What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

You can all the answers from the science-biology FSRC.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Peter Holmes]

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.

You can all the answers from the science-biology FSRC.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Sculptor]

I think the obvious difference is that if you claim that "abortion is wrong"; or "killing is wrong", there is little you can do to show that to be demonstrably right.
However given the edifice of chemical theory "water is H2O" is demonstrably correct, and involves no emotional input.

Unless you've solved the symbol-grounding problem

There's no way to demonstrate correspondence between signifier (such as H2O) and the signified.

Yes that is part of the problem.

[Sculptor]

Point is every claim is conditioned by its specific human-based language-game or formally, a FSRC.

PH's language-game is a linguistic language-game [FSRC] which is based on ordinary language and their meanings which is not based on the physical reality proper. PH's reality of facts in merely a linguistic-FSRC fact, not a real physical scientific fact.

On the other hand, you are claiming reality based on the language-game [paradigm, framework and System] of science or the Scientific FSRC, thus objective scientific facts [which are not absolute but changeable]

I have argued the language-game of science [scientific FSRC] is the most realistic, credible, reliable and objective, thus it is the Gold Standard all other language-games model [FSRCs] are compared to.
No rational person would deny this. Any one deny this?

From the above your claims [..I agree with] which are based on the language-game model of science [scientific FSRC] is definitely more credible, realistic and objective than PH's linguistic FSRC claims.

An intelligent Guess: if the scientific FSRC [at its best] is indexed at 100/100 degrees of reality and objectivity, PH's linguistic FSRC's would only be 20/100.
see: Methodology of Rating Objectivity of FSK
viewtopic.php?p=676756&hilit=weight#p676756

I think the obvious difference is that if you claim that "abortion is wrong"; or "killing is wrong", there is little you can do to show that to be demonstrably right.
However given the edifice of chemical theory "water is H2O" is demonstrably correct, and involves no emotional input.

Off topic. I have argued elsewhere ...

That is your problem.
Denying morality has an emotional element is why everything you say about morality is shit

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think the obvious difference is that if you claim that "abortion is wrong"; or "killing is wrong", there is little you can do to show that to be demonstrably right.
However given the edifice of chemical theory "water is H2O" is demonstrably correct, and involves no emotional input.

Off topic. I have argued elsewhere ...

That is your problem.
Denying morality has an emotional element is why everything you say about morality is shit

Morality is off topic to the original point.
What you pointed out to PH is the existence of language games and intersubjectivity which is the basis of objectivity within a FSRC. It has to be a FSRC and nothing else.

Since you insist;
The study of morality on the FSRC basis is just like the science-FSRC which is independent of any one scientists, thus supposedly no emotional element involved.
There is the moral fact or maxim from the moral FSRC, i.e. the ought-not-ness that no humans ought to kill humans.

It is only when moral principles [facts] are applied [as moral judgments] in real life that emotions [of varying degrees] are inevitably involved [nb: Damasio]; even then the degrees of emotions should be as minimal as possible.
Emotions [preferably negligible] are involved in the moral judgment whether to apply the above maxim or not.

[Sculptor]

Off topic. I have argued elsewhere ...

That is your problem.
Denying morality has an emotional element is why everything you say about morality is shit

Morality is off topic to the original point....

Please review the thread title.

[Peter Holmes]

Off topic. I have argued elsewhere ...

That is your problem.
Denying morality has an emotional element is why everything you say about morality is shit

Morality is off topic to the original point.
What you pointed out to PH is the existence of language games and intersubjectivity which is the basis of objectivity within a FSRC. It has to be a FSRC and nothing else.

Once again, notice the contradiction. You agree that humans 'play' language games; you say that human intersubjectivity is the basis of what we call objectivity; and you say that humans have 'FSRCs'.

But these are all fundamentally realist claims - about features of reality, including humans: 'these things exist'.

And your 'within a FSRC' condition is itself realist, because it assumes a perspective outside an FSRC from which alone the claim that we have FSRCs - and even a 'fundamental FSRC' - makes sense.

Think it through. Apply your much-vaunted philosophical integrity and drill down to the rotten roots of your argument.

Try this. The only way we can know we're in a bubble is to have a perspective outside the bubble - to know there is an outside.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is your problem.
Denying morality has an emotional element is why everything you say about morality is shit

Morality is off topic to the original point.
What you pointed out to PH is the existence of language games and intersubjectivity which is the basis of objectivity within a FSRC. It has to be a FSRC and nothing else.

