PH Believes in an Independent Soul

[Agent Smith]

Aah! we're on that page?

Yep! Did ya zone out there?

Yeah! Silly me! Pages, pages, pages ...

Page 124.

Lemme see! There you are, page 125! Tea stains!

Page 1-2-4!

I could say something really interesting about, you know, that!!

Shhh!

[Iwannaplato]

I guarantee you, there will be positive payoffs when you remove the 4 billion years old cobwebs.

I guarantee you, you'll have better luck changing people's minds with reasons instead of guarantees. It's easy to say "I guarantee it" than it is to show why they should change their mind.

The posters here are so sparse, even IF I change the minds of everyone here, it has no significance to humanity at all.
So, I am not in the changing minds business here.
What I am doing here is merely refreshing the knowledge I have acquired for my personal interests.

The above is a personal belief and conviction [inferred from empirical evidences] which I am entitled to express without expecting anyone to agree with it.

This is an old rhetorical device, essentially a specific case of a strawman. IOW he acts as if FJ was challenging his entitlement to express his guarantees.

By the way, where are entitltements and how does one look at them so they exist?

[Flannel Jesus]

Also, "4 billion year old cobwebs" certainly seems like the sort of belief a realist would have. If your position is that we don't know anything about reality and we shouldn't speculate that we do, then... what kind of speculations do you think are involved in thinking anybody has 4 billion year old anything? 4 billion years ago, humans didn't exist according to our best science, so you're either speculating on the existence of things that no human being perceived or knew about, OR you're speculating that regardless of what our best science says, humans have existed for 4 billion years.

Did something exist prior to human beings 4 billion years ago?

All humans evolved [without any break] from a common ancestor, i.e. LUCA.

• The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) or universal most recent common ancestor (UMRCA) is the most recent population from which all organisms now living on Earth share common descent—the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_univ ... n_ancestor

As I had stated, Philosophical Realism is an evolutionary default.
The point is ALL humans still share the same basic genes that drive the impulse to survive at all costs till the inevitable.
This is the same genetically driven impulse that significant drive the Philosophical Realism ideology.

I wrote earlier,
There is no speculation [defined as "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence" -dict.] on my part.
What I accept as real is anything that is supported by empirical evidences and philosophical reasonings within a human-based FSK without speculating what is beyond that.

I am not speculating [as defined], but rather inferred from available empirical evidences to the very empirical possible LUCA that existed >3.5-4.0 billion years ago.

If the best science suggests that things existed prior to human beings - that chemicals on earth existed prior to conscious life - then it sounds like the best science is philosophically realist. If empirical evidence supports Luca, empirical evidence supports realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Also, "4 billion year old cobwebs" certainly seems like the sort of belief a realist would have. If your position is that we don't know anything about reality and we shouldn't speculate that we do, then... what kind of speculations do you think are involved in thinking anybody has 4 billion year old anything? 4 billion years ago, humans didn't exist according to our best science, so you're either speculating on the existence of things that no human being perceived or knew about, OR you're speculating that regardless of what our best science says, humans have existed for 4 billion years.

Did something exist prior to human beings 4 billion years ago?

All humans evolved [without any break] from a common ancestor, i.e. LUCA.

• The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) or universal most recent common ancestor (UMRCA) is the most recent population from which all organisms now living on Earth share common descent—the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_univ ... n_ancestor

As I had stated, Philosophical Realism is an evolutionary default.
The point is ALL humans still share the same basic genes that drive the impulse to survive at all costs till the inevitable.
This is the same genetically driven impulse that significant drive the Philosophical Realism ideology.

I wrote earlier,
There is no speculation [defined as "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence" -dict.] on my part.
What I accept as real is anything that is supported by empirical evidences and philosophical reasonings within a human-based FSK without speculating what is beyond that.

I am not speculating [as defined], but rather inferred from available empirical evidences to the very empirical possible LUCA that existed >3.5-4.0 billion years ago.

If the best science suggests that things existed prior to human beings - that chemicals on earth existed prior to conscious life - then it sounds like the best science is philosophically realist. If empirical evidence supports Luca, empirical evidence supports realism.

All sciences [the best & the worst] are supported by a human-based scientific-FSK.

Because a scientific-FSK is human-based, i.e. not-mind-independent, scientific facts whilst objective via intersubjective consensus cannot be philosophical-realism which is of mind-independence.

All scientific facts, truths and knowledge whilst realized immediately are grounded on a post-hoc basis.

