Why the Moon is not Absolutely Mind-Independent

[Veritas Aequitas]

Because I am being asked for this so often even I have explained many times, I am presenting this in an OP for easy future reference.

The following explains Why in the Ultimate Sense, the the Moon is not Absolutely Mind-Independent contrary to philosophical realism which claims the moon is absolutely mind-independent.

Well let's see if you know what you're talking about, now that indirect perception is on the table.

Prove that reality isn't absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

Direct perception is irrelevant to the issue here.


With reference to the above, the Empirical Realist acknowledge the candle is in one sense independent or mind-independent from the observer; this is the relative sense of mind-independence because empirical realism is ultimately subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [ mind related].

Philosophical Realism insist the 'candle' is absolutely mind-independent from the human conditions of the observers.
In one perspective, the candle above cannot be absolutely mind-independent from the human conditions because candles are created by humans.

To avoid the above, we replace the "candle" with the "moon", philosophical realists will insist the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even after humans are extinct.
Now, show me how the moon can exists absolutely mind-independent???

But you didn't write anything that would show that the Moon can't be 'absolutely' mind-independent.

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

ANTI-Philosophical_Realism do not assume a positive moon [noumenon] out there independent of the mind awaiting to be perceived.
For ANTI-Philosophical_Realism, the moon emerged and is realized within the human conditions.
Because human conditions include mind, brain and body, the moon that emerged and is realized then only perceived, known and described, it CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

I have linked this a '1000' times,
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
but you cannot get it because you are stuck with an evolutionary default of philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

I have explained why the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent many times but you cannot get it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Summary of my arguments why the Moon CANNOT be Absolutely Mind-Independent.

Philosophical Realism is not realistic

• 1. Philosophical Realism claims reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.
  2. Philosophical Realism is grounded on an illusion. [see link above]
  3. Therefore philosophical realism is false.

The Moon, Humans are intricately part and parcel of reality.

• 1. Reality on the whole is all there is.
  2. All parts of the whole of reality are intricately connected [relative determination, chaos theory, system theory]
  3. Humans are part of reality.
  4. The moon is a part of reality.
  5. Since humans and the moon are intricately connected within the universe as a system, the moon cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions [mind, brain, body].
  6. Therefore the moon cannot be absolutely independent from the mind.

What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.

• 1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
  2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
  3. All positive scientific claims as scientific facts are conditioned upon the human based science FSK.
  4. Since 3, all positive scientific claims as scientific facts cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The human based scientific FSK grounds objectivity.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Why the moon CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent

• 1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
  2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
  3. The moon as a scientific fact is conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
  4. Since 3, the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

[Atla]

Because I am being asked for this so often even I have explained many times, I am presenting this in an OP for easy future reference.

The following explains Why in the Ultimate Sense, the the Moon is not Absolutely Mind-Independent contrary to philosophical realism which claims the moon is absolutely mind-independent.

Direct perception is irrelevant to the issue here.


With reference to the above, the Empirical Realist acknowledge the candle is in one sense independent or mind-independent from the observer; this is the relative sense of mind-independence because empirical realism is ultimately subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [ mind related].

Philosophical Realism insist the 'candle' is absolutely mind-independent from the human conditions of the observers.
In one perspective, the candle above cannot be absolutely mind-independent from the human conditions because candles are created by humans.

To avoid the above, we replace the "candle" with the "moon", philosophical realists will insist the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even after humans are extinct.
Now, show me how the moon can exists absolutely mind-independent???

But you didn't write anything that would show that the Moon can't be 'absolutely' mind-independent.

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

ANTI-Philosophical_Realism do not assume a positive moon [noumenon] out there independent of the mind awaiting to be perceived.
For ANTI-Philosophical_Realism, the moon emerged and is realized within the human conditions.
Because human conditions include mind, brain and body, the moon that emerged and is realized then only perceived, known and described, it CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

I have linked this a '1000' times,
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
but you cannot get it because you are stuck with an evolutionary default of philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

I have explained why the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent many times but you cannot get it.