Once again, notice the contradiction. You agree that humans 'play' language games; you say that human intersubjectivity is the basis of what we call objectivity; and you say that humans have 'FSRCs'.

But these are all fundamentally realist claims - about features of reality, including humans: 'these things exist'.

And your 'within a FSRC' condition is itself realist, because it assumes a perspective outside an FSRC from which alone the claim that we have FSRCs - and even a 'fundamental FSRC' - makes sense.

Strawman.
Re W's language game principle, there no element of 'play per se'.
It is just the game merely emerged spontaneously via human interactions in the case as in PI and On Certainty.
W use the example of builders [construction] with their specific terminology.
Where games are used literally, they are merely used to highlight certain fringe principles, not the main principles.


Philosophical realism [p-realist] means absolutely independent and regardless of humans, i.e. not human-based.
The FRSC is human-based, so, how can it be non-human-based 'realist'.

Think it through. Apply your much-vaunted philosophical integrity and drill down to the rotten roots of your argument.

Try this. The only way we can know we're in a bubble is to have a perspective outside the bubble - to know there is an outside.

This is assuming one have never been outside that bubble
The problem here is one is having a perspective of outside the bubble while inside the bubble.

The point with reality is this;
Reality is all there is,
Humans are intricately part and parcel of reality,
How can a human extricate itself to have a perspective from outside of reality?


When one is in a real bubble, one can see and feel the texture the boundaries of a bubble to know one is inside a bubble. There is no need to have a perspective of outside the bubble.

In all cases, whether it is a bubble or whatever, that reality contingent within a human-based language game and FSRC.
Because it is human-based the emerging and realization of reality cannot be that of a p-realist state.

[Peter Holmes]

Morality is off topic to the original point.
What you pointed out to PH is the existence of language games and intersubjectivity which is the basis of objectivity within a FSRC. It has to be a FSRC and nothing else.

Once again, notice the contradiction. You agree that humans 'play' language games; you say that human intersubjectivity is the basis of what we call objectivity; and you say that humans have 'FSRCs'.

But these are all fundamentally realist claims - about features of reality, including humans: 'these things exist'.

And your 'within a FSRC' condition is itself realist, because it assumes a perspective outside an FSRC from which alone the claim that we have FSRCs - and even a 'fundamental FSRC' - makes sense.

Strawman.
Re W's language game principle, there no element of 'play per se'.
It is just the game merely emerged spontaneously via human interactions in the case as in PI and On Certainty.
W use the example of builders [construction] with their specific terminology.
Where games are used literally, they are merely used to highlight certain fringe principles, not the main principles.

1 You don't understand what a straw man is. You just spit it out as a general purpose defence.
2 W's primitive language game examples, within 'forms of life', are always completely real - and 'realist'. He's saying: 'This is the kind of thing humans do. This is the function of language in human life.'

Philosophical realism [p-realist] means absolutely independent and regardless of humans, i.e. not human-based.
The FRSC is human-based, so, how can it be non-human-based 'realist'.

Think it through. Apply your much-vaunted philosophical integrity and drill down to the rotten roots of your argument.

Try this. The only way we can know we're in a bubble is to have a perspective outside the bubble - to know there is an outside.

This is assuming one have never been outside that bubble
The problem here is one is having a perspective of outside the bubble while inside the bubble.

The point with reality is this;
Reality is all there is,
Humans are intricately part and parcel of reality,
How can a human extricate itself to have a perspective from outside of reality?

QED. 'Reality is all there is.' Could there be a more explicitly realist claim? And what price anti-realism?

When one is in a real bubble, one can see and feel the texture the boundaries of a bubble to know one is inside a bubble. There is no need to have a perspective of outside the bubble.

But look at the reality outside the bubble in the picture. That's the reality-that's-all-there-is that your silly theory forces you to deny exists. You say reality is an FSRC-reality - that there's no reality outside an FSRC - no reality outside the human-limitation-bubble. It's mind-bogglingly stupid.

In all cases, whether it is a bubble or whatever, that reality contingent within a human-based language game and FSRC.
Because it is human-based the emerging and realization of reality cannot be that of a p-realist state.

