CIN wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 1:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:02 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 11:01 am
To repeat - and to be ignored again - there's no evidence for the existence of the mind as a different, non-physical substance. So the expressions
mind-dependence and
mind-independence are incoherent. VA is straw-manning my argument.
And the claim that all facts are brain-dependent, including the existence of brains, is laughable gibberish.
Noted, forgot about your specific and dogmatic meaning of "what is mind" re Descartes' dualism but note,
I had mentioned before, when I write 'mind-independent' it meant independent of the human conditions.
My claim is all facts [not your perverted definition of fact] are conditioned upon a specific FSK, i.e. a collective of humans.
As such all facts are entangled, linked, enjoin and the like with the human conditions.
Peter's definition of fact is not perverted, it's the standard definition:
fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which
proof exists, or about which
there is information (
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/fact)
Nothing in that definition about being "entangled, linked, enjoin and the like with the human conditions", is there?
You are the one, not Peter, who is attempting to pervert the meaning of the word 'fact'.
Note the phrase 'proof exists' and 'there is information' entail the human conditions. There is no proving and no information relating to 'what is fact' if there are no human conditions.
As such the definition above fits my definition of what is fact, i.e.
A fact is always conditioned upon a FSK [grounded on human conditions collectively].
There can be no justification for a ridiculous claim like this. In effect you are claiming that the entire past of the universe before humans appeared simply did not happen. You are also effectively claiming that there is no life anywhere else in the universe, because humans have not yet discovered it.
You are also effectively claiming that this is the only universe, because humans have not discovered another. But now suppose we found evidence that the multiverse theory is true. This would provide a solution to the spooky-action-at-a-distance which we know exists, because all possible solutions to the collapse of the wave function would occur in some universe. Yet by your theory this ought to be impossible, because it would mean that a fact-in-itself of which no humans are currently aware (the actual existence of the multiverse) was responsible for something of which humans are aware (spooky action at a distance).
Your definition of 'fact' not only would not allow for the existence of as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts; it would actually make it impossible to talk about as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts, because 'as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans fact' would be a contradiction. Imagine what human history would have been like if this had been the case. No discovery of unknown lands, because the notion of an unknown land would involve a contradiction; no motivation to find new drugs, because the notion of an unknown drug would be contradictory; no reason to do science, because how can you find out anything new when the whole idea that there might be as yet undiscovered facts is contradictory?
I have written elsewhere,
within the common and conventional sense perspective up to Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics,
I accept there an reality that is as aspect of reality that is "independent" of the human conditions.
But such a claim of an independent reality cannot be absolute not be ideological and dogmatic.
Point is while these perspectives are independent, they are ultimately linked to the human conditions.
As such, when anyone make such a claim they must qualify their statement.
There are more refined perspective of reality e.g. Quantum Mechanics, where reality defined as
all-there-is cannot be independent of the human conditions.
If reality [whatever the facts are] is all-there-is, reality has to be comprised of human beings and the human conditions.
As such, reality, [whatever the facts are] they cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions. [A]
But Peter Holmes & gang [you included] insist A is not the case and you insist reality [whatever the facts are] is absolutely independent of the human conditions as an ideology and stuck with it dogmatically.
Your definition of 'fact' not only would not allow for the existence of as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts; it would actually make it impossible to talk about as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts, because 'as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans fact' would be a contradiction.
"Existence of as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts" is an oxymoron.
"Existence of as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans" are mere
speculations of possibilities which nevertheless must be empirically possible.
Who is saying we cannot speculate of whatever?
A speculation or hypothesis can only be a fact when the empirical evidences are verified and justified within a specific FSK.
For example, any newly discovered living things must be conditioned upon the science-biology-FSK to be accepted as a science-biology fact.
"Existence of as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts"-in-itself is an oxymoron.
Actually, your theory simply collapses into idealism. If there are no facts beyond human experience, then there can be no universe which we are not currently experiencing. Esse can only be percipi. Congratulations — Berkeley would be proud of you!
But the problem with your theory is the same problem that always haunts idealism: if there are only minds, then what is it that organises our sense-experience so that it appears to us that there is a physical universe?
Berkeley could only sustain his theory by postulating a God who does this; but there is less evidence for God than for the physical universe, so this is a backward step.
What, in your theory, causes sense-experience to seem to be of a physical universe, if the physical universe is itself created by human experience? How do you avoid the charge of explanatory circularity?
Your above is a strawman.
As stated, I can shift perspective from common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian or Einsteinian sense, where is appropriate and optimal. But I don't accept these absolutely as an ideology and dogmatically as you and Peter do. I do not accept a fact-in-itself exists and awaiting discovery by humans.
While you are charging my views as 'idealism' you are ignorant that your views of 'fact-in-itself' is the worst kind of 'idealism'.
There are many forms of idealism where the central idea involves the mind.
You believe there is an objective fact out there emitting waves to be intercepted by your sense organs and your intellect [mind] confirms that fact-in-itself exists out there, i.e.
The point is a philosophical realist can never ever achieve 100% accuracy of reality except to whatever is limited to the ability & capability of the human mind's processing of empirical evidences.
Since the limitation to truth is based on and restricted to your human
mind, you are actually an idealist [as defined] and adopting what is called
Empirical Idealism.
On the other hand what I am claiming is
Empirical Realism, i.e. what is real is conditioned upon the empirical evidences within the specific FSK. There is no 100%-accurate-facts nor reality out there to be approximated to.
What, in your theory, causes sense-experience to seem to be of a physical universe, if the physical universe is itself created by human experience? How do you avoid the charge of explanatory circularity?
Nope, that is a strawman.
I never claimed that whatever is real is created by human experience.
What I claimed is whatever is claimed as real cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
It is just that you cannot exclude the human factor in claiming what is real or a FSK-conditioned fact, e.g. a scientific-fact.
You cannot claim a scientific-fact is represented by a fact or fact-in-itself out there that is independent of the scientific-fact.
A scientific-fact is a realized fact that is real but conditioned upon the scientific-FSK.
There are the following features of what is a scientific fact or any FSK-conditioned Fact;
1. the realization process of that aspects of reality
2. the realization via a specific FSK,
3. the knowing of the FSK-conditioned fact, e.g. knowing the scientific-fact
4. the description of the FSK-conditioned fact, e.g. the communication of the scientific fact.
The OP "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" highlights the point that the Newtonian nor Einsteinian perspective of reality cannot be a claimed to be absolute, which was what Einstein did and what you are doing.
QM has proven Einstein claimed of an absolute objective independent of the human conditions is wrong, i.e.
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"