Vaginal Aquafresh's entire theory is a non-starter

[FlashDangerpants]

Another point is various FSKs rely upon scientific facts to enable their specific FSK facts to emerge [this is a critical word].
E.g. the legal FSK rely on scientific facts [& others] to enable legal facts to emerge, e.g. X is a murderer based heavily on DNA evidence.
Archaeological FSK also rely on scientific facts to enable archaeological facts to emerge.
X FSK rely on scientific facts [& others] to enable X facts to emerge.
Thus the Moral FSK rely on scientific facts [& others] to enable moral facts to emerge.

The above kick-ass your otherwise counter claim [in previous posts] objective moral facts do not exist.

Even by your standards that is a shockingly bad attempt to construct a deductively valid argument.

Other field makes reference to scientific evidence to provide relevant info such as how old a piece of bone found in some dirt might be.
Those other fields never require the field of science to report unscientific information.
Your attempt to infer that absurdly unscientific statements about moral value must be made are tragic.
At best you are insiuating not even arguing.

Awarding yourself honours for kicking ass with that horror show of ineptitude just underlines the obvious fact that all your years of effort will result only in complete failure.

[Sculptor]

Vaginal Atrophy's entire theory is a non-starter

It's not even a theory.

The most basic components are missing:

The need to organize and give meaning to facts and observations.
Explain findings within context of existing knowledge.
Basis for predicting future outcomes/observations.
Stimulate development of new knowledge: motivation and guidance for asking new questions.

[FlashDangerpants]

I never even noticed b efore, but VA seems to think that we need his overcooked FSK theory or else we aren't able to account for Abraham Lincoln's being the a historical president as a fact.

B. Anti-Realism's Fact.
What is fact to me is the Anti-Realism's Fact in opposite to the Metaphysical/Philosophical Realism's Fact.

A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

From the above what is fact [anti-realist] is conditioned by a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Of course we don't. Total non-starter.

[Iwannaplato]

From the above what is fact [anti-realist] is conditioned by a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Of course we don't. Total non-starter.
[/quote]
It seems like he means is justified by when he uses is conditioned by. Or?
Unless he is trying to say it is filtered by or something like that.

[FlashDangerpants]

From the above what is fact [anti-realist] is conditioned by a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Of course we don't. Total non-starter.

It seems like he means is justified by when he uses is conditioned by. Or?
Unless he is trying to say it is filtered by or something like that.
[/quote]
He's trying to avoid saying manufactured. Under his FSK theory any old bastard can make up any old shit and it becomes total fact... if you make an FSK to make it a fact with. And then all facts belong inside one of these FSKs, which must be arranged like Russian Dolls in a strict heirarchy or else make no sense.

It's all to do with his obsession with organising stuff into categories and charts. When he says that he has a masters degree in 'problem solving' by which he does mean drawing diagrams and flows, and we laugh at his because that's fucking stupid, he isn't laughing, he thinks it's real.

[Iwannaplato]

He's trying to avoid saying manufactured. Under his FSK theory any old bastard can make up any old shit and it becomes total fact... if you make an FSK to make it a fact with. And then all facts belong inside one of these FSKs, which must be arranged like Russian Dolls in a strict heirarchy or else make no sense.

It's all to do with his obsession with organising stuff into categories and charts. When he says that he has a masters degree in 'problem solving' by which he does mean drawing diagrams and flows, and we laugh at his because that's fucking stupid, he isn't laughing, he thinks it's real.

Yes, that sounds something like modeling.

I don't think the FSK idea is useless. Yes, different systems have different justification systems. And I think most people actually do have different FSKs for different issues. Peachy!

But his hovering around the outside of all FSKs is utterly hypocritical.

[FlashDangerpants]

He's trying to avoid saying manufactured. Under his FSK theory any old bastard can make up any old shit and it becomes total fact... if you make an FSK to make it a fact with. And then all facts belong inside one of these FSKs, which must be arranged like Russian Dolls in a strict heirarchy or else make no sense.

It's all to do with his obsession with organising stuff into categories and charts. When he says that he has a masters degree in 'problem solving' by which he does mean drawing diagrams and flows, and we laugh at his because that's fucking stupid, he isn't laughing, he thinks it's real.

Yes, that sounds something like modeling.

