Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:22 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 6:55 am
You don't answer my questions, so here they are again:
If to construct a model of reality (an 'FSRC') is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, how can we construct them in the first place? And how can we assess and, if necessary, change them?
And now you say humans have an evolved 'framework and system of reality and cognition' - a fundamental FSRC - which we didn't consciously construct as a model. Presumably the sub-FSRCs or sub-FSKs, such as in physics, chemistry and so on, fit into the bigger, fundamental FSRC.
So, please answer these questions, adapted to accommodate your new dodge.
1 What is our evolved fundamental FSRC model of reality (EFFSRCMR) - a model of?
What is your evolved fundamental digestive system a model of?
What is your evolved fundamental sexual system a model of?
Quite. Your analogy is false. Our evolved digestive and sexual 'systems' aren't models (descriptions) of anything. But your invented FSRC - fundamental or not - is very precisely a model/framework/description of reality.
Strawman as usual.
The fundamental Framework and System of
1. Emergence of Reality
2. Realization of Reality
3. Cognition [knowledge] of Reality - perceiving, knowing and description
are evolved systems inherent in all human beings and different in forms within other non-humans living systems.
What is invented on the above are the later formal systems of knowing [e.g. formal science] and description [diff languages and ways of communication].
The fundamentals of the above systems [FSERC] evolved from 3.5b years ago.
What I have done is merely presenting the facts of what is the inherent FSERC.
2 If all we can know about reality is our evolved fundamental FSRC model of reality (EFFSRCMR), how can we know that? From which perspective?
Note my
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. My FSRC sense of reality
2. Your mind-independent sense - grounded on an illusion
If your question refer to your 2, then your illusory reality is a non-starter.
You completely miss the point of the question. If there's no reality or perspective outside our EFFSRCMR, we can never know that we're limited to our EFFSRCMR. That's why philosophical anti-realism explodes itself.
No. I have not missed your point.
I understand [not agree with] your point thoroughly where you ASSUMED and claim there is an independent reality; I countered that is based on an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
You cannot be that arrogant when you have not even proven your fact is really real.
What I am referring to is the FRSC-ed reality.
What is Known [epistemology] is based on the FSC[knowledge] of the FSRC. That is how one knows what is reality and live in it optimally.
The moon exists but not regardless of humans.
The reality of the moon is conditioned upon a human-based FSRC.
This is patently and demonstrably false. And repeating it makes no difference.
The above claim had been demonstrated to be true by many from various fields of knowledge.
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
You have not provided a counter argument to the above claim.
3 How can we assess that EFFSRCMR and, if necessary, change it?
Can you change the human digestive system?
It may be possible but not in the present, maybe in a 1000 years.
Perhaps you missed my 'iow': the so-called paradigm shifts from Newtonian to relativity to quantum mechanics make no sense, given your invented EFFSRCMR. But given methodological naturalism, those changes are easy to explain. We found better ways to explain the data from reality.
My point was,
what is real in one FSRC - e.g. Newtonian is absurd within the QM FSRC.
This absurdity is easily understood for those who are mature to understand the full range of Physics and the limitation of the respective FSRC.
When you claim my points are absurd, it is because your are not mature enough to understand the full range of philosophy and the limitations of the respective FSRC.
When you rely on "methodological naturalism" i.e. science, which is human-based, it follows whatever the resultant therefrom, they cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
4 Why does the fact that we have an EFFSRCMR mean that there is no reality outside or unconditioned by our EFFSRCMR?
"that there is a reality outside or unconditioned by our FSRC?" is psychologically driven by an evolutionary default, it is needed as an ideological belief for psychologically reason.
If we give up the above belief as many has done, it will not change the reality of humanity one bit.
Again, as usual, you miss the point. Your premise - that everything
we know is 'inside' or 'conditioned by' an EFFFSRCMR - doesn't entail the conclusion that there's no reality 'outside' or 'unconditioned by' our EFFSRCMR. That just doesn't follow. It's a fallacy. And the existence of the universe before we evolved completely demolishes your argument.
It is does not entail & follow and is a fallacy to you is because you are grounding your claim based on philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.
Point is you cannot even prove an absolute independent reality exists.
Where is your proof?
All you are doing is relying on the points from W's Tractatus, i.e. fact and reality is 'that is the case', 'it is just is', a 'state of affair'; W had abandoned all these claims in his later PI and On Certainty and you are still clinging on to what W had rubbished.
The belief "that there is a reality outside or unconditioned by our FSRC?" is a useful psychological belief for the majority [especially in the past] due to an evolutionary default but such an ideological belief has contributed to the hindrance of the progress of humanity and also loads of evil and violence from such a belief.
Note the evil and violence in the belief of an absolutely independent God.
The belief you dismiss as an evolved delusion is far more rational and evidenced than your strange version of philosophical anti-realism.
There is nothing strange with philosophical realism which is an ideological claim that things [e.g. moon, stars, etc.] exist regardless of humans.
But philosophical realism [PR] is grounded on an illusion.
The counter to PR is; the reality that emerged and is realized is contingent to the human conditions as evolved and thereafter when reality is perceived, known, described and communicated, that is obviously contingent to the human conditions.
Note, for non-human living things;
The reality that emerged and is realized is contingent to the conditions of non-humans living entities as evolved and thereafter when reality is perceived, known, described and communicated, that is obviously contingent to the non-human conditions.
Do you think a virus will realize an emerged reality that is exactly the same as humans or other animals?
If a virus is only given a sense of vision, will it see the same moon as humans do?
Btw, you have not given rational counters to all the views I have presented.
What you do is merely handwaving them off as false, fallacious, absurd, ridiculous and the like.