Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12243
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 2:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am There is depth but not deep enough.
You should dig into the 'figuring out' and the whole shebang entangled in such processes, but you don't.
You are just applying 'faith' is believing what the scientists tell you.
Sure, I always knew you actually don't find the scientific framework credible. Your choice. At least be faithful to it.
Strawman. Where did I assert the scientific framework is not credible.
I have stated a "1000" times, the Scientific Framework is the most credible we have at present, but for us who are not doing the real scientific tests and inferencing, one has to rely on faith [in degrees from our use and inferences] that scientific truths are reliable based on their past success rates and credibility of their framework.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am
Yes, I am insisting your empirical + philosophical is speculative and not real in the ultimate sense.
Problem is: you cannot get rid of your speculative assertions yourself, especially since your stance involves, in order to oppose realism, that you deny the possibility of grabbing reality in the ultimate sense.
Nah, you are off tangent again.
I don't speculate, if I see a thing empirically and it is aligned with critical philosophy, then it is so as real.
Other than common sense, i.e. philosophically I don't speculate it is something that is independent of my and other human conditions.
Only theists and realists speculate to compensate for their low philosophical capacities.

I am insisting your empirical + philosophical is speculative and not real in the ultimate sense.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am
In your case you believe the real phenomena also has a very-real-noumena [false belief].
Again, the problem is that you cannot prove it is a false belief. You can only choose to say it is a conceptual framework you don't embrace yourself. The price of your relativism.
Strawman again.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am[
Strawman.
Note my reality is ALL-there-IS argument.
OK, then prove it is a straw man, tell me which of these statements do not reflect your position:
1. C (what is real) is grounded on B (human conditions)
2. B (human conditions) is grounded on A (thought frameworks)
None of the above.
I have always insisted C is real as an emergent and cannot be independent of human conditions.
In this case, the term 'grounded' [searching for turtles all the way down] is irrelevant.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am I never stated "All human conditions cover ALL-THERE-IS".
You said reality (all there is) is grounded on human conditions. If there's some part of reality that is not grounded on human conditions, tell us what it is. That's the only possible way to deny that you don't believe "All human conditions cover ALL-THERE-IS".
Strawman again.
I repeat I don't agree with 'grounded' as my ultimate point, for that will lead to an infinite regress of turtles.
In substance, I have stated reality [all there is] cannot be independent of human conditions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am All Human conditions are part and parcel of reality, thus
That sounds OK at first glance, until you go on to detail what you mean:
you mean that all human conditions have been, are, and will be, always, unavoidably, part of reality, because...reality is grounded on human conditions.

That is the deeply problematic statement that is being addressed here.
What empirical evidence and analysis show is that a world of things, even sentient things, existed prior to humans, and humans emerged contingently from that same domain, thus being part of that domain, but such present entanglement can dissolve and it is obviously not required for the domain of reality to exist.
If what empirical evidence and analysis show is that humans emerged from pre-existing material conditions, then it is human conditions that our grounded on material conditions, not the other way around. If water emerged from the union of oxygen and hydrogen molecules, oxygen and hydrogen are the conditions for the existence of water, so that there could be oxygen and hydrogen separately, and no water at all, but not the other way around.
Strawman again.
Note your inescapable use of 'grounded' which I never use in this case.
Note also the "1000" of times I have used the term 'strawman'.

From certain perspectives [A,B,C], I don't deny human existence is preceded by other living things, e.g. dinosaurs. This is relatively kindergarten stuff of common, conventional and scientific sense.

But in finer and higher philosophical perspectives, the above certain perspectives are part and parcel of 'ALL there is'.
Since the human conditions are part and parcel of all-there-is,
those certain perspectives [A, B, C,] and their reality cannot be independent of the human conditions.
This is the general argument.

The detailed arguments are provided by various anti-realists and even clues from realists [e.g. Hume, Russell, etc.].
Unfortunately you just don't have the cognitive capacities to grasp [not necessary to agree with] their perspectives [which I had discussed in past posts].
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am The issue here is 'what is objectivity' which is independent of a person's opinion and beliefs.
I am using scientific objectivity [the most reliable] as an example.
Pure bluffing. You don't value science at all. Not strange, since you apply to it the same dogmatic stance that you apply to everything.
Cheap Strawman and lies again.
Whatever Science produce I give them a range of a high level of confidence.
Show evidence which scientific theory had I disputed?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:36 am I didn't ask what the concept of intersubjectivity entails. I asked you to prove that intersubjectivity is a real thing.
Intersubjectivity is not a physical thing but a shared-belief among subjects which may be true or false, thus need verification and justification empirically and philosophically.
The intersubjectivity re intersubjective consensus of scientific peers is the most reliable in contract to the shared-consensus among theists in their belief 'God exists'.
The straw man will not save you from dealing with the straigthforward question!! I never said intersubjectivity was meant to be a physical thing. So, answer the question: prove that intersubjectivity is something real. Note that if it happens that intersubjectivity is real by way of scientific consensus, then the Moon in itself is real by way of scientific consensus.
I did assert you stated it, I mentioned it myself in passing just in case.

