burden of proof to me and not the person making the assertion I responded to. To say that only experienced things are real is a very strong claim. It means that the person knows that dinosaurs did not exist or the moon did not exist before life on earth.

Then the third problem, which you share with those responding to me in the other thread, is to confuse their ontological claim with an epistemological claim. To say that we cannot know if things exist that have not been experienced is an epistemological claim. To say that they do not exist is an ontological claim, and one that I was challenging. Because you don't read posts well or think about context or because always present things as false dilemmas means that you spew out threads (and thread after thread) like this without really noticing important things.

The person who originally made the statement needs to demonstrate that nothing exists that has not been experienced.
But you can't even wait to see if their claim can be defended, the ontological one.
You leap in, while reading poorly, assign onus where it isn't and generally add more noise to the forum.

I did not say the Moon preexisted humans, as just one example of either your incompetence or your disingenousness.
Atla
Posts: 3779
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 11:16 am Right off the bat you idiotically imply that I made a claim that the moon pre-existed humans, when in fact I challenged someone who was claiming it did not and other things not experienced do not exist.
The next fundamental but related problem with your post is you are changing to the burden of proof to me and not the person making the assertion I responded to. To say that only experienced things are real is a very strong claim. It means that the person knows that dinosaurs did not exist or the moon did not exist before life on earth.

Then the third problem, which you share with those responding to me in the other thread, is to confuse their ontological claim with an epistemological claim. To say that we cannot know if things exist that have not been experienced is an epistemological claim. To say that they do not exist is an ontological claim, and one that I was challenging. Because you don't read posts well or think about context or because always present things as false dilemmas means that you spew out threads (and thread after thread) like this without really noticing important things.

The person who originally made the statement needs to demonstrate that nothing exists that has not been experienced.
But you can't even wait to see if their claim can be defended, the ontological one.
You leap in, while reading poorly, assign onus where it isn't and generally add more noise to the forum.

I did not say the Moon preexisted humans, as just one example of either your incompetence or your disingenousness.
Veritas seems to think that Kant has shown the non-existence of things not experienced (which elevated Kant to the level of Veritas, smart guy this Kant). But of course Kant has only shown that ultimately, we can't know.
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:59 am Re the existence of independent external world, the majority will default to counter the philosophical anti-realists with "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans."
But as explained below such a counter is a non-starter hypothesis.
popeye1945 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm That which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?
Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.
This is a bit tricky.
There should not be any concession to the above question.

The pursuit and impulse for things in the absence of humans is a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue.
As such the hypothesis "things in the absence of humans" e.g. "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans" is a non-starter which is very evident since humans first proposed such a non-starter hypothesis.

As such, we should address the psychological issue rather than try to find an answer to a non-starter hypothesis. This is what Buddhism [& others of the likes] does.
This is the same as the God exists hypothesis which is a non-starter.
An analogy is 'a square-circle exists' which is glaringly a non-starter.
The STUPIDITY and ABSURDITY here is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS.
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:32 am
Atla wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:59 am Re the existence of independent external world, the majority will default to counter the philosophical anti-realists with "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans."
But as explained below such a counter is a non-starter hypothesis.


This is a bit tricky.
There should not be any concession to the above question.

The pursuit and impulse for things in the absence of humans is a psychological and evolutionary psychological issue.
As such the hypothesis "things in the absence of humans" e.g. "The Moon & dinosaurs Pre-Existed Humans" is a non-starter which is very evident since humans first proposed such a non-starter hypothesis.

As such, we should address the psychological issue rather than try to find an answer to a non-starter hypothesis. This is what Buddhism [& others of the likes] does.
This is the same as the God exists hypothesis which is a non-starter.
An analogy is 'a square-circle exists' which is glaringly a non-starter.
Something doesn't need to be known by a human in order to exist. Your insistence that something needs to be known in order to exist, comes from a deep psychological issue that Buddhism and the likes could help resolve.
Strawman!

I did not personally claim "something needs to be known in order to exist".
LOL This was what WAS SAID, and which you are 'trying to' USE here for YOUR BELIEF, and attempted "argument" here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:32 am What exists as real is a spontaneous emergence and realization.
What is known about such an emergence is subsequent via epistemology.
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 8:06 am The moon existed prior to it being conceptually labelled moon.
CORRECT.
Dontaskme wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 8:06 am Until it was given a label the moon was but it wasn’t known as the concept defines it which is a human belief.
But the concet that defines an 'object/thing' does NOT necessarily HAVE TO BE a human BELIEF.
Dontaskme wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 8:06 am Not the object itself, just the label is a belief..
AGAIN, a 'label' does NOT, necessarily, have to be A BELIEF, AT ALL.
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: "The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:47 am
Atla wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:01 am Recalcitrant strawmaning! - a psychological problem for you!
Why must you insist when it is not my intention to conflate 'realization' with 'knowing' in the generally accepted sense?

I stated the following sequences, i.e. spontaneous emergence, realization, then only known via epistemology.
Spontaneous emergence also implied 'experienced'. What is emergence and experienced need not be known [knowledge] per se.

In philosophy, 'knowing' and thus 'knowledge' is extended to Justified True Belief [Gettier aside],

In you understood English which you don't, you would know that "know" has at least two meanings. I used the other one, to be aware of something's existence.

You just said it again. Something needs to be experienced (realized (known)) by a human in order to exist.

Your insistence that something needs to be experienced by a human in order to exist, comes from a deep psychological issue that Buddhism and the likes could help resolve.
You lack intellectual integrity, i.e. trying to be blatantly and violently deceptive.
Every time when I noticed posters are using loose terms, i.e. words with different meaning, I will ask them of their intended meaning before I counter them.

In any communication the onus is on the other party [communicatee] to understand what the communicator intended in the first place.

Are you aware of principle of charity
In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn,[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."
-wiki
ONCE AGAIN, you are just 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT from the Fact that you WERE 'trying to' CLAIM that if some 'thing', like the moon, was NOT 'experienced' by a human being, or a conceptually thinking life form, THEN there IS NO 'moon'.

Which, the ABSURDITY and ILLOGICALNESS OF speaks for ITSELF.

And, even buddhism could NOT resolve the STUPIDITY of 'this' BELIEF and CLAIM.
Post Reply