What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Am I right to think you claim that any use of language is metaphorical - that we have to use metaphors to talk about anything - that we have to use 'figure[s] of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable' - because there's no such thing as a literal use of language? For example, the expressions 'here are two dogs' and 'synaptic firing occurs in brains' are metaphors.

Your problem is your philosophical thinking is too narrow, shallow, and dogmatic on a one-track-mind.
You need to consider seriously all the various alternatives perspectives to your views and should not hold them too dogmatically and fundamentalistically.

Note this alternative perspective:

Metaphors We Live By is a book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson published in 1980.[1][2]
The book suggests metaphor is a tool that enables people to use what they know about their direct physical and social experiences to understand more abstract things like work, time, mental activity and feelings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphors_We_Live_By

In cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, or cognitive metaphor, refers to the understanding of one idea, or conceptual domain, in terms of another. An example of this is the understanding of quantity in terms of directionality (e.g. "the price of peace is rising") or the understanding of time in terms of money (e.g. "I spent time at work today").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor

[Atla]

Beware labels and their baggage. For example, belief in the 'real' existence of Platonic forms used to be called philosophical realism - as IWP has been pointing out. So it's better to assert actual beliefs, claims and arguments, rather than rely on labels. And here's VA spelling out his position again.

'My principle is this;
whatever is real, exists, true, factual, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most objective.'

Assuming 'conditioning' here refers to some kind of dependence, VA says that reality - whatever exists - depends on human ways of knowing and describing it. And this is obviously nonsense, because it mistakes what we know and say about things for the way things are.

That we have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways does not entail the conclusion that reality is the way(s) we perceive, know and describe it. That just doesn't follow - and besides, it's an absurdly anthropocentric claim.

Also, the natural science objectivity that VA commends can have no other source than its capacity to explain the way(s) reality actually is - how ever provisional and revisable such explanations are. Without this capacity, the notion of degrees of objectivity is incoherent. Why is physics 'more objective' than astrology - and how can we know it is? VA's theory can't explain.

Strawman. You are shooting your own self-made strawman. I have never agreed to the below;
PH: Assuming 'conditioning' here refers to some kind of dependence, VA says that reality - whatever exists - depends on human ways of knowing and describing it. And this is obviously nonsense, because it mistakes what we know and say about things for the way things are.

We have gone through this a 'million' times and I have highlighted your strawman and explained my position in detail, but you have not bothered to understand [not necessary agree with] my explanations.

Here they are again are my explanations;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

For your intellectual integrity sake, give in your own words, what is your understanding [not agreement or disagreement] of my thesis above.
The gist of it is, there is prior emergence and realization process before humans perceive, know and describe that reality as knowledge.

It is imperative you understand a thesis fully and properly before you counter it.

What is the point of reinventing the realist wheel with this "emergence and realization" thing, when the realist wheel was round and your reinvented wheel is rectangular and magical? Why would people adopt your views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is the point of reinventing the realist wheel with this "emergence and realization" thing, when the realist wheel was round and your reinvented wheel is rectangular and magical? Why would people adopt your views?

I am not here to expect any one to adopt my views, but rather I am here to refresh express what I have learned for my selfish interests.

The fact is the sense-of-externalness which is critical to facilitate survival had been embedded in all living things since the first cell living things since 3.5 billion years ago.
This is an adapted evolutionary default that has evolved within the self-conscious human being as the existence of mind-independence external things.
This sense of externalness and mind-independence [body or self independence] is still critical to facilitate survival and well-being to enable humanity to flourish.
So, I am not insisting humanity should do away with this sense-of-externalness in understanding external reality in one perspective.

The problem is realists insist on the philosophical view of realism [philosophical and metaphysical as an ideology and clinging to it dogmatically and fundamentalistically, i.e. my way or the highway without compromise.
Unfortunately this is very natural, instinctual for the majority since it is an adapted evolutionary default to clasp on this sense-of-externalness as an ideological belief.

As human evolved further, it is noted that some old truths need to be abandoned, e.g. the flat-Earth and geocentric beliefs, and some others need to be complemented with alternative theories without being dogmatic to any old theories.