That the moon is a real thing scientifically, is proof that intersubjectivity is real.

Science do not and NEVER claim the Moon-in-itself is real.
Nah! science [based on intersubjectivity and consensus] merely assert the empirical-moon is real based on what is observable in qualification to the scientific framework. Science in this case is leveraged ONLY on observations and its framework.
Note the empirical moon is never the moon-in-itself.
At most, some realist scientists may ASSUME the moon-it-itself exists out there.

Note in the case of a faraway star-x many light years away.
Science may convince us that star-x is scientifically real based on what is observed BUT that real star may not exist in real-time. That is, that star-x could have imploded out of existence and what we are observing are merely its light rays not the really star.
If we have problem with really-real things, it would far worse with an assumed thing-in-itself.

Note again, why humans gravitate toward a thing-in-itself other than the empirical thing is due to a necessary unavoidable psychological weakness.
We need critical philosophy [Kantian] to manage this weakness to avoid clinging to our own internal generated necessary white-lies and illusions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:36 am I didn't ask what you thought I believed to be in direct contact with, I asked: what, according to you, we DO have direct contact with? You can answer "nothing" if you like.
See! this is where 'I don't understand what you meant' is very relevant.
Most of the time where you accuse me of going astray is actually due to your own fault in not communicating effectively.
I do admit I have a problem with this because the point is very complex as in the case of this whole OP and you are stuck dogmatically with confirmation bias.
It is a very straigthforward question, don't give bad excuses: what, according to you, we DO have direct contact with? You can answer "nothing" if you like.
When I mentioned direct contact, it is in this sense:
The naive realists believe they have direct contact with that-which-appears [say object-X] which is most real.
In your case, you admit you don't have direct contact with object-X but only infer indirectly of the supposedly that-which-appear [the same thing the naive realists claimed to have direct contact].
As such both realists believe object-X, i.e. the thing-in-itself exists as real which is a merely speculation either its is claimed as contacted directly or indirectly.
You are merely grasping at an illusion.
Note I mentioned 'hypostatizing' an object as real out of nowhere.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:36 am "Being only inside the framework" is the equivalent of "being subsumed within the framework". You see, the term "within" means "on the inside of".
But OK, let's have fun with this.
We can then suppose, following your own argument, that everyone using the word "within" is implying "inside" if not "outside", is "entrapped by the use of the inherent habitualized container metaphor and stuck with the linguistic duality".
Now I challenge you not to use the word "within" and the phrase "subsumed within". Agree?
That is not my point.
I will continue to use the term 'within' and "subsumed" with the proper and necessary context.
The PRIMAL container metaphor re "inside" or "outside" by default is a necessary and useful one.
See? You lost the challenge pretty quickly.
This is a cheap and childish claim in ignoring contexts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:45 am The problem is when the container metaphor and above terms are used wrongly by you in relation to your dogmatic physical realism where you end up with claiming the things you see outside [the noumena] is absolutely independent of your mind or body.
On this more refined philosophical issue we cannot use the PRIMAL container metaphor.
You are too primitive [your current status] in your philosophical deliberations instead of using the appropriate wisdom.
Idealists are typical in believing that the bigger the mystical nonsense, the greater the depth and refinement. Lost in ethereal heights and ivory towers, cannot even see and understand what's in front of their eyes. That's why their reactionary philosophy is completely useless for humanity.
Again this a cheapo claim based on fallacies of hasty generalization.
When you loose, you quickly resort to 'you the typical idealist' then proceed to shoot at your own invented strawman.

It is the same with those I discuss on the issues of Critical Race Theory.
They will bang on the slightest possible rhetoric element and accuse me on being a Nazi which lead to the shutting down of possible rational critical discussions.
It is the same with those who shout 'Islamophobia' to avoid engaging in rational and critical discussions.
There is something wrong with their brain and intellectual capacity that trigger such rhetoric and fallacies.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am Where did I assert the scientific framework is not credible.
When you imply that scientific truths are a matter of faith, for all practical terms you have repudiated the value and credibility of scientific research.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am I have stated a "1000" times, the Scientific Framework is the most credible we have at present, but for us who are not doing the real scientific tests and inferencing, one has to rely on faith [in degrees from our use and inferences] that scientific truths are reliable based on their past success rates and credibility of their framework.
This is ridiculously naive. I mean, you pretend that every time a scientist is going to test, for example, an hypothesis that takes into account the laws of motion, they go on to repeat all the same process that Newton went through, otherwise it is faith.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 2:52 am Problem is: you cannot get rid of your speculative assertions yourself, especially since your stance involves, in order to oppose realism, that you deny the possibility of grabbing reality in the ultimate sense.
Nah, you are off tangent again.
I don't speculate, if I see a thing empirically and it is aligned with critical philosophy, then it is so as real.
Other than common sense, i.e. philosophically I don't speculate it is something that is independent of my and other human conditions.
Only theists and realists speculate to compensate for their low philosophical capacities.