I don't think the FSK idea is useless. Yes, different systems have different justification systems. And I think most people actually do have different FSKs for different issues. Peachy!

But his hovering around the outside of all FSKs is utterly hypocritical.

I don't recall if his FSK theory was always as bad as it has become today, but I think probably it was because it holds a key place in his drive to make metaphysical anti-realism super important to everything. But in conjunction with his psychological requirement for rigid hierarchical structures about which he can't do anything, but which don't do him much good, the result is a shitshow.

It's trivially obvious that we use different fields of study, with differing methods, to investigate different types of question. Nobody needs this FSK stuff to explain that historians are better at answering historical questions than physicists are, because they use methods appropriate to the type of question being posed. If some fact is correctly said to belong to an FSK, then it is only so because the question belongs to it, and a fact, in spite of all the shite I read on this forum, is nothing more than the correct answer to a given question.

So what does his crazy talk really add? It adds a false assumption that derives from the hierarchy thing. Because VA thinks that science is the FSK that has the most credibility, and because he focusses on these FSKs as fact generation engines rather than question answering fields of enquiry, he thinks that if you smuggle some scientific facts into your own FSK, that makes it better than ones that don't smuggle in a similar way.

[Iwannaplato]

he thinks that if you smuggle some scientific facts into your own FSK, that makes it better than ones that don't smuggle in a similar way.

Yes, lol.


Granite is made up of many minerals
Granite can have fissures
Granite is one of the hardest materials in the world
Therefore granite has a moral potential to be really hard, but it needs to develop both greater internal diversity and fissures. It is a moral fact that being a hard rock is good.

As a tangent. Obviously science has some great methodologies. But...one can also look at the interests of the those funding large percentages of the research, one can look at current paradigmatic biases, and one can look at current emphases in how the methodologies are applied and with which technologies and make some excellent guesses about what problematic false conclusions and tendencies are likely to be going on out there in science.

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh my word, the nutter has just attempted to define "meaning" as something reducible to the instinct for survival

All humans are endowed via evolution with a neural based faculty for a sense of meaning reducible to the instinct for survival of the individual and therefrom that of the human species.

Now to be fair, he did teach himself to do philosophy solely by awarding himself gold stars for genius in the Kant homework he set and marked for himself. So perhaps he has absolutely no idea what redicuble means in this FSK thing that we do here.

But still, oof. After all that grumbling he's done about Logical Positivism, he now proposes his own clumsy reduction that's orders of magnitude worse than theirs.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh my word, the nutter has just attempted to define "meaning" as something reducible to the instinct for survival

All humans are endowed via evolution with a neural based faculty for a sense of meaning reducible to the instinct for survival of the individual and therefrom that of the human species.

Now to be fair, he did teach himself to do philosophy solely by awarding himself gold stars for genius in the Kant homework he set and marked for himself. So perhaps he has absolutely no idea what redicuble means in this FSK thing that we do here.

But still, oof. After all that grumbling he's done about Logical Positivism, he now proposes his own clumsy reduction that's orders of magnitude worse than theirs.

It seems like you understand that sentence and are critical of it. Even after reading your opening paraphrase, I don't know what it is trying to say. I would guess, and it is a guess, that some huge step in the.....deduction(??)...is missing.

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh my word, the nutter has just attempted to define "meaning" as something reducible to the instinct for survival

All humans are endowed via evolution with a neural based faculty for a sense of meaning reducible to the instinct for survival of the individual and therefrom that of the human species.

Now to be fair, he did teach himself to do philosophy solely by awarding himself gold stars for genius in the Kant homework he set and marked for himself. So perhaps he has absolutely no idea what redicuble means in this FSK thing that we do here.

But still, oof. After all that grumbling he's done about Logical Positivism, he now proposes his own clumsy reduction that's orders of magnitude worse than theirs.

It seems like you understand that sentence and are critical of it. Even after reading your opening paraphrase, I don't know what it is trying to say. I would guess, and it is a guess, that some huge step in the.....deduction(??)...is missing.

To a rational being, yes there's a bizarre void somewhere in that nonsense, but that's us expecting some sort of actual meaning to words and stuff. VA has started whole threads devoted to there not really being any meaning to words.

