Q.E.D inter-dependent.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:01 pmFIne. You are back on ignore.
Case closed
An independent person would've just ignored me. Without telling me that they are going to ignore me.
Q.E.D inter-dependent.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:01 pmFIne. You are back on ignore.
Case closed
lmfao
The point of beating idiots at their own game using their own rules is so that they abandon the rules.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:02 pm lmfao
I find it extremely strange (moreover contradictory) that those that purport to value "philosophy" love of wisdom, choose to shut off incoming datainformation.
Your above is correct.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:46 am Is everything in the Universe dependent upon everything else - absolutely it is
Things may appear to be independent of each other but in reality this is not true
For example every object in the observable Universe exerts a gravitational force upon every other object in it too
I know that you are talking about human beings rather than objects but the principle is the same - exactly the same
Empty space is not actually empty and absolute vacuums are defined by their dimension so no separation exits in either scenario
The observable Universe has been in a continuous state of existence for the last I4 billion years so there are no gaps in reality
Ergo every member of the forum is therefore connected to every other member of the forum
We all came from stardust and have a common biological ancestry too - by which I mean four billion year old bacteria rather than apes
So whether you love everyone or hate everyone here or something in between those two extremes you are all absolutely inter connected
So group hug anyone ?
You're truly lost in space, having no logical compass. Let's do this with apples and oranges to see if you can finally get it:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am I never assert that the confidence that Science is the most credible framework is based on pure faith.
What I implied that your insistence that scientific facts represent what is real to you [as a critical realist] is based on pure faith, since you are not the one who is doing the experiments, tests, etc. to arrive at the conclusion of those scientific fact.
And so, my statement "you actually don't find the scientific framework credible" is confirmed by your own words. It might be that you claim faith is a valid criterion for credibility, but that would be absolutely foolish.You are just applying 'faith' in believing what the scientists tell you.
[...]for us who are not doing the real scientific tests and inferencing, one has to rely on faith that scientific truths are reliable.
I wouldn't have any faith in your claim that you have done "VERY extensive research on what is philosophy". It certainly doesn't show anywhere.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am I have done VERY extensive research on what is philosophy and its essence by reviewing and extracting from the context ‘philosophy’ is used within Western, Eastern and in every domain.
Your lack of comprehension and your inability to think clearly don't allow you to notice the difference between the transitive and intransitive uses of the verb to speculate, so you say these ridiculous statements. I don't need to speculate (to conjecture without knowing the complete facts) on the factual reality of things because there are reliable methods of independently verifying their objective reality, which is more than simple consensus among scientists.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am You yourself admit you are speculating; that in the ultimate sense can possibly be wrong with what is real. Note the ultimate sense not conventional sense.
You are speculating more than what Science is confirming based on observations and scientific facts are merely polished conjectures.
Your anti-realism does not accept science because science is realistic. Thomson discovers the electron, scientists tell us it is a fundamental particle of what the world is made of, and then you say electrons never really existed and they are only conjectures within a framework. That's not even close to accepting what science concludes. For arguing against the inherent realism of science you then go on in a philosophical, purely conjectural journey without much internal coherence.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Meanwhile my anti-realism [Kantian+] accept what Science concludes and I do not speculate like you do. Because Scientific facts are merely polished conjectures, my anti-realism uses critical philosophy to monitor the credibility scientific facts plus imputing moral elements and other positive elements.
You pretend to be unaware of the fact that you are denying saying exactly what you end up repeating in your denial. It is like saying: "I never claimed Nixon was real and a president, I always insisted Nixon was real and a president". I quoted you saying that what is real (C) is grounded on human conditions, but you denied you meant "grounding". I then rephrased to: what is real (C) is emergent from human conditions, and you reply: no, C is real as an emergent, dependent of human conditions. If you are going to play with words to escape from your blatant contradictions, at least don't make it look so grossly unsophisticated.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 amWhat are you talking about?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm Not so fast. You have been caught, I have actually quoted you saying what you're declaring now as "none of the above". But that's fine, now I have you on record denying that what is real emerges from or is grounded on human conditions. Then you are forcing yourself to acknowledge that there isn't a necessary relationship between what is real and human conditions, in other words, you're denying epistemic correlationism, which was the position you have been wanting to advance all along.
Read my point again, i.e.
As stated earlier, I have always insisted C is real as an emergent and cannot be independent of human conditions.
I don’t get your point?