You have just re-stated your principle for the 1000th time, a principle isn't a proof, not even for the 1000th time.

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

ANTI-Philosophical_Realism do not assume a positive moon [noumenon] out there independent of the mind awaiting to be perceived.
For ANTI-Philosophical_Realism, the moon emerged and is realized within the human conditions.
Because human conditions include mind, brain and body, the moon that emerged and is realized then only perceived, known and described CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

I have linked this a '1000' times,
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
but you cannot get it because you are stuck with an evolutionary default of philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

I have explained why the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent many times but you cannot get it.

You have just re-stated your principle for the 1000th time, a principle isn't a proof, not even for the 1000th time.

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

It is not me but You are making a positive claim here, i.e. the moon exists absolutely as mind-independent.
Protocol wise the onus is on YOU the positive claimant to prove his claim.

This is why Kant assert it is an insult for philosophical realists like you to claim the moon [things] exists as mind-independent but unable to prove their claim.
Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182

I am making concession in proving to you why the moon cannot exist as absolutely mind-independent without direct perception as above.
The onus is on you to prove the positive claim and why my argument above is not valid and sound?

[Atla]

ANTI-Philosophical_Realism do not assume a positive moon [noumenon] out there independent of the mind awaiting to be perceived.
For ANTI-Philosophical_Realism, the moon emerged and is realized within the human conditions.
Because human conditions include mind, brain and body, the moon that emerged and is realized then only perceived, known and described CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

I have linked this a '1000' times,
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
but you cannot get it because you are stuck with an evolutionary default of philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.

"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

I have explained why the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent many times but you cannot get it.

You have just re-stated your principle for the 1000th time, a principle isn't a proof, not even for the 1000th time.

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

It is not me but You are making a positive claim here, i.e. the moon exists absolutely as mind-independent.
Protocol wise the onus is on YOU the positive claimant to prove his claim.

This is why Kant assert it is an insult for philosophical realists like you to claim the moon [things] exists as mind-independent but unable to prove their claim.
Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182

I am making concession in proving to you why the moon cannot exist as absolutely mind-independent without direct perception as above.
The onus is on you to prove the positive claim and why my argument above is not valid and sound?

Your 'protocol' is completely wrong. The onus is on the one making the positive claim IF the positive claim isn't consistent with everything else we know.

For example the idea of God isn't consistent with everything else we know, so the onus is on the one making the positive claim.

But the idea of an 'absolutely' mind-independent Moon is consistent with everything else we know.

So in this case, the onus is on the one making the negative claim, you. So again:

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

[Iwannaplato]

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

Yes, there's the third position: we don't know. So, we have radical realism, black-boxed and radical antirealism on the table. VA has chosen radication non-realism. IOW he claims to know that there is no thing in itself out there.

Have you gotten a clear understand of the difference between
absolutely mind-independent
and
mind-independent?

What is that absolutely getting rid of?

[Atla]

(pretended) certainty vs consistency: a showdown in fundamental philosophy. One of the depths where some Kantians don't dare to go.

[popeye1945]

If one thinks of all things as energy forms, and that the energy forms of life, due to the constitution of their biologizes only perceive certain other energy forms; then the conclusion must be that apparent reality, which includes the moon, is biologically dependent as subjective experience.

[Iwannaplato]

(pretended) certainty vs consistency: a showdown in fundamental philosophy. One of the depths where some Kantians don't dare to go.

If this was an answer to me ( me asking about your sense of VA's use of the terms) I'm not sure what it means.
(well, even if it was aimed at someone else, I'm not sure what it means, but it's ok if it was aimed at someone else)

[Atla]

Have you gotten a clear understand of the difference between
absolutely mind-independent
and
mind-independent?

What is that absolutely getting rid of?