He also absolutely never analyses anything by any second vector under any circumstance. If he starts by analysing what thing is made of, he will only ever do that, and is quite incapable of analysing what purpose it must serve to continue being named thus. Thus when covering the notion of meaning, he wouldn't ever think that there is a relationship with understanding that must remain after the reduction.

Nor would he wonder if the substrate into which he hopes to reduce the concept is the right sort of thing to exude the properties of said concept. So to you it probably seems quite wild to reduce our capacity of understanding to nothing but an instinct to run away from sharp teeth, but he doesn't need that second vector getting in the way.

The broad outlines of his argument are fairly stable: Evolution* has created a bag of meat and juices called homo sapien (in the monkey naming sciences FSK). It exists because it has a drive to continue eating & fucking without getting eaten or fucked. Everything that it ever does "reduces" to these principles, including morality, language, reason.

To be kind one might say he doesn't understand what reduction means. But he has spent years of effort to become a world leading philosopher so obviously that's not accurate. Also the context of the original quote makes it look a lot like he does intend the usual meaning of reduction - although that subsequent paragraph is a complete shitstorm of barely coherent gibbering and I may not be able to back up this secondary claim adequately if pressured.

More importantly, one of the major issues with his work has always been an implicit reduction of those things to that one, so it's more likely that he has come to terms with the need to make it explicit. Dumb idea though that may be.




* Evolution fulfills a bunch of religious functions in his works, it has some sort of directional quality with moral outcomes that a random force of nature probably shouldn't be imbued with.

[Iwannaplato]

The broad outlines of his argument are fairly stable: Evolution* has created a bag of meat and juices called homo sapien (in the monkey naming sciences FSK). It exists because it has a drive to continue eating & fucking without getting eaten or fucked. Everything that it ever does "reduces" to these principles, including morality, language, reason.

And Buddhism, then.
I doubt he's reading much literature.

[FlashDangerpants]

Proof - if proof were needed - that his wife has never had an orgasm can be found in the Incel reasonings of Vampire Armpit...

At present, the majority of humans are beasts and thus driven by beastly sexual lusts that end up with unplanned births.
In the future, humanity could come up with pleasures 1000 times more gratifying than sex that sexual lust is relegated as a low priority. Then human will only have sex with its relative low level of pleasure only to satisfy their inherent unavoidable maternal or paternal instincts.

[Iwannaplato]

Proof - if proof were needed - that his wife has never had an orgasm can be found in the Incel reasonings of Vampire Armpit...

At present, the majority of humans are beasts and thus driven by beastly sexual lusts that end up with unplanned births.
In the future, humanity could come up with pleasures 1000 times more gratifying than sex that sexual lust is relegated as a low priority. Then human will only have sex with its relative low level of pleasure only to satisfy their inherent unavoidable maternal or paternal instincts.

Beasts also have fear and exhibit caution. And given that we are more aware of consequences our caution and fears can cover things like creating unwanted babies. I see a deep hatred of the limbic system in VA. Ironically a very Christian (Biblican) self-hatred for our atheist friend. He has decided to question the existence of God, but not the basic Good Evil judgments that Christianity hurls at different parts of the brain. The beast within, the monstrous id, horrible sexuality. I mean, can blaming Eve be far behind, no.
He hasn't left Christianity. He's just killed daddy and taken over his role.

Transhumanism has replaced transcendence. The hatred of emotions, the body and sex remains.

And yeah, incel undercurrents...warning signs for women should be placed at the beach.

[Iwannaplato]

As long as we're here...
Anti-realism - how does this affect other minds? IOW if realism does not hold, what does that imply about our ability to know what is relevant to and is the existence of other minds. On what basis does one generalize about other minds (something VA does all the time)? And this is genuine question. I am not assuming at all one cannot generalize, I just dont see how it works out. Similarly, if anti-realism holds, and there is no independent reality and we have different minds, what does this entail about 'things'. If we are talking about VA's arguments then things might include neurons and moral facts, for examples. But in general, on what grounds can one dispute the reality of others in anti-realism? (of which i see there are 4 kinds).

On what grounds can an anti-realist tell others what they should do? How would he know his sense of reality and thus reality is the same as theirs?

It would seem like an ontological anti-realism would entail some kind of multiverse with overlapping universes. Each of us would be shifting around all the time.

I sort of like it.