As with so many other subjects, you're ignorant of what you're talking about this time. Here, take a look and learn something new:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am ‘Grounding’ is merely talking about the cause[s] of effects.
There is no issue with discussing about cause [ground] and effects but there is a limit to the question of ‘ground’ when the implications lead to an infinite regress or a final cause. This is where I will denial the question of ‘grounding’.
What is the problem with this?
Grounding is a topic in metaphysics. Consider an ordinary physical object, such as a table, and the atoms it is made of. Without the atoms, the table would not exist. The table's existence depends on the existence of the atoms. This kind of dependence is called "grounding" to distinguish it from other kinds of dependence, such as the dependence of an effect on its cause. It is sometimes called metaphysical or ontological dependence.
Grounding can be characterized as a relation between a ground and a grounded entity. The ground exists on a more fundamental level than the grounded entity, in the sense that the grounded entity depends for its existence or its properties on its ground.
A distinction is typically made between grounding relations and other dependence relations, such as causation[1] or realization. Grounding is often considered to be a form of non-causal determination or priority.
I asked you a specific question and you replied with several statements: A, B, and C. Then I presented A as evidence that you tend to discredit science. Your reply to that statement is that you said C. If this does not imply denying that you said A, then my evidence is good and my argument stands. If it implies denying that you said A, then you're caught lying. Your choice.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am I have read my statement.
Produce my exact statement I made and show why you think I was caught lying.
I stated there were “no ‘electrons-in-[themselves] [sic]’ before Thomson and even after Thomson. There are only electrons [not in themselves] as confirmed from the scientific framework.
Your syllogism above is poorly constructed and it does not produce that conclusion. The premises have the following structure:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am1. What is claimed to be scientific is empirically real [ albeit, polished conjectures]Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm The point is that you claim things are real ("scientifically-real") only based on intersubjectivity, and intersubjectivity is real because...intersubjectivity. This is circular reasoning and you never get to say what justifies the belief in intersubjectivity as real. As one might expect, you'll complain that this is a straw man, but I asked you a zillion times to give us an account of the reality of intersubjectivity and you have failed to deliver.
2. What is scientific is based on intersubjectivity [a process within Science].
3. Intersubjectivity is real.
The syllogism is valid and sound.
What is real within science is based critically on its testability, repeatability and significantly on positive utility.
There must be a real process [verifiable#] on intersubjective consensus which is real, otherwise scientific truths cannot be real.
# based on documents from real people, etc.
Again, realists can only be concerned with whether objects exist apart from the minds of subjects or not. The distinction is only between objects and subjects, not between some different manifestations of objects, which is a pure invention of idealists and their phenomenological approach to metaphysics. The burden of proof falls in the hands of metaphysical anti-realists that wish to advance the view that there is no ontological distinction between objects and subjects (the default, common sense view) and that objects are entirely subsumed within subjective experience, in other words, that they can ONLY exist as mind objects. Even worst for them, when they engage in such problematic demonstrations, they must inevitably undermine the basis of their own framework and are constantly shooting themselves in the feet.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am The onus is on you [as a critical realist] to prove ‘objects-as-they-are’ are transferable or correspond to independent objects-qua-object.
As a critical realist you are claiming there are objects-qua-objects that are really real [can be inferred] and existing independent of the human conditions.
The naivety which you display in your understanding of these subjects is that of a 5-year old. Another popular science article will not help you prove your point any more than the previous one. I repeat: no scientist is trying to convince, not even suggesting, that what we observe from stars are real-time events. The effect of delay in our observations of the universe is not a central theme in every astronomical description for the simple reason that it is basic common knowledge. When it comes to giving basic descriptions to the laymen, such as in this other article, the issue is dealt with without any controversy:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am That was a quickie based on common knowledge of what astronomers are discussing.
Prove to me the science communicator is wrong in commuting what real scientists in that respect are not using the same terms.
Here is an article from NASA on the same point.
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... e-galaxies
Since you are so smart, show me general common sources where ALL astronomers and physicists refer to “energy travelling long distances” in their reference to their observations and discussion of stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.
Light years also provide some helpful perspective on solar system distances: the Sun is about 8 light minutes from Earth. (And yes, there are also light seconds!) And because light from objects travels at light speed, when you see the Sun, or Jupiter or a distant star, you're seeing it as it was when the light left it, be that 8 minutes, tens of minutes or 4.3 years ago. And this is fundamental to the idea that when we're looking farther out into space, we're seeing farther back in time. (Think about it: you're seeing all the stars in the sky at different times in history — some a few years ago, others hundreds of years ago — all at the same time!)