While the sense of externalness had been grasp as a dogmatic ideology, perhaps necessary to some extent, a % of more evolved humans had noticed the pros of realism is outweighed by its cons.
For example theistic realism, i.e. the belief of an absolutely mind-independent God exists external to the human self is waning as more people are able to wean off the belief of a God. It is undeniable that while the belief in a God has provided therapeutic soteriological states, theistic realism had also brought forth a load of terrible evils, hindering progressive knowledge and it is still doing so at present.
Philosophical realists had abetted in the progress of morality with the moral relativism and moral skepticism.
Realism had also hindered progress in many other fields of knowledge, e.g. Quantum Physics, cognitive sciences, etc.

In view of the above, the small % of more enlightened individuals and groups has introduced various counters of philosophical realism, i.e. grouped as ANTI-philosophical_realism which do not represent any group belief but has their own approach in countering realism. What is common with them is that they OPPOSE, thus are ANTI-philosophical_realism, just like groups who are ANTI-communism having their own specific beliefs. For example the anti-realism of Berkeley, i.e. Subjective Idealism is in total contrast to Kant's Transcendental Idealism.

Being ANTI-philosophical_realism is not easy for many, because with the insight of the limits of realism, some may have to go through a phase of 'cold turkey' to overcome the old instinct of realism or sense-of-external_ness.

What are the advantage of Kantian ANTI-philosophical_Realism over philosophical-realism:
There are a tons and I have a long list of it.
Here is some from ChatGpt* [with reservations].
* In this case, I prompted ChatGpt to answer as a Kantian ANTI-Philosophical Realist.

Kantian anti-philosophical realism, specifically Transcendental Idealism, presents several advantages over traditional philosophical realism in various domains such as epistemology, morality, social sciences, and more. Here are some key advantages:

Epistemology: Kantian anti-philosophical realism provides a coherent framework for understanding the nature of knowledge. By emphasizing the role of the mind in structuring experience through categories such as space, time, and causality, it offers a solution to the problem of how we can have knowledge of the external world despite the limitations of our senses. This framework acknowledges the active role of the mind in shaping our perception of reality, leading to a more nuanced understanding of how we acquire knowledge.

Morality: Kantian anti-philosophical realism offers a robust foundation for moral philosophy. Kant's emphasis on rational autonomy and the categorical imperative provides a framework for moral decision-making that is grounded in the inherent dignity and autonomy of human beings. Unlike some forms of philosophical realism that may struggle to account for the objectivity of moral principles, Kantian ethics provides a universalizable basis for ethical judgments, which can guide individuals and societies in navigating moral dilemmas.

Social Sciences: Kantian anti-philosophical realism offers insights into the nature of human society and social institutions. By emphasizing the role of human reason and autonomy, it provides a framework for understanding social phenomena such as politics, law, and culture. Kantian ethics, with its emphasis on respect for persons as ends in themselves, can inform theories of justice and human rights, offering a normative foundation for social and political analysis.

Sciences: Kantian anti-philosophical realism can enhance our understanding of the natural sciences by providing a framework for understanding the relationship between empirical observations and theoretical concepts. Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena acknowledges the limitations of our empirical knowledge while also affirming the possibility of scientific inquiry into the underlying structures of reality. This perspective encourages scientists to critically reflect on the epistemological assumptions underlying their research and to recognize the role of human cognition in shaping scientific theories.

Overall, Kantian anti-philosophical realism offers a rich and nuanced framework for understanding the nature of reality, knowledge, and morality. By emphasizing the active role of the mind in shaping our understanding of the world, it provides a foundation for addressing key questions in epistemology, ethics, social sciences, and the natural sciences.

[Atla]

I am not here to expect any one to adopt my views, but rather I am here to refresh express what I have learned for my selfish interests.

The fact is the sense-of-externalness which is critical to facilitate survival had been embedded in all living things since the first cell living things since 3.5 billion years ago.

See, two sentences into your comment and you're already so wrong, and this was pointed out before. What could be more obvious than that a single-celled organism can't have a sense of externalness? Don't you know what a cell is?

This is an adapted evolutionary default that has evolved within the self-conscious human being as the existence of mind-independence external things.
This sense of externalness and mind-independence [body or self independence] is still critical to facilitate survival and well-being to enable humanity to flourish.
So, I am not insisting humanity should do away with this sense-of-externalness in understanding external reality in one perspective.

The problem is realists insist on the philosophical view of realism [philosophical and metaphysical as an ideology and clinging to it dogmatically and fundamentalistically, i.e. my way or the highway without compromise.
Unfortunately this is very natural, instinctual for the majority since it is an adapted evolutionary default to clasp on this sense-of-externalness as an ideological belief.