Keep thinking about it. The penny may drop. Pigs may fly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Once again, notice the contradiction. You agree that humans 'play' language games; you say that human intersubjectivity is the basis of what we call objectivity; and you say that humans have 'FSRCs'.

But these are all fundamentally realist claims - about features of reality, including humans: 'these things exist'.

And your 'within a FSRC' condition is itself realist, because it assumes a perspective outside an FSRC from which alone the claim that we have FSRCs - and even a 'fundamental FSRC' - makes sense.

Strawman.
Re W's language game principle, there no element of 'play per se'.
It is just the game merely emerged spontaneously via human interactions in the case as in PI and On Certainty.
W use the example of builders [construction] with their specific terminology.
Where games are used literally, they are merely used to highlight certain fringe principles, not the main principles.

1 You don't understand what a straw man is. You just spit it out as a general purpose defence.

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts or exaggerates another person’s argument, and then attacks the distorted version of the argument instead of genuinely engaging.
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and- ... straw-man/

You insist my argument is realist[P] when to me it is not.
Therefrom you rely on your misunderstanding to condemn what you think is my argument [i.e. p-realist].
If that is not a strawman fallacy, then what it is.

2 W's primitive language game examples, within 'forms of life', are always completely real - and 'realist'. He's saying: 'This is the kind of thing humans do. This is the function of language in human life.'

W's 'forms of life' do not imply philosophical realism and human-independent.
'Forms of life' literally means living things existing within a Framework and System, i.e. living-humans in particular and other living things having their specific 'forms of life'.
W's language games is contingent upon the human conditions.

In On Certainty, W countered Moore's insistence Moore's claim of 'knowing' an independent external world.
W insisted whatever is claimed is contingent within a language-game thus the human conditions.
To W, an absolutely independent external world is not possible to be known, as such his,
"whereof one cannot speak, one must remain in silent" thus cannot be reified nor hypostatized.

Philosophical realism [p-realist] means absolutely independent and regardless of humans, i.e. not human-based.
The FRSC is human-based, so, how can it be non-human-based 'realist'.

Think it through. Apply your much-vaunted philosophical integrity and drill down to the rotten roots of your argument.

Try this. The only way we can know we're in a bubble is to have a perspective outside the bubble - to know there is an outside.

This is assuming one have never been outside that bubble
The problem here is one is having a perspective of outside the bubble while inside the bubble.

The point with reality is this;
Reality is all there is,
Humans are intricately part and parcel of reality,
How can a human extricate itself to have a perspective from outside of reality?

QED. 'Reality is all there is.' Could there be a more explicitly realist claim? And what price anti-realism?

When one is in a real bubble, one can see and feel the texture the boundaries of a bubble to know one is inside a bubble. There is no need to have a perspective of outside the bubble.

But look at the reality outside the bubble in the picture. That's the reality-that's-all-there-is that your silly theory forces you to deny exists. You say reality is an FSRC-reality - that there's no reality outside an FSRC - no reality outside the human-limitation-bubble. It's mind-bogglingly stupid.

Don't be so arrogant to condemn my argument is stupid, especially when you are only attacking your own strawman, i.e. your own stupidity.

If Newton has lived at present and is dogmatic, he would have condemned Einstein's Theory of Gravity and theories of QM as mind-boggling stupid.
This is where Einstein's 'God do not play dice' which imply he claimed the theories of QM are 'mind-boggling stupid'.

Note Einstein is a philosophical realist like you and in additional was a theist.
As a non-theist [.. I presumed] you should be able to understand, the theistic Einstein was surely wrong because he views are grounded on an illusion, i.e. God. As a p-realist, his views are also grounded on an illusion.

If a p-realists and theists of Einstein stature can made such mistakes, you are more than likely to make the same mistake like Einstein putting down the claims of QM.

That you condemned my views as 'mind-boggling stupid' is because your views are immature.
Fact is my views are that of QM [Copenhagen] while yours are like Einstein's p-realism and theism.
Note theists are also p-realists in substance, i.e. believing in an absolute independent God.

In all cases, whether it is a bubble or whatever, that reality contingent within a human-based language game and FSRC.
Because it is human-based the emerging and realization of reality cannot be that of a p-realist state.

Keep thinking about it. The penny may drop. Pigs may fly.
[/quote]
Your counter to my bubble view [counter to your earlier e.g.] is the same as the above.
I would not say your views are 'mind-boggling stupid' exactly, but rather they are only valid within a very immature framework and system of thinking.