Oh, please. Anyone with some little science background from high school knows that when talking about distances, properties of objects and events in astronomy and cosmology we are dealing with measurements made by scientists. And what do they measure? They measure light, radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, infrared rays, gamma rays, etc., that is, electromagnetic radiation, which travels at the speed of light. And guess what, all of these are forms of energy.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Since you are so smart, show me general common sources where ALL astronomers and physicists refer to “energy travelling long distances” in their reference to their observations and discussion of stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.
First, note you have not replied to the logical argument presented above. How could you explain the delay if the interaction between objects and its perception was not real?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 amThis point is not about the Problem of Induction per se.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm You have to be joking. This is not the problem of induction. Whatever delay there might be in sense-impressions, the acknowledgement of such delay implies a causal relation between the object and its perception, which would be absent if sense-impression is all there is and causality was imposed on it by an a priori category of the understanding. How could you explain the delay if the interaction between objects and its perception was not real?
This is to reemphasize there is no way you will as above is able to confirm what objects-as-what-they-are are thing-in-themselves because there is ALWAYS a reality-GAP between objects-as-they-are and objects-as-they-appear.
As already explained, the so-called delay is irrelevant. You are also contradicting yourself (again) by denying any epistemological value to the intersubjective consensus that you said conditioned the reality of things, since you say that what is conditioned and agreed by consensus as real, MUST BE NECESSARILY illusory. Therefore, scientific consensus, according to you, is fundamentally wrong. That's why also you cannot distinguish reality from hallucination. You are, of course, the one deluded.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am The delay is merely conditionally real based on conditioned objects-as-they-appear and conditioned [illusory] objects-as-they-are. In both cases, they are conditioned by human conditions. Since they are always conditioned, there are no absolutely independent objects-as-they-are in your critical realist sense, in the ultimate sense [not common sense]; you are merely insisting on an illusion thus deluded.
If the Moon is independent of human observers, then realism is true and you lost your challenge right at the moment I told you it was over (36 pages back in this thread). The problem is that you came back to discredit empirical and scientific evidence, so that ultimately, according to you, the Moon is not independent of the human observers, even when not observed. It is this last statement, that overrides the previous one, that gave us 37 more pages.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am As I have stated before, empirically and scientifically, the moon is independent of the human observers. This is so obvious with common sense and the conventional sense.
While you like to look at reality with an analogy to the Pando tree (an individual object that looks like many objects), I like to look at reality with an analogy to common trees (individual objects that look as individual objects and form sets of objects). Common trees are not completely isolated, they share connections with the rest of their environment, yet some of these connections are essential, while others are contingent. The absence or presence of those contingent connections makes very little difference to their existence.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am If you have not read this post re the Pando tree
viewtopic.php?p=519689#p519689
I insist you read it to understand why you are unable to grasp my point re the view reality in a higher sense of reality.
No, there's no such distinction for a realist, there are no two moons as two different manifestations of an abstract moon. That is purely an invention of idealists. There's the Moon. If it's a real object, it must be, in terms of sufficiency and necessity, independent of every subject's mind, and vice versa. If it's not a real object, it must be, in terms of sufficiency and necessity, dependent of every subject's mind, and vice versa. Science and senseful philosophy provide more than enough justifications to believe that the Moon is a real object, independent of every subject's mind. There's no other "higher", mystical sense, in which the Moon is both real and not real, sufficiently and necessarily dependent of every subject's mind and at the same time sufficiently and necessarily not dependent of every subject's mind. It is ridiculous.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Reflect more deeply.
Re common sense, Empirically, scientifically and conventionally, the ‘moon’ exists independent of the observer.
To you as a critical realist, there is a supposedly moon-as-it-is as different from the moon-as-it-appear to humans.
No, you have not shown solid evidence that there's such "reality gap", just conjectures that ultimately undermine your own base framework.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am But I have highlighted to you there is a Reality-Gap where it is impossible for any human to breach to the gap between the moon-as-it-appear to the supposedly moon-as-it-is in real time.
Making accurate predictions about the Moon's behavior and its properties, independent of people's opinions, is far from being a "polished conjecture". Mere speculation would have not made possible that scientists designed a rocket and landed it with people over the orbiting moon's surface.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am So you rely on the best inference to comfort yourself that your supposedly moon-as-it-is is a really real moon.