As human evolved further, it is noted that some old truths need to be abandoned, e.g. the flat-Earth and geocentric beliefs, and some others need to be complemented with alternative theories without being dogmatic to any old theories.

That's something Age would say. But the flat-Earth and geocentric beliefs were disproven, realism wasn't. Do you see the difference?

While the sense of externalness had been grasp as a dogmatic ideology, perhaps necessary to some extent, a % of more evolved humans had noticed the pros of realism is outweighed by its cons.
For example theistic realism, i.e. the belief of an absolutely mind-independent God exists external to the human self is waning as more people are able to wean off the belief of a God. It is undeniable that while the belief in a God has provided therapeutic soteriological states, theistic realism had also brought forth a load of terrible evils, hindering progressive knowledge and it is still doing so at present.
Philosophical realists had abetted in the progress of morality with the moral relativism and moral skepticism.
Realism had also hindered progress in many other fields of knowledge, e.g. Quantum Physics, cognitive sciences, etc.

In view of the above, the small % of more enlightened individuals and groups has introduced various counters of philosophical realism, i.e. grouped as ANTI-philosophical_realism which do not represent any group belief but has their own approach in countering realism. What is common with them is that they OPPOSE, thus are ANTI-philosophical_realism, just like groups who are ANTI-communism having their own specific beliefs. For example the anti-realism of Berkeley, i.e. Subjective Idealism is in total contrast to Kant's Transcendental Idealism.

Being ANTI-philosophical_realism is not easy for many, because with the insight of the limits of realism, some may have to go through a phase of 'cold turkey' to overcome the old instinct of realism or sense-of-external_ness.

That's where we disagree the most, the pros of realism outweigh the cons.
First of all, realism is probably true and anti-realism is probably false. Having to live another lie globally could lead to more trouble.

Also, switching to your anti-realism globally would probably lead to mental illness worldwide as the human brain/mind would be forced to operate contrary to its design.

Theism would probably get worse as now people would simply switch to non-mind-independent gods, those who didn't already. Atheism would probably decrease globally as there would be no godless objective reality to compare things to. In particular, Islam would probably get stronger and in time become the dominant religion on the planet.

90%+ of people wouldn't understand the rest of your anti-god system. If they could, it would still be easier to implement in realism.

In short you would probably doom humanity further. So much for "more evolved" humans.

[Peter Holmes]

Beware labels and their baggage. For example, belief in the 'real' existence of Platonic forms used to be called philosophical realism - as IWP has been pointing out. So it's better to assert actual beliefs, claims and arguments, rather than rely on labels. And here's VA spelling out his position again.

'My principle is this;
whatever is real, exists, true, factual, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most objective.'

Assuming 'conditioning' here refers to some kind of dependence, VA says that reality - whatever exists - depends on human ways of knowing and describing it. And this is obviously nonsense, because it mistakes what we know and say about things for the way things are.

That we have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways does not entail the conclusion that reality is the way(s) we perceive, know and describe it. That just doesn't follow - and besides, it's an absurdly anthropocentric claim.

Also, the natural science objectivity that VA commends can have no other source than its capacity to explain the way(s) reality actually is - how ever provisional and revisable such explanations are. Without this capacity, the notion of degrees of objectivity is incoherent. Why is physics 'more objective' than astrology - and how can we know it is? VA's theory can't explain.

Strawman. You are shooting your own self-made strawman. I have never agreed to the below;
PH: Assuming 'conditioning' here refers to some kind of dependence, VA says that reality - whatever exists - depends on human ways of knowing and describing it. And this is obviously nonsense, because it mistakes what we know and say about things for the way things are.

We have gone through this a 'million' times and I have highlighted your strawman and explained my position in detail, but you have not bothered to understand [not necessary agree with] my explanations.

Here they are again are my explanations;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

For your intellectual integrity sake, give in your own words, what is your understanding [not agreement or disagreement] of my thesis above.
The gist of it is, there is prior emergence and realization process before humans perceive, know and describe that reality as knowledge.

It is imperative you understand a thesis fully and properly before you counter it.

1 Along with everyone else here, I've been thinking about your argument for ages. And, for the life of me, I don't see why you think I'm straw manning you. Here's your credo again.

'whatever is real, exists, true, factual, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most objective.'

Now, notice you don't say (to paraphrase): 'whatever WE THINK is real / exists / is factual...is conditioned upon, etc'. (That's an epistemological claim, which I think is true - given some clarification.)