The problem with you is, are still stuck with primordial 'Newtonian and Einsteinian' realization of reality relative to the advanced modern QM realization of reality. This sort of underdevelopment in thinking is so evident with the lesser evolved majority.

So, it is you who should "Keep thinking about it. The penny may drop. Pigs may fly."

[Peter Holmes]

Strawman.
Re W's language game principle, there no element of 'play per se'.
It is just the game merely emerged spontaneously via human interactions in the case as in PI and On Certainty.
W use the example of builders [construction] with their specific terminology.
Where games are used literally, they are merely used to highlight certain fringe principles, not the main principles.

1 You don't understand what a straw man is. You just spit it out as a general purpose defence.

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts or exaggerates another person’s argument, and then attacks the distorted version of the argument instead of genuinely engaging.
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and- ... straw-man/

You insist my argument is realist[P] when to me it is not.
Therefrom you rely on your misunderstanding to condemn what you think is my argument [i.e. p-realist].
If that is not a strawman fallacy, then what it is.

No, I'm not distorting your argument. I'm showing why it is, in fact, philosophically realist. I know you think it isn't. But what you're supposed to do is address my reasons for saying it is. Which you don't.

2 W's primitive language game examples, within 'forms of life', are always completely real - and 'realist'. He's saying: 'This is the kind of thing humans do. This is the function of language in human life.'

W's 'forms of life' do not imply philosophical realism and human-independent.
'Forms of life' literally means living things existing within a Framework and System, i.e. living-humans in particular and other living things having their specific 'forms of life'.
W's language games is contingent upon the human conditions.

No, his idea of 'forms of life' - still much debated - is, in my view at least, designed to narrow down on particular situations in which we act and interact with each other, using language. He wanted to break the hold of a generalising picture of the nature of language which is, arguably, representational or nomenclaturist. That's what the doctrine 'meaning is use' refers to. And what he called the 'background' is the reality of which we're a part, and in which we exist. This is in no way an anti-realist approach.

In On Certainty, W countered Moore's insistence Moore's claim of 'knowing' an independent external world.
W insisted whatever is claimed is contingent within a language-game thus the human conditions.
To W, an absolutely independent external world is not possible to be known, as such his,
"whereof one cannot speak, one must remain in silent" thus cannot be reified nor hypostatized.

As you know, that's from the Tractatus, which promoted ideas that he rejected later in the Investigations and other writings, including On Certainty. His critique of Moore was that bafflement about the existence of 'the external world' comes from a peculiar philosophical delusion about our supposed separation from that world. In my opinion.

Philosophical realism [p-realist] means absolutely independent and regardless of humans, i.e. not human-based.
The FRSC is human-based, so, how can it be non-human-based 'realist'.

This is assuming one have never been outside that bubble
The problem here is one is having a perspective of outside the bubble while inside the bubble.

The point with reality is this;
Reality is all there is,
Humans are intricately part and parcel of reality,
How can a human extricate itself to have a perspective from outside of reality?

We can't, because we're part of the reality that you agree is all there is. We're not separate from it, inside your invented FSRC bubble. And if the bubble is, in fact, reality itself - which is what you seem to accept - then of course there is no outside that bubble.

QED. 'Reality is all there is.' Could there be a more explicitly realist claim? And what price anti-realism?
But look at the reality outside the bubble in the picture. That's the reality-that's-all-there-is that your silly theory forces you to deny exists. You say reality is an FSRC-reality - that there's no reality outside an FSRC - no reality outside the human-limitation-bubble. It's mind-bogglingly stupid.

Don't be so arrogant to condemn my argument is stupid, especially when you are only attacking your own strawman, i.e. your own stupidity.

I'm showing why your argument is contradictory: reality is all there is; but humans are trapped inside an evolved fundamental framework and system of reality and cognition (EFFSRC). So is our EFFSFRC part of reality, or is it reality itself - which you say both is all there is and doesn't exist?

If Newton has lived at present and is dogmatic, he would have condemned Einstein's Theory of Gravity and theories of QM as mind-boggling stupid.
This is where Einstein's 'God do not play dice' which imply he claimed the theories of QM are 'mind-boggling stupid'.

Note Einstein is a philosophical realist like you and in additional was a theist.
As a non-theist [.. I presumed] you should be able to understand, the theistic Einstein was surely wrong because he views are grounded on an illusion, i.e. God. As a p-realist, his views are also grounded on an illusion.

