I want to show you why YOUR model is self-defeating and illusory.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:44 am A. And I keep pointing out that your model or explanation is patently incorrect and self-defeating. Those babies exist, as does the physical environment around them, to which they react - and that reaction is a physical process which exists: the maturation of babies into adults.
B. They are physical processes - features of reality - which natural scientists are increasingly able to describe. And what sort of grounding do you think they need?
C. Nope. Your explanations are nothing more than physical evidence for physical processes. In a word, facts.
Read this [..quoted many times] carefully;
[note 'mind' in this case refer to 'modern-mind' not re Descartes' Dualism]
From what you have posted about facts, i.e. feature of reality as just-is, being-so and that is the case, independent of individuals' opinion, beliefs and judgments, it is obvious your stance will agree with 1, 2 and 3.1. Philosophical Realism is .. about a certain kind of thing .. is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
2. This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.
3. [Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.
4. Philosophers who profess [Philosophical] realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.
5. [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.
6. In some contexts, [Philosophical] realism is contrasted with [Philosophical] idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Confirm, yes?
You have denied you agree with the Correspondence Theory of Truth or the mirroring of reality.
But your point B "which natural scientists are increasingly able to describe" implied this is a correspondence theory of truth or mirroring of reality.
In other words, your philosophical realism would agree with 4 as well regardless of your denial.
Your point B "increasingly able to describe" also correspond with 5 above.
Note point 6 above,
6. In some contexts, [Philosophical] realism is contrasted with [Philosophical] idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
It said here the Philosophy of Science is anti-Physical_Realism which is very true.
As I had been arguing, all facts are conditioned within a human-based FSK [thus anti-realism] of which the science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.
You may be a Philosophical Realist like Einstein, Carroll, FH [here] but you cannot force Science to be realist in essence.Scientific facts [human based] are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
So, in my case;
"Those babies exist, as does the physical environment around them, to which they react - and that reaction is a physical process which exists: the maturation of babies into adults."
But the above are human-based-FSK facts of which the most credible and reliable are from the human-based-science FSK.
Your bare claim;
PH: C. "Nope. Your explanations are nothing more than physical evidence for physical processes. In a word, facts."
without qualification and justification [in the ultimate sense] is illusory, noumenal, mystical woo, meaningless, empty and non-sensical.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
What is your counter to the above?