I am insisting your empirical + philosophical is speculative and not real in the ultimate sense.
Again, this shows how clueless you are about basic matters in philosophy, or you're just simply being cynical. In matters of philosophy, you cannot advocate for a system that stands higher than any other knowledge and pretends to reach deep, while at the same time disparaging speculation as a low-level form of inquiry that you would not use. Philosophy IS speculation. Reflection IS speculation. It is completely dumb to say you're doing philosophy and not speculating, which amounts to saying that you're not thinking, considering matters, etc. Anyway, the farthest that philosophical speculation can go alone by itself is what Sellars called the manifest image. That's why philosophy is not enough to form a complete view of the world, and why we need science. In matters of science, most of the time speculating runs contrary to its standard methods, and in this sense the term becomes derogatory, as systematic knowledge from controlled experiences, empirical scientific knowledge, is missing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 2:52 am Again, the problem is that you cannot prove it is a false belief. You can only choose to say it is a conceptual framework you don't embrace yourself. The price of your relativism.
Strawman again.
Evading the issue again.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 2:52 am OK, then prove it is a straw man, tell me which of these statements do not reflect your position:
1. C (what is real) is grounded on B (human conditions)
2. B (human conditions) is grounded on A (thought frameworks)
None of the above.
I have always insisted C is real as an emergent and cannot be independent of human conditions.
OK, then prove it is a straw man, tell me which of these statements do not reflect your position:
1. C (what is real) emerges, is derived from B (human conditions)
2. B (human conditions) emerge, is derived from A (thought frameworks)
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am In this case, the term 'grounded' [searching for turtles all the way down] is irrelevant.
[...]
Strawman again.
Note your inescapable use of 'grounded' which I never use in this case.
Note also the "1000" of times I have used the term 'strawman'.
Oh, well, "grounded".... just another term that we'll have to scratch out from your posts once it has become problematic for you to sustain it, even after mentioning it 1000 times:
Veritas Aequitas when the term 'grounding' was OK wrote:Point is what is supposedly 'external' to 'you,' ultimately has to be GROUNDED on your mind, consciousness, existence and yourself, thus cannot be absolutely independent.
[...]
In order to arrive at the judgment, "dinosaurs, the moon and the likes" pre-existed before humans, that judgment you will note is GROUNDED on human conditioned concepts of time, matter, existence, etc.

I am GROUNDING my existence and reality based on real empirical elements polished by critical philosophy.
[...]
Meanwhile you are a transcendental realist [critical or philosophical realist] are GROUNDING your reality based on an illusion.
[...]
Scientific objectivity whilst is independent of individuals' opinion and belief is ULTIMATELY not independent of the human conditions, i.e. the scientific framework which is GROUNDED on human conditions.