But then your best inference based on Science is merely a polished conjecture based on human conditions. In a way it is a speculation, i.e. a polished speculation that is impossible to be confirmed at all.
Will you counter it is possible?
You must ask yourself, WHY do you and the majority of humans insist upon a moon-as-it-is when it an impossibility but merely a speculation.
Note the dilemma of a terrible cognitive dissonance that force you to jump to such a conclusion.
You did not answer the question. You just said that it doesn't bother you, you mean: your lack of justification for believing something does not bother you. Isn't that hypocritical from someone bothered with other people's justification for believing something?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 amI am not bothered with ‘no direct contact’ as in the reality-Gap or sense-impressions.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm Alright, note that "no direct contact with anything" includes direct contact with sense-impressions. So, then, how you justify anything you believe?
As I had stated what is real must be verifiable and justifiable to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] where Science is the most credible but it must be supervised with critical philosophy to manage the limits.
No, you made no point. You just avoided the issue and said didn't care about thinking nonsense.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 amSee my above point.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm You just asserted "we do not have direct contact with anything". And you have claimed not having direct contact unwarrants any claim about that which someone is supposedly in contact with. So, following your own argument, there would be no possibility to verify or justify anything. Perspective becomes "anything goes".
Just read every post from you in this thread.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Show me examples where I had failed to provide rational, solid arguments, evidences, verifications and justifications.
You are missing my point.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:47 amYou're truly lost in space, having no logical compass. Let's do this with apples and oranges to see if you can finally get it:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am I never assert that the confidence that Science is the most credible framework is based on pure faith.
What I implied that your insistence that scientific facts represent what is real to you [as a critical realist] is based on pure faith, since you are not the one who is doing the experiments, tests, etc. to arrive at the conclusion of those scientific fact.
"The lay-person accepts scientific facts based purely on faith" (actual quote from VA).
Veritas Aequitas is a lay-person
Therefore, Veritas Aequitas accepts scientific facts based purely on faith.
You have confirmed this view several times:
And so, my statement "you actually don't find the scientific framework credible" is confirmed by your own words. It might be that you claim faith is a valid criterion for credibility, but that would be absolutely foolish.You are just applying 'faith' in believing what the scientists tell you.
[...]for us who are not doing the real scientific tests and inferencing, one has to rely on faith that scientific truths are reliable.
Fair enough since I have not provided the evidence.I wouldn't have any faith in your claim that you have done "VERY extensive research on what is philosophy". It certainly doesn't show anywhere.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am I have done VERY extensive research on what is philosophy and its essence by reviewing and extracting from the context ‘philosophy’ is used within Western, Eastern and in every domain.
The best method of verifying objective reality is from the scientific framework [thus a qualified scientific objectivity] and the inferences are ultimately ‘polished conjectures’.Your lack of comprehension and your inability to think clearly don't allow you to notice the difference between the transitive and intransitive uses of the verb to speculate, so you say these ridiculous statements. I don't need to speculate (to conjecture without knowing the complete facts) on the factual reality of things because there are reliable methods of independently verifying their objective reality, which is more than simple consensus among scientists.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am You yourself admit you are speculating; that in the ultimate sense can possibly be wrong with what is real. Note the ultimate sense not conventional sense.
You are speculating more than what Science is confirming based on observations and scientific facts are merely polished conjectures.
Strawman again!Your anti-realism does not accept science because science is realistic. Thomson discovers the electron, scientists tell us it is a fundamental particle of what the world is made of, and then you say electrons never really existed and they are only conjectures within a framework. That's not even close to accepting what science concludes. For arguing against the inherent realism of science you then go on in a philosophical, purely conjectural journey without much internal coherence.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Meanwhile my anti-realism [Kantian+] accept what Science concludes and I do not speculate like you do. Because Scientific facts are merely polished conjectures, my anti-realism uses critical philosophy to monitor the credibility scientific facts plus imputing moral elements and other positive elements.
Nah, the confusion is based on your ignorance.You pretend to be unaware of the fact that you are denying saying exactly what you end up repeating in your denial. It is like saying: "I never claimed Nixon was real and a president, I always insisted Nixon was real and a president".Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 amWhat are you talking about?Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm Not so fast. You have been caught, I have actually quoted you saying what you're declaring now as "none of the above". But that's fine, now I have you on record denying that what is real emerges from or is grounded on human conditions. Then you are forcing yourself to acknowledge that there isn't a necessary relationship between what is real and human conditions, in other words, you're denying epistemic correlationism, which was the position you have been wanting to advance all along.