Looks like now he is using "mind-independence" and "absolute mind-independence" as synonyms, they mean that there's a mind-independent objective reality that pre-existed humans and will continue to exist when humans are gone. So, objective reality.
(So he's using the word 'absolute' quite incorrectly and misleadingly, but I agreed to use his wrong definition, to get that issue out of the way. He may also be conflating several different kinds of mind-independence, but now I try to not let that get in the way either.)

[popeye1945]

Have you gotten a clear understand of the difference between
absolutely mind-independent
and
mind-independent?

What is that absolutely getting rid of?

Looks like now he is using "mind-independence" and "absolute mind-independence" as synonyms, they mean that there's a mind-independent objective reality that pre-existed humans and will continue to exist when humans are gone.
(So he's using the word 'absolute' quite incorrectly and misleadingly, but I agreed to use his wrong definition, to get that issue out of the way. He may also be equivocating several different kinds of mind-independence, but I try to not let that get into the way now either.)

Apparent reality is biological experience, and as such is a place of things, take away biological experiences and there are no things, there is but energy unexperienced as forms, as a place of no things, unmanifested energies.

[Iwannaplato]

Looks like now he is using "mind-independence" and "absolute mind-independence" as synonyms, they mean that there's a mind-independent objective reality that pre-existed humans and will continue to exist when humans are gone. So, objective reality.
(So he's using the word 'absolute' quite incorrectly and misleadingly, but I agreed to use his wrong definition, to get that issue out of the way. He may also be conflating several different kinds of mind-independence, but now I try to not let that get in the way either.)

I'm not sure how one doesn't let that get in the way, since they are so very different from each other.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have just re-stated your principle for the 1000th time, a principle isn't a proof, not even for the 1000th time.

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

It is not me but You are making a positive claim here, i.e. the moon exists absolutely as mind-independent.
Protocol wise the onus is on YOU the positive claimant to prove his claim.

This is why Kant assert it is an insult for philosophical realists like you to claim the moon [things] exists as mind-independent but unable to prove their claim.
Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182

I am making concession in proving to you why the moon cannot exist as absolutely mind-independent without direct perception as above.
The onus is on you to prove the positive claim and why my argument above is not valid and sound?

Your 'protocol' is completely wrong. The onus is on the one making the positive claim IF the positive claim isn't consistent with everything else we know.

For example the idea of God isn't consistent with everything else we know, so the onus is on the one making the positive claim.

Where did you get your above 'protocol'?

There is no certainty [99.9%] that 'everything else we know' is definitely true, consistently e.g. 'the Earth is flat' was once consistent with everything else we [the flat earthers as majority] knew as based on empirical evidence [their limited evidence].

Then it later took more advanced proofs to prove the Earth is not Flat.

It is the same with your 'absolutely mind-independent things' which the majority [including you] claim they are right based of the ad populum fallacy.

Your 'absolutely mind-independent things' is a positive claim, you have to have intellectual honesty and integrity to prove your positive claim.

Note the challenge from Kant 'that is an insult to philosophy' philosophical realists are unable to prove their positive claim 'things are absolutely mind-independent'.
G.E. Moore did try to prove the positive claim. [not like you a philosophy gnat and coward running away from giving proof to a positive claim]
The later-Wittgenstein critiqued Moore's claim as ineffective.

But the idea of an 'absolutely' mind-independent Moon is consistent with everything else we know.

So in this case, the onus is on the one making the negative claim, you.

Don't make a fool of yourself and insult your own intelligence.
The proper intellectual protocol is, the onus is on the one who is making the positive claim to provide proofs.

It is not obligatory, but I have made the concession to provide proof for my negative claim.

So again:

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

I have already done that.
You are so blind, you cannot see the proofs?

Here is a summary;

1. Philosophical Realism claims reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.
2. Philosophical Realism is grounded on an illusion. [see link above]
3. Therefore philosophical realism is false.