Whether you verify the moon existed before humans or differentiate LSD experience, the fundamental in both are GROUNDED on human conditions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am In substance, I have stated reality [all there is] cannot be independent of human conditions.
Nonsense, evidently, since it implies that reality and humans coexist NECESSARILY and not contingently, a belief refuted by empirical evidence.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am Show evidence which scientific theory had I disputed?
You said there were no "electrons" before Thomson. That goes against undisputed scientific facts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am That the moon is a real thing scientifically, is proof that intersubjectivity is real.
But scientific truths and the reality of things, according to you, are mere conventions, not necessary and sufficient truths. If intersubjectivity follows that scheme, then you have not proved it real, you just have subscribed to the convention that it is real. The point was whether you could prove it real or not. You obviously cannot.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am Science do not and NEVER claim the Moon-in-itself is real.
Note the empirical moon is never the moon-in-itself.
At most, some realist scientists may ASSUME the moon-it-itself exists out there.
The supposed distinction between a thing and a thing in itself belongs only to the assumptions of philosophical idealism, and while the concept can be a subject of reflection, it is not exempt of problems, criticized from very early after the CPR. Kant's scholars cannot even make up their minds about what it entails. So it is not that scientists need to prove something to please idealists in their inquiries about the supposed distinction mentioned above. All scientists need to do is to present substantial and credible evidence of what is objectively true, and they can certainly do that for the claim of the existence of an entity known as the Moon, prior to human existence. On pure, serious reflection, this reveals that this entity is independent of human cognition, it behaves and has properties that are constant even when humans are not engaging in any type of observation of it. And this is equivalent to what idealists call the thing in itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself
The thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is a concept introduced by Immanuel Kant. Things-in-themselves would be objects as they are, independent of observation. The concept led to much controversy among philosophers.[1] It is closely related to Kant's concept of noumenon or the object of inquiry, as opposed to phenomenon, its manifestations.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am Note in the case of a faraway star-x many light years away.
Science may convince us that star-x is scientifically real based on what is observed BUT that real star may not exist in real-time. That is, that star-x could have imploded out of existence and what we are observing are merely its light rays not the really star.
If we have problem with really-real things, it would far worse with an assumed thing-in-itself.
You're confusing popular science journalism and entertainment media with real science. Scientists ARE NOT trying to convince, not even suggesting, that what we observe from stars are real-time events, but the delayed effect of energy traveling long distances.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am Note again, why humans gravitate toward a thing-in-itself other than the empirical thing is due to a necessary unavoidable psychological weakness.
We need critical philosophy [Kantian] to manage this weakness to avoid clinging to our own internal generated necessary white-lies and illusions.
Nonsense. There's no evidence of such "psychological weakness" invented by philosophers of idealism in their "deep" esoteric reflections.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am When I mentioned direct contact, it is in this sense:
The naive realists believe they have direct contact with that-which-appears [say object-X] which is most real.
In your case, you admit you don't have direct contact with object-X but only infer indirectly of the supposedly that-which-appear [the same thing the naive realists claimed to have direct contact].
As such both realists believe object-X, i.e. the thing-in-itself exists as real which is a merely speculation either its is claimed as contacted directly or indirectly.
You are merely grasping at an illusion.
Note I mentioned 'hypostatizing' an object as real out of nowhere.
Once again, you refuse to answer a simple question. While constantly moaning about your stance being misinterpreted (your usual call of straw man), you then avoid as much as possible to give clear and straightforward descriptions of the doctrines you advocate for. A bit similar to deniers of biological evolution, which go to great lengths to justify their skepticism of evolutionary science, but then cannot come up themselves with an alternative, reasonable, systematic body of theories that could explain the same phenomena. And it is not only that they can't, but that they don't really care, all they want is to undermine the credibility of evolutionary theory so that they can get a free pass to think whatever nonsense they can allow for themselves.

Anyway, I didn't ask what realists believe, or what you think of realists, I explicitly asked what, according to you, we DO have direct contact with? I even gave you the possibility of answering: "nothing" if you like, which means you were free to develop your stance without any constraints from imposed frameworks. You already told us what are the illusions, now tell us what are not illusions and how you can justify they are not illusions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am Again this a cheapo claim based on fallacies of hasty generalization.
When you loose, you quickly resort to 'you the typical idealist' then proceed to shoot at your own invented strawman.

It is the same with those I discuss on the issues of Critical Race Theory.
They will bang on the slightest possible rhetoric element and accuse me on being a Nazi which lead to the shutting down of possible rational critical discussions.
It is the same with those who shout 'Islamophobia' to avoid engaging in rational and critical discussions.
There is something wrong with their brain and intellectual capacity that trigger such rhetoric and fallacies.
Complaining about "cheapo claims", "shooting straw men", "rhetoric and fallacies" is tremendously hypocritical coming from someone avidly engaged in ad hominem attacks as a permanent, consistent debate strategy.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12243
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 3:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am Where did I assert the scientific framework is not credible.
When you imply that scientific truths are a matter of faith, for all practical terms you have repudiated the value and credibility of scientific research.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am I have stated a "1000" times, the Scientific Framework is the most credible we have at present, but for us who are not doing the real scientific tests and inferencing, one has to rely on faith [in degrees from our use and inferences] that scientific truths are reliable based on their past success rates and credibility of their framework.
This is ridiculously naive. I mean, you pretend that every time a scientist is going to test, for example, an hypothesis that takes into account the laws of motion, they go on to repeat all the same process that Newton went through, otherwise it is faith.
Note
  • Faith
    1. confidence or trust in a person or thing:
    2. belief that is not based on proof:
I never assert that Science itself is based on pure faith as you are accusing me of.
Nevertheless scientists do apply 'faith' to a small degree in their work. You deny this?

My earlier point was, the lay-person accepts scientific facts based purely on faith [1] because he is not the one directly involved in performing the experiments to arrive at the conclusions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 2:52 am Problem is: you cannot get rid of your speculative assertions yourself, especially since your stance involves, in order to oppose realism, that you deny the possibility of grabbing reality in the ultimate sense.
Nah, you are off tangent again.
I don't speculate, if I see a thing empirically and it is aligned with critical philosophy, then it is so as real.
Other than common sense, i.e. philosophically I don't speculate it is something that is independent of my and other human conditions.
Only theists and realists speculate to compensate for their low philosophical capacities.