Read my point again, i.e.
As stated earlier, I have always insisted C is real as an emergent and cannot be independent of human conditions.
I don’t get your point?
I quoted you saying that what is real (C) is grounded on human conditions, but you denied you meant "grounding". I then rephrased to: what is real (C) is emergent from human conditions, and you reply: no, C is real as an emergent, dependent of human conditions. If you are going to play with words to escape from your blatant contradictions, at least don't make it look so grossly unsophisticated.
Note your link refer to “metaphysical or ontological dependence” .. I have already stated I am not interested in chasing ontological ‘turtles’.As with so many other subjects, you're ignorant of what you're talking about this time. Here, take a look and learn something new:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am ‘Grounding’ is merely talking about the cause[s] of effects.
There is no issue with discussing about cause [ground] and effects but there is a limit to the question of ‘ground’ when the implications lead to an infinite regress or a final cause. This is where I will denial the question of ‘grounding’.
What is the problem with this?
Metaphysical Grounding
Grounding is a topic in metaphysics. Consider an ordinary physical object, such as a table, and the atoms it is made of. Without the atoms, the table would not exist. The table's existence depends on the existence of the atoms. This kind of dependence is called "grounding" to distinguish it from other kinds of dependence, such as the dependence of an effect on its cause. It is sometimes called metaphysical or ontological dependence.
Grounding can be characterized as a relation between a ground and a grounded entity. The ground exists on a more fundamental level than the grounded entity, in the sense that the grounded entity depends for its existence or its properties on its ground.
A distinction is typically made between grounding relations and other dependence relations, such as causation[1] or realization. Grounding is often considered to be a form of non-causal determination or priority.
Note my point re Thomson earlier in terms of scientific electrons and electron-in-itself.I asked you a specific question and you replied with several statements: A, B, and C. Then I presented A as evidence that you tend to discredit science. Your reply to that statement is that you said C. If this does not imply denying that you said A, then my evidence is good and my argument stands. If it implies denying that you said A, then you're caught lying. Your choice.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am I have read my statement.
Produce my exact statement I made and show why you think I was caught lying.
I stated there were “no ‘electrons-in-[themselves] [sic]’ before Thomson and even after Thomson. There are only electrons [not in themselves] as confirmed from the scientific framework.
How come you are so ignorant when this issue is so easy to fathom?Your syllogism above is poorly constructed and it does not produce that conclusion. The premises have the following structure:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am1. What is claimed to be scientific is empirically real [ albeit, polished conjectures]Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm The point is that you claim things are real ("scientifically-real") only based on intersubjectivity, and intersubjectivity is real because...intersubjectivity. This is circular reasoning and you never get to say what justifies the belief in intersubjectivity as real. As one might expect, you'll complain that this is a straw man, but I asked you a zillion times to give us an account of the reality of intersubjectivity and you have failed to deliver.
2. What is scientific is based on intersubjectivity [a process within Science].
3. Intersubjectivity is real.
The syllogism is valid and sound.
What is real within science is based critically on its testability, repeatability and significantly on positive utility.
There must be a real process [verifiable#] on intersubjective consensus which is real, otherwise scientific truths cannot be real.
# based on documents from real people, etc.
1. A is empirically real.
2. A is based on intersubjectivity.
Its actual conclusion would be: what is empirically real is based on intersubjectivity (intersubjective consensus). It does not prove that intersubjectivity is real, which was the challenge you faced. What you have stated only places the justification of the reality of intersubjectivity on more intersubjectivity, and so you can go on infinitely, without ever presenting a case for the reality of intersubjectivity that does not use intersubjectivity to ground it. It's a circular argument. For now, the reality of intersubjectivity is only an assumption in which you have faith.
Strawman again.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:53 amAgain, realists can only be concerned with whether objects exist apart from the minds of subjects or not. The distinction is only between objects and subjects, not between some different manifestations of objects, which is a pure invention of idealists and their phenomenological approach to metaphysics.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am The onus is on you [as a critical realist] to prove ‘objects-as-they-are’ are transferable or correspond to independent objects-qua-object.
As a critical realist you are claiming there are objects-qua-objects that are really real [can be inferred] and existing independent of the human conditions.