1. Reality on the whole is all there is.
2. All parts of the whole of reality are intricately connected [relative determination, chaos theory, system theory]
3. Humans are part of reality.
4. The moon is a part of reality.
5. Since humans and the moon are intricately connected within the universe as a system, the moon cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions [mind, brain, body].
6. Therefore the moon cannot be absolutely independent from the mind.

1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
3. The moon as a fact is conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
4. Since 3, the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.


The above is merely a summary, the details are in the links I have provided so far in this thread.
Btw, I have >100 threads in this Ethical Theory Section and elsewhere supporting my thesis, why the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

I have differentiated absolutely vs relative mind-independence but you don't seem to grasp this.

[Atla]

It is not me but You are making a positive claim here, i.e. the moon exists absolutely as mind-independent.
Protocol wise the onus is on YOU the positive claimant to prove his claim.

This is why Kant assert it is an insult for philosophical realists like you to claim the moon [things] exists as mind-independent but unable to prove their claim.
Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182

I am making concession in proving to you why the moon cannot exist as absolutely mind-independent without direct perception as above.
The onus is on you to prove the positive claim and why my argument above is not valid and sound?

Your 'protocol' is completely wrong. The onus is on the one making the positive claim IF the positive claim isn't consistent with everything else we know.

For example the idea of God isn't consistent with everything else we know, so the onus is on the one making the positive claim.

Where did you get your above 'protocol'?

There is no certainty [99.9%] that 'everything else we know' is definitely true, consistently e.g. 'the Earth is flat' was once consistent with everything else we [the flat earthers as majority] knew as based on empirical evidence [their limited evidence].

Then it later took more advanced proofs to prove the Earth is not Flat.

It is the same with your 'absolutely mind-independent things' which the majority [including you] claim they are right based of the ad populum fallacy.

Your 'absolutely mind-independent things' is a positive claim, you have to have intellectual honesty and integrity to prove your positive claim.

Note the challenge from Kant 'that is an insult to philosophy' philosophical realists are unable to prove their positive claim 'things are absolutely mind-independent'.
G.E. Moore did try to prove the positive claim. [not like you a philosophy gnat and coward running away from giving proof to a positive claim]
The later-Wittgenstein critiqued Moore's claim as ineffective.

But the idea of an 'absolutely' mind-independent Moon is consistent with everything else we know.

So in this case, the onus is on the one making the negative claim, you.

Don't make a fool of yourself and insult your own intelligence.
The proper intellectual protocol is, the onus is on the one who is making the positive claim to provide proofs.

It is not obligatory, but I have made the concession to provide proof for my negative claim.

So again:

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

I have already done that.
You are so blind, you cannot see the proofs?

Here is a summary;

1. Philosophical Realism claims reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.
2. Philosophical Realism is grounded on an illusion. [see link above]
3. Therefore philosophical realism is false.

1. Reality on the whole is all there is.
2. All parts of the whole of reality are intricately connected [relative determination, chaos theory, system theory]
3. Humans are part of reality.
4. The moon is a part of reality.
5. Since humans and the moon are intricately connected within the universe as a system, the moon cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions [mind, brain, body].
6. Therefore the moon cannot be absolutely independent from the mind.

1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
3. The moon as a fact is conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
4. Since 3, the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.


The above is merely a summary, the details are in the links I have provided so far in this thread.
Btw, I have >100 threads in this Ethical Theory Section and elsewhere supporting my thesis, why the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

I have differentiated absolutely vs relative mind-independence but you don't seem to grasp this.

Those proofs are based on direct peception, that's why you have failed in >100 threads.

Again, it looks like neither the positive nor the negative claim can be 100% proven when it comes to indirect perception. But the positive claim seems to be perfectly consistent with established science/psychology, so the onus is on you to prove YOUR negative claim, show that the positive claim can't be right.

You've always been an incompetent gnat that you don't even understand the nature of the topic. It's nonsense to always cling to negative claims whenever there's no 100% certainty. Arguably there never is.