No, what you say (to paraphrase) is: 'whatever IS real / exists / is factual...is conditioned upon, etc'.

And that is not a claim about epistemology - belief or knowledge. It's an ontological or metaphysical claim - a claim about the nature of reality.

And, by the way, your flannel about the 'emergence and realisation' of reality before it can be perceived, known and described - is utterly irrelevant. It has no bearing on what we're discussing. We're arguing about what reality is - 'whatever is real, exists...' - not the fact that reality has evolved over billions of years.

2 To my recollection, you've never explained what 'is conditioned by' in your credo means.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Beware labels and their baggage. For example, belief in the 'real' existence of Platonic forms used to be called philosophical realism - as IWP has been pointing out. So it's better to assert actual beliefs, claims and arguments, rather than rely on labels. And here's VA spelling out his position again.

'My principle is this;
whatever is real, exists, true, factual, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most objective.'

Assuming 'conditioning' here refers to some kind of dependence, VA says that reality - whatever exists - depends on human ways of knowing and describing it. And this is obviously nonsense, because it mistakes what we know and say about things for the way things are.

That we have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways does not entail the conclusion that reality is the way(s) we perceive, know and describe it. That just doesn't follow - and besides, it's an absurdly anthropocentric claim.

Also, the natural science objectivity that VA commends can have no other source than its capacity to explain the way(s) reality actually is - how ever provisional and revisable such explanations are. Without this capacity, the notion of degrees of objectivity is incoherent. Why is physics 'more objective' than astrology - and how can we know it is? VA's theory can't explain.

Strawman. You are shooting your own self-made strawman. I have never agreed to the below;
PH: Assuming 'conditioning' here refers to some kind of dependence, VA says that reality - whatever exists - depends on human ways of knowing and describing it. And this is obviously nonsense, because it mistakes what we know and say about things for the way things are.

We have gone through this a 'million' times and I have highlighted your strawman and explained my position in detail, but you have not bothered to understand [not necessary agree with] my explanations.

Here they are again are my explanations;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

For your intellectual integrity sake, give in your own words, what is your understanding [not agreement or disagreement] of my thesis above.
The gist of it is, there is prior emergence and realization process before humans perceive, know and describe that reality as knowledge.

It is imperative you understand a thesis fully and properly before you counter it.

1 Along with everyone else here, I've been thinking about your argument for ages. And, for the life of me, I don't see why you think I'm straw manning you. Here's your credo again.

'whatever is real, exists, true, factual, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most objective.'

Now, notice you don't say (to paraphrase): 'whatever WE THINK is real / exists / is factual...is conditioned upon, etc'. (That's an epistemological claim, which I think is true - given some clarification.)

No, what you say (to paraphrase) is: 'whatever IS real / exists / is factual...is conditioned upon, etc'.

And that is not a claim about epistemology - belief or knowledge. It's an ontological or metaphysical claim - a claim about the nature of reality.

And, by the way, your flannel about the 'emergence and realisation' of reality before it can be perceived, known and described - is utterly irrelevant. It has no bearing on what we're discussing. We're arguing about what reality is - 'whatever is real, exists...' - not the fact that reality has evolved over billions of years.

2 To my recollection, you've never explained what 'is conditioned by' in your credo means.

Yes, I have not dig into 'what is conditioned' in details because I thought it is easily understood.

I think this dictionary [google] meaning is quite sufficient;
Conditioned = "have a significant influence on or determine (the manner or outcome of something)."

If you don't get I will have to dig into the philosophical meaning of "conditioned".

First, do not resort to the term 'mind-dependent' or human-dependent to contrast 'mind-independent'.
'whatever is real, exists, true, factual, knowledge and objective is conditioned [significantly influenced by] upon specific human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most objective.'
Therefore it follows, whatever is real, exists, true, factual, knowledge and objective cannot be absolutely independent of whatever the human conditions.
This contra the realists' claim [1] that reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
To achieve an absolutely true claim of [1] you will need to be an independent omni-whatever God, but you are merely a fallible and limited human being.
As it often mentioned by many antirealist philosophers, you as a human cannot have a God-eye-view to make your claim as valid.
Thus within the most rigorous requirement, your realism claim cannot be tenable.

That

god’s-eye view

of the world I was hoping for is a fully third-person view. I

t is a perfectly objective perspective on a perfectly objective reality existing without reference to life or human experience.

It is a view of the world you can take if you imagine yourself floating from an imaginary, disembodied viewpoint in space.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/sciences-gods ... y-fiction/

Do you get this point?