The question of Einstein's theism is still much debated. But if he was a theist, then he wasn't and isn't the only scientist to hold such an irrational belief. And your attempt to connect his philosophical realism with his theism is tendentious.

If a p-realists and theists of Einstein stature can made such mistakes, you are more than likely to make the same mistake like Einstein putting down the claims of QM.

That you condemned my views as 'mind-boggling stupid' is because your views are immature.
Fact is my views are that of QM [Copenhagen] while yours are like Einstein's p-realism and theism.
Note theists are also p-realists in substance, i.e. believing in an absolute independent God.

You keep falling back on QM as the foundation for your philosophical anti-realism. But it's completely rational to understand QM as an attempt to understand the nature of reality at its fundamental level - which is at least methodologically naturalist and arguably realist. Your use of the observer effect and indeterminacy to support your argument is illegitimate, in my opinion.

In all cases, whether it is a bubble or whatever, that reality contingent within a human-based language game and FSRC.
Because it is human-based the emerging and realization of reality cannot be that of a p-realist state.

Keep thinking about it. The penny may drop. Pigs may fly.

Your counter to my bubble view [counter to your earlier e.g.] is the same as the above.
I would not say your views are 'mind-boggling stupid' exactly, but rather they are only valid within a very immature framework and system of thinking.

The problem with you is, are still stuck with primordial 'Newtonian and Einsteinian' realization of reality relative to the advanced modern QM realization of reality. This sort of underdevelopment in thinking is so evident with the lesser evolved majority.

So, it is you who should "Keep thinking about it. The penny may drop. Pigs may fly."
[/quote]
No, your argument is immature and badly-conceived. So there.

[Peter Holmes]

Perhaps here's one form of the fallacy behind some forms of anti-realism:

Each of us constructs reality 'in the mind', based on sense data.
Therefore, reality is nothing more than each person's mental construct based on sense data.

If it is, then the empiricist skepticism - and ultimately solipsism - is evident. As is the performative contradiction involved in making such a claim - along with talk about intersubjective consensus.

Here's the crazy picture: zombie mental constructs agree with each other about reality, based on zombie sense data that are themselves mental constructs.

Philosophical anti-realism blocks itself in every direction.

[Sculptor]

Perhaps here's one form of the fallacy behind some forms of anti-realism:

Each of us constructs reality 'in the mind', based on sense data.
Therefore, reality is nothing more than each person's mental construct based on sense data.

If it is, then the empiricist skepticism - and ultimately solipsism - is evident. As is the performative contradiction involved in making such a claim - along with talk about intersubjective consensus.

Here's the crazy picture: zombie mental constructs agree with each other about reality, based on zombie sense data that are themselves mental constructs.

Philosophical anti-realism blocks itself in every direction.

But when meat bags agree that what they perceive is the same as what other meat bags perceive then they band together in the knoweldge that thee is simething "out there" and it is not just generated purely in their brains, but generated by the same things out there.
The trouble comes when different groupings of meat bags having had slightly different experiences guided by the endemic assumptions of their personal meatbag collective start to disagree violently with other meat bag groups who having evolved a different set of endemic assumptions are also voilent back.
Science is can, not always, but can bridge the differences but sadly has very little positive input to say about morals, as it is beyond its perview..
And confusing behaviouralism with morality have never worked, nor should it

[Skepdick]

Perhaps here's one form of the fallacy behind some forms of anti-realism:

Each of us constructs reality 'in the mind', based on sense data.
Therefore, reality is nothing more than each person's mental construct based on sense data.

If it is, then the empiricist skepticism - and ultimately solipsism - is evident. As is the performative contradiction involved in making such a claim - along with talk about intersubjective consensus.

Here's the crazy picture: zombie mental constructs agree with each other about reality, based on zombie sense data that are themselves mental constructs.

Philosophical realism can't even get itself off the ground.

If reality exists "independent" of the agent's mind - how's this reality to be studied? What mind-independent research methodology do you have in mind?

Philosophical anti-realism blocks itself in every direction.

You are confused. Philosophical realism blocks itself in every direction when it insists on mind-independence.
Philosophical anti-realism blocks itself in every direction except one.

Anything you learn, discover, know, say or think about reality is mind-dependent.