Atla wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:19 am
VA's assertion that we mustn't/can't talk about things outside human experience, is much closer to a standalone truth, than what many other people are saying here. He seems to believe in objective morality which is also standalone truth.
I think the epistomological issue is just peachy. If there is no way to experience something does it exist? Or can we know things that are not experienced? Or can we know they exist? And then we need to get in there and discuss what it means to experience something. Does it count through a telescope? When are we experiencing something and when are we merely experiencing effect or perhaps just phenomena that we THINK were caused by something. And so on. All peachy.
But they conflate the epistemological issue with the ontological one. At least I think so. So far only advocate has tried to answer my questions. I don't think clearly yet, but I appreciate the effort.
Heck, I am actually far more open to the ontological position than most people. I would guess even VA.
But you have to really look at the consequences. And honestly I don't know what he's on about with certain assertions being non-starters. One can certainly use the FSK of science to support the claim of the moon preexisting humans or dinosaurs, which he has called credible.
It seems like his response should be...OK, you've said The Moon Pre-Exists humans, what's your justification. And then he could criticize that if he wants to. Just because people assert something doesn't mean they consider it an absolute truth. I think he's dragging in anger from other topics. Like they mock him for his FSK and they think they don't have one. When in fact they just think they have better justifications and a better supporting FSK and that he is making a category error when he moves from mirror neurons to moral facts. Or confusing universal (amongst humans) with objective. And he seems to confuse objective with absolutely true, yet another confusion on his part.