I have also argued in many threads there are two sense of what is real, exists, true, factual, knowledge and objective, i.e.
1. The human-based FSRK sense which is most realistic, e.g. science-FSRK.
2. The philosophical realist mind-independent sense which is grounded on illusions.
Do you understand my charge that you are grounding your claim on illusions?

It is critical you understand [not agree] to my views.
I understand this is a tough call for you in your current psychological state.

And, by the way, your flannel about the 'emergence and realisation' of reality before it can be perceived, known and described - is utterly irrelevant. It has no bearing on what we're discussing. We're arguing about what reality is - 'whatever is real, exists...' - not the fact that reality has evolved over billions of years.

I suggest you suspend judgment on this point.
Suggest you make an attempt to understand thoroughly [not agree] what I am trying to convey.
You cannot simply brush it off because you do not understand my point.
I have already explain why you are unable to get to my point is due to your dogmatic ideology driven by very strong psychological defence mechanisms.

Try and picture why a dogmatic fundamentalistically theist can never understand the non-theistic view, and in some cases will even kill non-theists for what they are.
You are in exactly the same shoe in lesser degree than the resistant theists who just cannot understand [not agree] the view that there is no God. Btw, fortunately, you are merely resisting not killing.

[Peter Holmes]

'whatever is real, exists...is conditioned [significantly influenced by] upon specific human-based FSRK

This is your main claim, and it's false.

Therefore it follows, whatever is real, exists, true, factual, knowledge and objective cannot be absolutely independent of whatever the human conditions.

False, and very obviously so.

This contra the realists' claim [1] that reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Your implied claim is that, if there were no humans, there would be no reality. And this is false, because all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved - so its existence cannot have been 'conditioned upon' or 'significantly influenced by' humans and our knowledge. What you say is demonstrably false. And absurd.

[Harbal]

Your implied claim is that, if there were no humans, there would be no reality. And this is false, because all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved - so its existence cannot have been 'conditioned upon' or 'significantly influenced by' humans and our knowledge. What you say is demonstrably false. And absurd.

Do you know what VA actually believes, when it comes down to fundamentals? I can't ask him myself, because he refuses to have anything to do with me.

Surely he doesn't deny there is some sort of "reality" that exists independently of who, or what, is or isn't observing it. When he says things like, the moon doesn't exist when no one is looking at it, he just means that no human perception of what we call the moon exists, doesn't he? But he realises that the state of affairs that constituted the raw data (noumena) out of which we formed our perception still exists, right?

[Atla]

[Peter Holmes]

Your implied claim is that, if there were no humans, there would be no reality. And this is false, because all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved - so its existence cannot have been 'conditioned upon' or 'significantly influenced by' humans and our knowledge. What you say is demonstrably false. And absurd.

Do you know what VA actually believes, when it comes down to fundamentals? I can't ask him myself, because he refuses to have anything to do with me.

Surely he doesn't deny there is some sort of "reality" that exists independently of who, or what, is or isn't observing it. When he says things like, the moon doesn't exist when no one is looking at it, he just means that no human perception of what we call the moon exists, doesn't he? But he realises that the state of affairs that constituted the raw data (noumena) out of which we formed our perception still exists, right?

I'll put it to him.

I say, VA, do you deny that some sort of "reality" exists independently of who or what is or isn't observing it? A yes or no answer will suffice. Just asking for a friend.

[Harbal]

Your implied claim is that, if there were no humans, there would be no reality. And this is false, because all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved - so its existence cannot have been 'conditioned upon' or 'significantly influenced by' humans and our knowledge. What you say is demonstrably false. And absurd.

Do you know what VA actually believes, when it comes down to fundamentals? I can't ask him myself, because he refuses to have anything to do with me.

Surely he doesn't deny there is some sort of "reality" that exists independently of who, or what, is or isn't observing it. When he says things like, the moon doesn't exist when no one is looking at it, he just means that no human perception of what we call the moon exists, doesn't he? But he realises that the state of affairs that constituted the raw data (noumena) out of which we formed our perception still exists, right?

I'll put it to him.

I say, VA, do you deny that some sort of "reality" exists independently of who or what is or isn't observing it? A yes or no answer will suffice. Just asking for a friend.

Don't tell him it came from me, whatever you do.