The burden of proof falls in the hands of metaphysical anti-realists that wish to advance the view that there is no ontological distinction between objects and subjects (the default, common sense view) and that objects are entirely subsumed within subjective experience, in other words, that they can ONLY exist as mind objects. Even worst for them, when they engage in such problematic demonstrations, they must inevitably undermine the basis of their own framework and are constantly shooting themselves in the feet.
I reference a link from nasa.gov and you claimed that is related to a 5 years old.The naivety which you display in your understanding of these subjects is that of a 5-year old. Another popular science article will not help you prove your point any more than the previous one. I repeat: no scientist is trying to convince, not even suggesting, that what we observe from stars are real-time events. The effect of delay in our observations of the universe is not a central theme in every astronomical description for the simple reason that it is basic common knowledge. When it comes to giving basic descriptions to the laymen, such as in this other article, the issue is dealt with without any controversy:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am That was a quickie based on common knowledge of what astronomers are discussing.
Prove to me the science communicator is wrong in commuting what real scientists in that respect are not using the same terms.
Here is an article from NASA on the same point.
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... e-galaxies
Since you are so smart, show me general common sources where ALL astronomers and physicists refer to “energy travelling long distances” in their reference to their observations and discussion of stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/1230/ ... distances/Light years also provide some helpful perspective on solar system distances: the Sun is about 8 light minutes from Earth. (And yes, there are also light seconds!) And because light from objects travels at light speed, when you see the Sun, or Jupiter or a distant star, you're seeing it as it was when the light left it, be that 8 minutes, tens of minutes or 4.3 years ago. And this is fundamental to the idea that when we're looking farther out into space, we're seeing farther back in time. (Think about it: you're seeing all the stars in the sky at different times in history — some a few years ago, others hundreds of years ago — all at the same time!)
The above is out of point.Oh, please. Anyone with some little science background from high school knows that when talking about distances, properties of objects and events in astronomy and cosmology we are dealing with measurements made by scientists. And what do they measure? They measure light, radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, infrared rays, gamma rays, etc., that is, electromagnetic radiation, which travels at the speed of light. And guess what, all of these are forms of energy.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Since you are so smart, show me general common sources where ALL astronomers and physicists refer to “energy travelling long distances” in their reference to their observations and discussion of stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.
The point that I brought up the existence of a reality-Gap [space and time] imply that the delay between the supposed ‘object’ and its perception is accountable and ‘real’.First, note you have not replied to the logical argument presented above. How could you explain the delay if the interaction between objects and its perception was not real?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 amThis point is not about the Problem of Induction per se.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm You have to be joking. This is not the problem of induction. Whatever delay there might be in sense-impressions, the acknowledgement of such delay implies a causal relation between the object and its perception, which would be absent if sense-impression is all there is and causality was imposed on it by an a priori category of the understanding. How could you explain the delay if the interaction between objects and its perception was not real?
This is to reemphasize there is no way you will as above is able to confirm what objects-as-what-they-are are thing-in-themselves because there is ALWAYS a reality-GAP between objects-as-they-are and objects-as-they-appear.
Secondly, there are plenty of ways in which the supposed "reality gap" shows to be completely irrelevant to determine whether there's a causal relation between the object and its perception. A man takes a first look at the great pyramid of Giza from nearby distance and its image makes an impression in his eyes in a fraction of milliseconds, but in this time gap the flow of impressions has not ceased, so he gets a continuous flow of impressions that give sense to the continous presence of the pyramid. We could also forget about the man and record the actual and continuous presence of the great pyramid with non-conscious instruments.
Note I will not bother with your strawman on anti-realism.As already explained, the so-called delay is irrelevant. You are also contradicting yourself (again) by denying any epistemological value to the intersubjective consensus that you said conditioned the reality of things, since you say that what is conditioned and agreed by consensus as real, MUST BE NECESSARILY illusory. Therefore, scientific consensus, according to you, is fundamentally wrong. That's why also you cannot distinguish reality from hallucination. You are, of course, the one deluded.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am The delay is merely conditionally real based on conditioned objects-as-they-appear and conditioned [illusory] objects-as-they-are. In both cases, they are conditioned by human conditions. Since they are always conditioned, there are no absolutely independent objects-as-they-are in your critical realist sense, in the ultimate sense [not common sense]; you are merely insisting on an illusion thus deluded.
Intersubjective consensus might condition our conception of objects, epistemologically speaking, but the "conditioning" that the anti-realist points at is supposedly occurring at the moment of perception of one individual, perception that remains private and therefore cannot be talked about by the anti-realist beyond that individual (which can only be the anti-realist making the claim).