[Flannel Jesus]

Either you think Luca existed or you don't. It's really quite straight forward.

[Iwannaplato]

All humans evolved [without any break] from a common ancestor, i.e. LUCA.

• The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) or universal most recent common ancestor (UMRCA) is the most recent population from which all organisms now living on Earth share common descent—the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_univ ... n_ancestor

As I had stated, Philosophical Realism is an evolutionary default.
The point is ALL humans still share the same basic genes that drive the impulse to survive at all costs till the inevitable.
This is the same genetically driven impulse that significant drive the Philosophical Realism ideology.

I wrote earlier,
There is no speculation [defined as "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence" -dict.] on my part.
What I accept as real is anything that is supported by empirical evidences and philosophical reasonings within a human-based FSK without speculating what is beyond that.

I am not speculating [as defined], but rather inferred from available empirical evidences to the very empirical possible LUCA that existed >3.5-4.0 billion years ago.

If the best science suggests that things existed prior to human beings - that chemicals on earth existed prior to conscious life - then it sounds like the best science is philosophically realist. If empirical evidence supports Luca, empirical evidence supports realism.

All sciences [the best & the worst] are supported by a human-based scientific-FSK.

Because a scientific-FSK is human-based, i.e. not-mind-independent, scientific facts whilst objective via intersubjective consensus cannot be philosophical-realism which is of mind-independence.

All scientific facts, truths and knowledge whilst realized immediately are grounded on a post-hoc basis.

This is VA not understanding and simply reasserting. FJ is pointing out that since the sciences are positing things that are not dependant on minds, they are realist. They are positing the existence of things, in these cases, where there were no minds present. IOW, inobservables. VAs response is they are reaiist. This is not grappling with or explaining how they can do this or what they mean, given that they are positing the existence of things not dependant on minds becaue mind arose after these things are posited to have existed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Either you think Luca existed or you don't. It's really quite straight forward.

It is not that straight forward.

I am relying on the science-biology FSK asserting that LUCA existed.
Because I believe [with faith] the science-biology-evolution FSK is reasonably credible and reliable, I have high confidence level it is true post hoc.
Note the imperative qualification to the science-biology-evolution FSK.

[Flannel Jesus]

Cool, so you trust in the fsk that empirically supports realism. Fantastic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Cool, so you trust in the fsk that empirically supports realism. Fantastic.

You do not understand what philosophical realism is?

Science do not support philosophical realism i.e. the "ism" in the ultimate sense.

Note this again [..I had referenced this many times],

[Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[8]
In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.
Today it [Philosophical Realism] is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[Flannel Jesus]

If science supports the idea that chemical reactions were happening on earth long before any humans were around to witness this chemical reactions, then... that sounds like realism to me. That sounds pretty far removed from "the moon doesn't exist when no one is looking"

[Veritas Aequitas]

If science supports the idea that chemical reactions were happening on earth long before any humans were around to witness this chemical reactions, then... that sounds like realism to me. That sounds pretty far removed from "the moon doesn't exist when no one is looking"

As with classical Physics, biology and chemistry, the imperative assumption is the observer is independent of the things observed within the scientific method.

That is seemingly mind-independent but it is not an "ism" as in philosophical realism.

You need to separate science per se from its "ism" for example other than philosophical realism of science, there is 'scientism' where it is claimed 'science' is the only source of knowledge for reality.

That sounds pretty far removed from "the moon doesn't exist when no one is looking"

This related to QM where there is no assumption of mind-independence.

[Iwannaplato]

If science supports the idea that chemical reactions were happening on earth long before any humans were around to witness this chemical reactions, then... that sounds like realism to me. That sounds pretty far removed from "the moon doesn't exist when no one is looking"

As you'll see above VA doesn't quite address your point. One suggestion: instead of you saying 'science supports the idea....'
say something like.....
You, VA, have said that these chemical reactions were happening long before humans around.
You have said things about the Big Bang.
You have presented images of quantum foam.
You have talked about Abiogensis as if that theory supports your positions, but Abiogenesis theory includes stages where there are only inorganic compounds (no life, no observers), then stages with scattered things like nucelic acids, amino acids (no life, but some organic compounds) then finally the first organisms. Those first two stages do not fit in any way at all with there being only mind dependent reality.

The reason I say this is if you say science says....he wanders off and makes not on point repeats of his ideas about science. He gets to not take responsibility for asserting these things himself.