Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:00 am
"...there is no reality that is
absolutely independent from humans - which we have to perceive, know and describe in human ways"
So, you repeat this false claim, having switched to 'described-reality' just now. And your new formulation reverts to dodging the issue, as follows.
'Premise: Reality [the-described] emerged and is realized within humans [FSER] which is subsequently perceived, known and described in human ways [FSC {K}].
Conclusion: Therefore, the described-reality is not (absolutely/wholly) independent from us humans as contingent upon a FSRC.'
Here, you say in effect that the terms 'reality' and 'the described reality' are synonymous. And that can only mean that a description
is the described - which otherwise you say is false.
You also dodge providing evidence for the claim that there's no reality outside a description - because you have none. It's just an excitingly subversive claim - and always was.
And you dodge the fact that the vast majority of natural scientists are methodological naturalists - at least tacitly accepting that the reality they investigate and try to explain or describe exists independently from humans - that they're not investigating models of reality, but rather produce models as they investigate reality.
Your attempt to salvage your argument by substituting 'relative' for 'absolute' independence doesn't work. For one thing, the universe existed for billions of years before humans evolved, so it was obviously completely independent from humans, and obviously not 'relatively dependent' on humans.
Give it up.
Strawman as usual.
You are like a kindi tot trying to insist his kindi views of santa exists as real is true against a rational non-theist.
Ever since I started philosophical discussion here I have not changed my main philosophical stance re Kantian empirical realism and transcendental idealism.
Thus your thinking that I have dodged here and there are due to your ignorance.
PH wrote:For one thing, the universe existed for billions of years before humans evolved, so it was obviously completely independent from humans, and obviously not 'relatively dependent' on humans.
For one thing?? whose thingy??
The reality and truth of the above is conditioned upon an
embodied human-based science-physics-cosmologic FSRC.
Whose authority can claim the above reality & truth other that relying on an embodied human-based
science-physics-cosmologic FSRC? you, your parents, pastor, friends??
Because there is an element of
human-based in the argument, it follows deductively, the conclusion of the reality and truths cannot be absolutely independent of humans but has to be relatively independent of humans.
As with the majority due to an evolution default, the problem is you have a serious deficit in cognition of reality. Majority is strength, but it is a strength of stupidity and delusion, e.g. like the majority of the 90% [of > 8 billion] theists.
Note there is a corresponding increased in utility in terms of knowledge and technology when one manage to breakthrough the evolutionary default paradigm.
Note the breakthrough and its corresponding contribution to humanity, from common sense to Classical Physics [pure realism] to Einsteinian Physics [partial relativity] to QM [full relativity - antirealism].
You are so ignorant you are stuck with primordial mode of realization of reality and I am certain you are not able to wake up from it. Don't give up, cling hard to your primordial thinking and cognition.