So, any talk of "human conditions" in the abstract here involves very poor reasoning, it implies attributing reality to a set of individuals, supposedly conditioned themselves by the perception of the only individual the anti-realist has access to (himself). No matter how many contortions of "perspectives" the anti-realist engages with, his stance is self-defeated since the beginning, they ultimately must deny access to anything but their sense-impressions, and all objects (including subjects) are mind objects. To infer the actual existence of those subjects by conceptualization, empirical verification, intersubjective consensus, or whatever, is the same procedure they deny to realists. Their ultimate frontier is solipsism.
Strawman again!If the Moon is independent of human observers, then realism is true and you lost your challenge right at the moment I told you it was over (36 pages back in this thread). The problem is that you came back to discredit empirical and scientific evidence, so that ultimately, according to you, the Moon is not independent of the human observers, even when not observed. It is this last statement, that overrides the previous one, that gave us 37 more pages.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am As I have stated before, empirically and scientifically, the moon is independent of the human observers. This is so obvious with common sense and the conventional sense.
Note that is an analogy.While you like to look at reality with an analogy to the Pando tree (an individual object that looks like many objects), I like to look at reality with an analogy to common trees (individual objects that look as individual objects and form sets of objects).Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am If you have not read this post re the Pando tree
viewtopic.php?p=519689#p519689
I insist you read it to understand why you are unable to grasp my point re the view reality in a higher sense of reality.
Common trees are not completely isolated, they share connections with the rest of their environment, yet some of these connections are essential, while others are contingent. The absence or presence of those contingent connections makes very little difference to their existence.
Strawman again, where did I state there are two moons?No, there's no such distinction for a realist, there are no two moons as two different manifestations of an abstract moon. That is purely an invention of idealists. There's the Moon. If it's a real object, it must be, in terms of sufficiency and necessity, independent of every subject's mind, and vice versa. If it's not a real object, it must be, in terms of sufficiency and necessity, dependent of every subject's mind, and vice versa. Science and senseful philosophy provide more than enough justifications to believe that the Moon is a real object, independent of every subject's mind. There's no other "higher", mystical sense, in which the Moon is both real and not real, sufficiently and necessarily dependent of every subject's mind and at the same time sufficiently and necessarily not dependent of every subject's mind. It is ridiculous.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Reflect more deeply.
Re common sense, Empirically, scientifically and conventionally, the ‘moon’ exists independent of the observer.
To you as a critical realist, there is a supposedly moon-as-it-is as different from the moon-as-it-appear to humans.
What??No, you have not shown solid evidence that there's such "reality gap", just conjectures that ultimately undermine your own base framework.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am But I have highlighted to you there is a Reality-Gap where it is impossible for any human to breach to the gap between the moon-as-it-appear to the supposedly moon-as-it-is in real time.
You cannot deny the principle that at best scientific conclusions are ‘polished conjectures’.Making accurate predictions about the Moon's behavior and its properties, independent of people's opinions, is far from being a "polished conjecture". Mere speculation would have not made possible that scientists designed a rocket and landed it with people over the orbiting moon's surface.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am So you rely on the best inference to comfort yourself that your supposedly moon-as-it-is is a really real moon.
But then your best inference based on Science is merely a polished conjecture based on human conditions. In a way it is a speculation, i.e. a polished speculation that is impossible to be confirmed at all.
Will you counter it is possible?
You must ask yourself, WHY do you and the majority of humans insist upon a moon-as-it-is when it an impossibility but merely a speculation.
Note the dilemma of a terrible cognitive dissonance that force you to jump to such a conclusion.
Note I presented an alternative to what is more reliable than your need for contact.You did not answer the question. You just said that it doesn't bother you, you mean: your lack of justification for believing something does not bother you. Isn't that hypocritical from someone bothered with other people's justification for believing something?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 amI am not bothered with ‘no direct contact’ as in the reality-Gap or sense-impressions.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm Alright, note that "no direct contact with anything" includes direct contact with sense-impressions. So, then, how you justify anything you believe?
As I had stated what is real must be verifiable and justifiable to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] where Science is the most credible but it must be supervised with critical philosophy to manage the limits.
Note again what is most realistic is based on the scientific framework and its requirement. How you define ‘contact’ is irrelevant to Science?No, you made no point. You just avoided the issue and said didn't care about thinking nonsense.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 amSee my above point.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm You just asserted "we do not have direct contact with anything". And you have claimed not having direct contact unwarrants any claim about that which someone is supposedly in contact with. So, following your own argument, there would be no possibility to verify or justify anything. Perspective becomes "anything goes".