I am insisting your empirical + philosophical is speculative and not real in the ultimate sense.
Again, this shows how clueless you are about basic matters in philosophy, or you're just simply being cynical. In matters of philosophy, you cannot advocate for a system that stands higher than any other knowledge and pretends to reach deep, while at the same time disparaging speculation as a low-level form of inquiry that you would not use.

Philosophy IS speculation.
Reflection IS speculation.

It is completely dumb to say you're doing philosophy and not speculating, which amounts to saying that you're not thinking, considering matters, etc. Anyway, the farthest that philosophical speculation can go alone by itself is what Sellars called the manifest image. That's why philosophy is not enough to form a complete view of the world, and why we need science. In matters of science, most of the time speculating runs contrary to its standard methods, and in this sense the term becomes derogatory, as systematic knowledge from controlled experiences, empirical scientific knowledge, is missing.
You are very ignorant of what philosophy-proper entailed.
Philosophy do involve speculation as a tool or mean but philosophy-proper is not centered on speculation. Whatever is speculated but not verified and justified empirically and philosophically remain a speculation.

In your case, your resultant conclusion, i.e. critical realism that claim things exist independent of human condition is not philosophically sound, thus is a speculation.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 2:52 am OK, then prove it is a straw man, tell me which of these statements do not reflect your position:
1. C (what is real) is grounded on B (human conditions)
2. B (human conditions) is grounded on A (thought frameworks)
None of the above.
I have always insisted C is real as an emergent and cannot be independent of human conditions.
OK, then prove it is a straw man, tell me which of these statements do not reflect your position:
1. C (what is real) emerges, is derived from B (human conditions)
2. B (human conditions) emerge, is derived from A (thought frameworks)[/quote]
None of the above.
Strawman again.
As stated earlier, I have always insisted C is real as an emergent and cannot be independent of human conditions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am In this case, the term 'grounded' [searching for turtles all the way down] is irrelevant.
[...]
Strawman again.
Note your inescapable use of 'grounded' which I never use in this case.
Note also the "1000" of times I have used the term 'strawman'.
Oh, well, "grounded".... just another term that we'll have to scratch out from your posts once it has become problematic for you to sustain it, even after mentioning it 1000 times:
Veritas Aequitas when the term 'grounding' was OK wrote:Point is what is supposedly 'external' to 'you,' ultimately has to be GROUNDED on your mind, consciousness, existence and yourself, thus cannot be absolutely independent.
[...]
In order to arrive at the judgment, "dinosaurs, the moon and the likes" pre-existed before humans, that judgment you will note is GROUNDED on human conditioned concepts of time, matter, existence, etc.

I am GROUNDING my existence and reality based on real empirical elements polished by critical philosophy.
[...]
Meanwhile you are a transcendental realist [critical or philosophical realist] are GROUNDING your reality based on an illusion.
[...]
Scientific objectivity whilst is independent of individuals' opinion and belief is ULTIMATELY not independent of the human conditions, i.e. the scientific framework which is GROUNDED on human conditions.

Whether you verify the moon existed before humans or differentiate LSD experience, the fundamental in both are GROUNDED on human conditions.
Admittedly I did and will use the term 'ground' as a convenience to communicate with you at your level.

However in the ultimate sense where necessary, there is no absolute grounding.
My fundamental stance is not on any absolute grounds, note this thread I raised [mar 2020],
Reality is an Emergence
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

Note Kant's Copernican Revolution which imply in the ultimate there is no grounding, but Kant did use the term 'ground' where appropriate but not in any absolute sense.