[Atla]

Your implied claim is that, if there were no humans, there would be no reality. And this is false, because all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved - so its existence cannot have been 'conditioned upon' or 'significantly influenced by' humans and our knowledge. What you say is demonstrably false. And absurd.

Do you know what VA actually believes, when it comes down to fundamentals? I can't ask him myself, because he refuses to have anything to do with me.

Surely he doesn't deny there is some sort of "reality" that exists independently of who, or what, is or isn't observing it. When he says things like, the moon doesn't exist when no one is looking at it, he just means that no human perception of what we call the moon exists, doesn't he? But he realises that the state of affairs that constituted the raw data (noumena) out of which we formed our perception still exists, right?

I'll put it to him.

I say, VA, do you deny that some sort of "reality" exists independently of who or what is or isn't observing it? A yes or no answer will suffice. Just asking for a friend.

That's like all VA ever talks about. That such a reality cannot exist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

'whatever is real, exists...is conditioned [significantly influenced by] upon specific human-based FSRK

This is your main claim, and it's false.

How is it false?

Therefore it follows, whatever is real, exists, true, factual, knowledge and objective cannot be absolutely independent of whatever the human conditions.

False, and very obviously so.

How is it obviously false?
We have gone through this many times.
I have claimed the most credible and objective is the human-based [conditioned] scientific FSRK that generates scientific facts.
Are you insisting scientific facts are not objective and are false?

I have also claimed with justifications that before things are verified and justified by science, they emerged and is realized by human prior to be seen, verified and justified as objective.

This contra the realists' claim [1] that reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Your implied claim is that, if there were no humans, there would be no reality. And this is false, because all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved - so its existence cannot have been 'conditioned upon' or 'significantly influenced by' humans and our knowledge. What you say is demonstrably false. And absurd.

We have also gone through this a 'million' times. My argument as below;
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

Again you are relying on the crude and conventional senses, but in a more refined reflection at the meta-level;
note your "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved"
your above evidence and conclusion is speculated and inferred via the human-based science cosmological FSRK.
Because it is human-based, logically it follows, the above conclusion of reality must be conditioned [significantly influenced] by the human factor.

I can accept your all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" but only within a relative basis, i.e. relative to humans and the human-based scientific FSRK.

Your "all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" cannot be absolutely independent of human factors as if claimed for a God's eye view.

1. The human-based scientific FSRK is not absolutely independent of human influence [conditions].
2. The human-based scientific FSRK generate scientific facts.
3. The inference all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" is a scientific fact.
4. Therefore all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" cannot be absolutely independent of human influence [conditions] [1].

How can you counter the above argument?
Note you need to consider the difference the consideration between common conventional sense and meta-level.

There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The FSRK sense and 2. The Dogmatic realist human independent sense.

Your inability to see my point of view is you are stuck in only one dogmatic paradigm and ideology of reality, i.e. reality and things there in are absolutely independent of humans.
This basis is delusional.

[Peter Holmes]

I can accept your all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" but only within a relative basis, i.e. relative to humans and the human-based scientific FSRK.

Have a really hard think about this hypothetical premise.

If the universe existed long before humans evolved, then the universe did and does not exist 'relative to humans and the human-based scientific FSRK'.

You agree with the antecedent, so I think you must agree with the consequent. And notice, this makes no claim about the ways we humans perceive and know the universe. It's not about knowledge at all.

[Atla]

Because it is human-based, logically it follows, the above conclusion of reality must be conditioned [significantly influenced] by the human factor.

I can accept your all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved" but only within a relative basis, i.e. relative to humans and the human-based scientific FSRK.

The problem is that "logic" is something you don't understand. If you use logic and then don't use logic, overall that's not logical.

If you want to be convincing, you have to use logic all the time, not just when it's advantageous for your attempt to destroy Islam. This may not be apparent to you, but it's apparent to most of the people you are trying to convince with your writings.

Yes it's logical that any conclusion about reality is significantly influenced by the human factor. But it goes both ways, since ALL conclusion is significantly influenced by the human factor, that factor is universal and therefore generally not relevant when we are talking about particular things.

So this is just illogical:

but only within a relative basis, i.e. relative to humans and the human-based scientific FSRK.

Such a relative basis is not relevant because it's universal and always the same. So it's not relevant to particular things.

So we are left with:

all the evidence we have indicates that the universe existed long before humans evolved

as the best view. And the ontological standing of that relative basis is ultimately unknowable. The best guess is that it's probably not relevant enough to overthrow realism, just modifiy it as it already has.