That’s a cheapo.Just read every post from you in this thread.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Show me examples where I had failed to provide rational, solid arguments, evidences, verifications and justifications.
1. What a pity that you have to come back and make all kinds of contortions to hide the fact that you completely flunked on your defense of the credibility of science based on faith and consensus. What a mess.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:47 am You are missing my point.
First why scientific knowledge is credible [...]
[...] from the real test results by other scientists, communications and real documentation of consensus among the relevant parties [the scientists involved].
Nope. Your cheapo straw man arguments will not convince a 2-year old.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:33 am I reference a link from nasa.gov and you claimed that is related to a 5 years old.
In this case, that you’re using the same nasa.gov is also related to a 5 years old.
You are merely babbling and making noises without reference to the details of the arguments. You are running out of argument to counter my views and address the challenge of the OP.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:22 pm1. What a pity that you have to come back and make all kinds of contortions to hide the fact that you completely flunked on your defense of the credibility of science based on faith and consensus. What a mess.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:47 am You are missing my point.
First why scientific knowledge is credible [...]
[...] from the real test results by other scientists, communications and real documentation of consensus among the relevant parties [the scientists involved].
2. Your incompetence in finding out in "Google and books" what philosophy actually is these days, deserves more pity.
3. The same for you having to correct your own statements about Thomson and electrons. Coherence and consistency are not your best friends.
4. I caught you lying again and you will avoid as much as possible the evidence that you said "what is real (C) is emergent from human conditions".
5. If you're not interested in "ontological turtles", don't imply ontological committments in your arguments. Stick to epistemology and embrace your own epistemological nihilism.
6. You're absolutely right, your argument did "not prove directly that intersubjectivity is real." I had told you so many times: the circular argument that you keep peddling is not going anywhere. The challenge still remains, but please learn to make a basic syllogism.
You have just triggered all the individualists and they will now proceed to prove you wrong by burning your shit down in a rage of denial.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:46 am Is everything in the Universe dependent upon everything else - absolutely it is
Things may appear to be independent of each other but in reality this is not true
For example every object in the observable Universe exerts a gravitational force upon every other object in it too
I know that you are talking about human beings rather than objects but the principle is the same - exactly the same
Empty space is not actually empty and absolute vacuums are defined by their dimension so no separation exits in either scenario
The observable Universe has been in a continuous state of existence for the last I4 billion years so there are no gaps in reality
Ergo every member of the forum is therefore connected to every other member of the forum
We all came from stardust and have a common biological ancestry too - by which I mean four billion year old bacteria rather than apes
So whether you love everyone or hate everyone here or something in between those two extremes you are all absolutely inter connected
Now group hug anyone ?
To most of the biological world, everything looks like dinner, and everything lives by eating everything else. The world is just a giant banquet--mangia bene!surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:46 am We all came from stardust and have a common biological ancestry too - by which I mean four billion year old bacteria rather than apes
So whether you love everyone or hate everyone here or something in between those two extremes you are all absolutely inter connected
Now group hug anyone ?
Nah, there's simply no point in trying to present extensive arguments that you will avoid dealing with, while resorting to your usual dogmatic mantras. It is not that I'm out of arguments, they are there, still unanswered and not dealt with properly, and apparently too much for what your idealist cult can handle.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 6:58 am You are merely babbling and making noises without reference to the details of the arguments. You are running out of argument to counter my views and address the challenge of the OP.
This is a perfect example of what I've been saying. Your childish, silly naivety to produce such laughable arguments is baffling. I mean, you really expect me and everyone else to buy into the notion that "research" means googling and reading books from a couch in your home. One has to be really stupid to entertain such a vulgar, pedestrian notion, in a debate forum dedicated to a complex issue from a particular discipline. No different than anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, climate change deniers and alternative medicine and nutrition gurus feeling entitled to lecture the rest of the world based on their "own research" expertise.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 6:58 am This is nonsensical from you.
For example, where else can one begin to research on 'what is philosophy' if not from books and at present from an extensive search from 'google'?
I had made the attempt to exhaust all the books accessible by me [re Western, Eastern, and everywhere] and from google.
As stated I made an attempt to extract the essence of 'what is philosophy' from all the definitions of 'what is philosophy' I have collected.