Note also, for example we commonly rely on cause and effect for most events.
But when it come to the crunch and ultimate as argued by Hume there is no real cause and effect other than via the psychology of constant conjunctions, customs and habits.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am In substance, I have stated reality [all there is] cannot be independent of human conditions.
Nonsense, evidently, since it implies that reality and humans coexist NECESSARILY and not contingently, a belief refuted by empirical evidence.
You are using kindergarten stuff to argue your point.
Just like how Hume argued there is no reality to causality at a higher level of philosophizing of reality and many cannot grasp it, you simply cannot grasp the point I am making from a more refined philosophical perspective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am Show evidence which scientific theory had I disputed?
You said there were no "electrons" before Thomson. That goes against undisputed scientific facts.
Note I stated there were no "electrons-in-itself" before Thomson.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am That the moon is a real thing scientifically, is proof that intersubjectivity is real.
But scientific truths and the reality of things, according to you, are mere conventions, not necessary and sufficient truths. If intersubjectivity follows that scheme, then you have not proved it real, you just have subscribed to the convention that it is real. The point was whether you could prove it real or not. You obviously cannot.
You are claiming for absolute realness?
Essentially we can only claim the moon is scientifically-real, note the necessary qualifications.
On that note because the above is based on intersubjectivity, therefore intersubjectivity is real scientifically and philosophically.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am Science do not and NEVER claim the Moon-in-itself is real.
Note the empirical moon is never the moon-in-itself.
At most, some realist scientists may ASSUME the moon-it-itself exists out there.
The supposed distinction between a thing and a thing in itself belongs only to the assumptions of philosophical idealism, and while the concept can be a subject of reflection, it is not exempt of problems, criticized from very early after the CPR. Kant's scholars cannot even make up their minds about what it entails. So it is not that scientists need to prove something to please idealists in their inquiries about the supposed distinction mentioned above. All scientists need to do is to present substantial and credible evidence of what is objectively true, and they can certainly do that for the claim of the existence of an entity known as the Moon, prior to human existence. On pure, serious reflection, this reveals that this entity is independent of human cognition, it behaves and has properties that are constant even when humans are not engaging in any type of observation of it. And this is equivalent to what idealists call the thing in itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself
The thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is a concept introduced by Immanuel Kant. Things-in-themselves would be objects as they are, independent of observation. The concept led to much controversy among philosophers.[1] It is closely related to Kant's concept of noumenon or the object of inquiry, as opposed to phenomenon, its manifestations.
Note not idealists in general, but in my case it is transcendental idealism.

The coinage of the term 'thing-in-itself' is solely to expose the illusion the realists [critical, etc.] are deluded with.

Kant defined thing-in-itself as;
The thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is a concept introduced by Immanuel Kant.
Things-in-themselves would be objects-as-they-are, independent of observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself
You cannot deny what you are claiming as real are objects-as-they-are not objects-as-they-appear.
There are disputes among commentators as deluded realists like you who insist objects-as-they-are by themselves are really real when they are not.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am Note in the case of a faraway star-x many light years away.
Science may convince us that star-x is scientifically real based on what is observed BUT that real star may not exist in real-time. That is, that star-x could have imploded out of existence and what we are observing are merely its light rays not the really star.
If we have problem with really-real things, it would far worse with an assumed thing-in-itself.
You're confusing popular science journalism and entertainment media with real science. Scientists ARE NOT trying to convince, not even suggesting, that what we observe from stars are real-time events, but the delayed effect of energy traveling long distances.
Cheapo deflection again.

Generally astronomers do not present 'stars' as "delayed effect of energy traveling long distances". Such an explanation is only done in its specific contexts.

Note example,
Scientists think they've spotted the farthest galaxy in the universe
https://www.space.com/oldest-most-dista ... -discovery

Read the article from Space.Com, did they mention any thing like '"delayed effect of energy traveling long distances."
It is possible this supposed real furthest galaxy may not be really real in real time.

Note even our Sun is always a historic one [8 minutes old].
So even the moon you see is historically old.

As such there is a distance and time gap, i.e. a reality-gap between what is sensed and the supposedly real thing.

Even the things that your can touch and press with your fingers, there is still a reality-gap of nano-distance and nano-seconds.

As such humans are never in contact with what is supposedly real, i.e. there is always a reality-Gap with ALL things.
What is real is merely in entanglement with the human conditions.

You argued you rely upon science to infer the thing-in-itself across the reality-gap, but you still cannot see that Science is ultimately entangled [not derived from] with the human conditions, thus your claim of an independent this is contradictory.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am Note again, why humans gravitate toward a thing-in-itself other than the empirical thing is due to a necessary unavoidable psychological weakness.
We need critical philosophy [Kantian] to manage this weakness to avoid clinging to our own internal generated necessary white-lies and illusions.
Nonsense. There's no evidence of such "psychological weakness" invented by philosophers of idealism in their "deep" esoteric reflections.
You are ignorant of this.
Know Thyself and I suggest you research into this.
When there is a reality-gap why do humans like you [the majority] jumped to conclusions that there must be something very real out there which is independent of the human condition?
This hasty drive [for essentialism, substance, thing-in-itself] was necessary as human evolved but it need to be exposed at present to enable progress in the future.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am When I mentioned direct contact, it is in this sense:
The naive realists believe they have direct contact with that-which-appears [say object-X] which is most real.
In your case, you admit you don't have direct contact with object-X but only infer indirectly of the supposedly that-which-appear [the same thing the naive realists claimed to have direct contact].
As such both realists believe object-X, i.e. the thing-in-itself exists as real which is a merely speculation either its is claimed as contacted directly or indirectly.
You are merely grasping at an illusion.
Note I mentioned 'hypostatizing' an object as real out of nowhere.
Once again, you refuse to answer a simple question. While constantly moaning about your stance being misinterpreted (your usual call of straw man), you then avoid as much as possible to give clear and straightforward descriptions of the doctrines you advocate for.
A bit similar to deniers of biological evolution, which go to great lengths to justify their skepticism of evolutionary science, but then cannot come up themselves with an alternative, reasonable, systematic body of theories that could explain the same phenomena. And it is not only that they can't, but that they don't really care, all they want is to undermine the credibility of evolutionary theory so that they can get a free pass to think whatever nonsense they can allow for themselves.