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your 'protocol' is completely wrong. The onus is on the one making the positive claim IF the positive claim isn't consistent with everything else we know.

For example the idea of God isn't consistent with everything else we know, so the onus is on the one making the positive claim.

Where did you get your above 'protocol'?

There is no certainty [99.9%] that 'everything else we know' is definitely true, consistently e.g. 'the Earth is flat' was once consistent with everything else we [the flat earthers as majority] knew as based on empirical evidence [their limited evidence].

Then it later took more advanced proofs to prove the Earth is not Flat.

It is the same with your 'absolutely mind-independent things' which the majority [including you] claim they are right based of the ad populum fallacy.

Your 'absolutely mind-independent things' is a positive claim, you have to have intellectual honesty and integrity to prove your positive claim.

Note the challenge from Kant 'that is an insult to philosophy' philosophical realists are unable to prove their positive claim 'things are absolutely mind-independent'.
G.E. Moore did try to prove the positive claim. [not like you a philosophy gnat and coward running away from giving proof to a positive claim]
The later-Wittgenstein critiqued Moore's claim as ineffective.

But the idea of an 'absolutely' mind-independent Moon is consistent with everything else we know.

So in this case, the onus is on the one making the negative claim, you.

Don't make a fool of yourself and insult your own intelligence.
The proper intellectual protocol is, the onus is on the one who is making the positive claim to provide proofs.

It is not obligatory, but I have made the concession to provide proof for my negative claim.

So again:

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

I have already done that.
You are so blind, you cannot see the proofs?

Here is a summary;

1. Philosophical Realism claims reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.
2. Philosophical Realism is grounded on an illusion. [see link above]
3. Therefore philosophical realism is false.

1. Reality on the whole is all there is.
2. All parts of the whole of reality are intricately connected [relative determination, chaos theory, system theory]
3. Humans are part of reality.
4. The moon is a part of reality.
5. Since humans and the moon are intricately connected within the universe as a system, the moon cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions [mind, brain, body].
6. Therefore the moon cannot be absolutely independent from the mind.

1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
3. The moon as a fact is conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
4. Since 3, the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.


The above is merely a summary, the details are in the links I have provided so far in this thread.
Btw, I have >100 threads in this Ethical Theory Section and elsewhere supporting my thesis, why the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

I have differentiated absolutely vs relative mind-independence but you don't seem to grasp this.

Those proofs are based on direct perception, that's why you have failed in >100 threads.

How many times must I tell you my proposals has nothing to do with direct [naive] perception which is common sense and vulgar, & kindergartenish.
Show specifically how they are based on direct perception?

Btw, you are too coward to counter the three arguments I provided above.

Again, it looks like neither the positive nor the negative claim can be 100% proven when it comes to indirect perception. But the positive claim seems to be perfectly consistent with established science/psychology, so the onus is on you to prove YOUR negative claim, show that the positive claim can't be right.

Note whatever is scientific or psychological proof of positive claims are based on a human-based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].

Note my argument above;

1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
3. The moon as a fact is conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
4. Since 3, the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The human based scientific FSK grounds.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

• 1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
  2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
  3. All positive scientific claims as scientific facts are conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
  4. Since 3, all positive scientific claims as scientific facts cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The above is also applicable to the human-based psychology FSK.

You've always been an incompetent gnat that you don't even understand the nature of the topic. It's nonsense to always cling to negative claims whenever there's no 100% certainty. Arguably there never is.

You are the one who is the very ignorant one.
Despite me providing details and summary arguments, you still cannot understand them.

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.

I have done so, note these arguments [again]

1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
3. The moon as a scientific fact is conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
4. Since 3, the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

The human based scientific FSK grounds.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

• 1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
  2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
  3. All positive scientific claims as scientific facts are conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
  4. Since 3, all positive scientific claims as scientific facts cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

see a summary here;
viewtopic.php?p=660236#p660236