Anyway, I didn't ask what realists believe, or what you think of realists, I explicitly asked what, according to you, we DO have direct contact with? I even gave you the possibility of answering: "nothing" if you like, which means you were free to develop your stance without any constraints from imposed frameworks. You already told us what are the illusions, now tell us what are not illusions and how you can justify they are not illusions.
As I had explained above, with the reality-Gap, yes we do not have direct contact with anything.

In one perspective what are not illusion are scientifically-real things, i.e. as verified and justified via science which are somehow entangled [not derived from] with the human conditions. Thus whatever is claimed to be real must be qualified to a specific framework, where the scientific framework is the most reliable.
Theists will claim God exists as real, but that is conditioned upon the theological framework which is grounded on pure faith.

The problem with realists is they claim things are absolutely real and is independent from the human conditions as based on their philosophical [or critical] realism framework. Thus their things-as-they-are are illusory.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:44 am Again this a cheapo claim based on fallacies of hasty generalization.
When you loose, you quickly resort to 'you the typical idealist' then proceed to shoot at your own invented strawman.
It is the same with those I discuss on the issues of Critical Race Theory.
They will bang on the slightest possible rhetoric element and accuse me on being a Nazi which lead to the shutting down of possible rational critical discussions.
It is the same with those who shout 'Islamophobia' to avoid engaging in rational and critical discussions.
There is something wrong with their brain and intellectual capacity that trigger such rhetoric and fallacies.
Complaining about "cheapo claims", "shooting straw men", "rhetoric and fallacies" is tremendously hypocritical coming from someone avidly engaged in ad hominem attacks as a permanent, consistent debate strategy.
My central focus is based on solid arguments, evidences, verifications and justifications.

Whatever you termed 'ad hominen' [which I don't agree is ad hominen] do not form any critical substance for my arguments. These comments are merely to prompt you to do more research to think more widely and deeply to avoid they strawmen you have been constructing.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
You've proven it to yourself, since the thread implies that there are other people in the world.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:39 am You've proven it to yourself, since the thread implies that there are other people in the world.
So does that prove independence; or interdependence of reality ?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:45 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:39 am You've proven it to yourself, since the thread implies that there are other people in the world.
So does that prove independence; or interdependence of reality ?
interdependance inplies independance
If you want you can agrue that Veritas has made me up in his own head, and you for that matter. And that this exchange is taking place in his subconscious until he notices it and contributes, at which time we emerge in his consciousness.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 1:01 pm interdependance inplies independance
No, it doesn't. They are mutually exclusive.

The independence of A and B implies no causal interaction between A and B.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 1:01 pm If you want you can agrue that Veritas has made me up in his own head, and you for that matter. And that this exchange is taking place in his subconscious until he notices it and contributes, at which time we emerge in his consciousness.
Well it's not just that. You have made me up in your head. And you have made him up in your head.
I've made both of you up in my head also. And well all emerge in each other's consciousnesses.

If we didn't have a model of me in your head you couldn't possibly choose your words when speaking to me.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 2:10 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 1:01 pm If you want you can argue that Veritas has made me up in his own head, and you for that matter. And that this exchange is taking place in his subconscious until he notices it and contributes, at which time we emerge in his consciousness.
Well it's not just that. You have made me up in your head. And you have made him up in your head.
I've made both of you up in my head also. And well all emerge in each other's consciousnesses.

If we didn't have a model of me in your head you couldn't possibly choose your words when speaking to me.
What you say here employs the idea of DIFFERENT heads.
If you want to counter my statement you will have to do with without using independant ideas such as "yours" or "mine".
TRY AGAIN.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 2:10 pm The independence of A and B implies no causal interaction between A and B.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 2:19 pm What you say here employs the idea of DIFFERENT heads.
If you want to counter my statement you will have to do with without using independant ideas such as "yours" or "mine".
TRY AGAIN.
Look! We are communicating with each other! We are causally affecting each other's minds!

How are you doing this if we are independent ?!?!?!
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 2:34 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 2:10 pm The independence of A and B implies no causal interaction between A and B.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 2:19 pm What you say here employs the idea of DIFFERENT heads.
If you want to counter my statement you will have to do with without using independant ideas such as "yours" or "mine".
TRY AGAIN.
Look! We are communicating with each other! We are causally affecting each other's minds!

How are you doing this if we are independent ?!?!?!
That does not mean we are interdependant. or depandant.
When Veritas asks for an independacnt reality it is proven by simply reacting to another person, or chosing to kick them in the balls - then they KNOW that there is a reality independant of themselves.
Veritas asks us - as sonn as he did that he answered his own question; there is something else out there.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:34 pm That does not mean we are interdependant. or depandant.
When Veritas asks for an independacnt reality it is proven by simply reacting to another person, or chosing to kick them in the balls - then they KNOW that there is a reality independant of themselves.
Veritas asks us - as sonn as he did that he answered his own question; there is something else out there.
Look. I explained to you what the sufficient condition for independence is. Absence of causality between the entities under consideration.

If A and B are independent then A cannot affect B; and B cannot affect A.

Obviously reality affects me and I affect reality therefore the word which describes the relationship between reality cannot be "independence"!
Obviously you affect me and I affect you therefore the word which describes our relationship cannot be "independence"!

What are you not understanding?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:36 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:34 pm That does not mean we are interdependant. or depandant.
When Veritas asks for an independacnt reality it is proven by simply reacting to another person, or chosing to kick them in the balls - then they KNOW that there is a reality independant of themselves.
Veritas asks us - as sonn as he did that he answered his own question; there is something else out there.
Look. I explained to you what the sufficient condition for independence is. Absence of causality between the entities under consideration.

If A and B are independent then A cannot affect B; and B cannot affect A.

Obviously reality affects me and I affect reality therefore the word which describes the relationship between reality cannot be "independence"!
Obviously you affect me and I affect you therefore the word which describes our relationship cannot be "independence"!

What are you not understanding?
Look get a fucking grip.
You are talking bollocks
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:55 pm Look get a fucking grip.
You are talking bollocks
You continue to demonstrate the causality that exists between us therefore you and I are not independent.

I am glad we could agree. Enjoy your day - I don't have the desire to endure the incoming tantrum.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12243
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
You've proven it to yourself, since the thread implies that there are other people in the world.
As usual your thinking is too shallow and narrow, i.e. confined to the vulgar [philosophically = common] sense.
If based on the vulgar sense, I will agree with you.

But philosophically there are much more higher sense of what is real than the vulgar sense.
Here's a clue for you.
Note this picture of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) trees;

Image

In the above picture you will note there are thousands [if seen further there could be > a million] "individual" trees which are apart and "independent" of each other.
If each tree is endowed with self-awareness, they will claim the other individual trees are independent from themselves.

Even any small kid can see each tree is independent from the next trees.
That is from the vulgar [common] sense of reality.

But biologists [botanists] or plant scientists will have a different views of reality with regard to the Pando Trees from a more learned and higher perspective of reality.

The truth and of more refined reality is, that picture is,
  • a clonal colony of an individual male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[2] and assumed to have one massive underground root system.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
Note the single colony where are the individual trees are all connected as a Single organism in the root system.

Image
  • Pando occupies 43.6 hectares (108 acres) and is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000,000 kilograms (6,600 short tons),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.
    ibid
The point is in this case, whilst at one level of reality, i.e. vulgar [common] sense, each pando tree are independent of each other, the higher reality is that all the individual[s] are not ultimately independent of each other.
I am not in this case asserting each individual pando tree is dependent on other individual trees but the main point is
all the individual[s] are not ultimately independent of each other.

Thus to the layperson based on his vulgar sense, the trees appear to be independent from each other, the more advanced botanists are knowledgeable of a higher reality that each individual tree is NOT independent from each other.

The above analogy has the same principle with my claim that there is no independent reality in itself and your argument that there are other people in the world [just like there are other pando trees] is based on your vulgar sense and ignorance is too "cheap" to justify your claim.

That individual humans are not absolutely independent of each other is definitely more complex and too advanced for you to decipher in detail.

All I can do is merely to leave you with a clue and that you are ignorant and don't have capacity for deeper and wider thinking.
Btw, the Pando tree analogy is a very basic analogy, there are thousands and millions of analogies out there that can justify my claim.
Unfortunately, given your age, there is no room for improvement in your cognitive abilities to grasp these higher truths of reality.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:24 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
You've proven it to yourself, since the thread implies that there are other people in the world.
As usual your thinking is too shallow and narrow, i.e. confined to the vulgar [philosophically = common] sense.
If based on the vulgar sense, I will agree with you.
irrelevant BS deleted
Yawn
Post Reply