What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Has this Wittgenstein guy ever said anything substantial, anything groundbreaking? It's a pretty bad sign when you start arguing against your former philosophy, if you don't get philosophy right the first time, chances are you won't get it right the second time either.

Okay. There's no need to give a monkey's about what any philosopher has written, cos it's the premises and arguments that count, regardless of who makes them. So if you think this wrangling about Wittgenstein's ideas is beside the point, I tend to agree. Same with Kant.

I think I've been trying to address VA's actual argument, concentrating on his main premise: reality is nothing more than a product of an 'evolved, fundamental framework and system of reality and cognition' (EFFSRC) - and so dependent in some way on us humans. Viz: humans are part of reality, which is all there is; but there is no reality outside or unconditioned by a human EFFSRC. Which I think is patent and demonstrable nonsense.

I stopped reading VA's comments, was just wondering about Wittgenstein. We all wondered about crude mind-dependent reality when we were 16, and later because of QM but that one is a much more sophisticated version. VA is just permanently 16.

We did a topic where I showed in more detail that indirect realism is superior to transcendental idealism, that should be the final nail in the coffin.

As for W, admittedly I'm biased because I find the entire approach of doing philosophy linguistically, to be a mistake.

Okay. I can't remember how the indirect realism v transcendental idealism discussion developed - for which, apologies. I may have a look back and trace it.

As for 'doing philosophy linguistically', all I'd point out is that we can't do philosophy any other than 'linguistically' - in the sense that we have to use sentences (language) to do it. And when we use language, we're 'handling' signs, not the things we use the signs to talk about. Hence the philosophical 'turn to language' around 1900, from which there's no turning back.

[Atla]

Okay. I can't remember how the indirect realism v transcendental idealism discussion developed - for which, apologies. I may have a look back and trace it.

Indirect realism has already beaten transcendental idalism maybe a century ago of course, so this isn't anything new. I just didn't know accurately enough what VA and Kant meant by transcendental idealism (and how VA misunderstood Kant), and VA didn't understand anything about anything and still doesn't, so we talked past each other somewhat for a few years.

And when we use language, we're 'handling' signs, not the things we use the signs to talk about. Hence the philosophical 'turn to language' around 1900, from which there's no turning back.

Signs are only pointers to the deeper, ineffable parts of philosophy so there is no such thing as a philosophical 'turn to language'.

[Peter Holmes]

Okay. I can't remember how the indirect realism v transcendental idealism discussion developed - for which, apologies. I may have a look back and trace it.

Indirect realism has already beaten transcendental idalism maybe a century ago of course, so this isn't anything new. I just didn't know accurately enough what VA and Kant meant by transcendental idealism (and how VA misunderstood Kant), and VA didn't understand anything about anything and still doesn't, so we talked past each other somewhat for a few years.

And when we use language, we're 'handling' signs, not the things we use the signs to talk about. Hence the philosophical 'turn to language' around 1900, from which there's no turning back.

Signs are only pointers to the deeper, ineffable parts of philosophy so there is no such thing as a philosophical 'turn to language'.

No, signs are real, physical things that we use as tools in many, various ways. The word 'dog' doesn't point to any deep or ineffable or unreal thing. And the delusion that there are deep, ineffable things - supposedly denoted by abstract nouns - that philosophy deals with has led to the inertia of philosophy since at least Plato. We're still arguing about the same things - because they're mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention.

But, sure, we won't agree about this.

[Atla]

Okay. I can't remember how the indirect realism v transcendental idealism discussion developed - for which, apologies. I may have a look back and trace it.

Indirect realism has already beaten transcendental idalism maybe a century ago of course, so this isn't anything new. I just didn't know accurately enough what VA and Kant meant by transcendental idealism (and how VA misunderstood Kant), and VA didn't understand anything about anything and still doesn't, so we talked past each other somewhat for a few years.

And when we use language, we're 'handling' signs, not the things we use the signs to talk about. Hence the philosophical 'turn to language' around 1900, from which there's no turning back.

Signs are only pointers to the deeper, ineffable parts of philosophy so there is no such thing as a philosophical 'turn to language'.

No, signs are real, physical things that we use as tools in many, various ways. The word 'dog' doesn't point to any deep or ineffable or unreal thing. And the delusion that there are deep, ineffable things - supposedly denoted by abstract nouns - that philosophy deals with has led to the inertia of philosophy since at least Plato. We're still arguing about the same things - because they're mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention.

But, sure, we won't agree about this.

You and W still don't see beyond Plato's box. Of course 'dog' doesn't point to any deep or ineffable or unreal thing, and of course the abstract isn't the concrete, but for example language can merely point to the more general, "underlying" nondual philosophy as language is dualistic.

Why would we analyze the POINTER and claim there's no turning back?

[Peter Holmes]

Indirect realism has already beaten transcendental idalism maybe a century ago of course, so this isn't anything new. I just didn't know accurately enough what VA and Kant meant by transcendental idealism (and how VA misunderstood Kant), and VA didn't understand anything about anything and still doesn't, so we talked past each other somewhat for a few years.


Signs are only pointers to the deeper, ineffable parts of philosophy so there is no such thing as a philosophical 'turn to language'.

No, signs are real, physical things that we use as tools in many, various ways. The word 'dog' doesn't point to any deep or ineffable or unreal thing. And the delusion that there are deep, ineffable things - supposedly denoted by abstract nouns - that philosophy deals with has led to the inertia of philosophy since at least Plato. We're still arguing about the same things - because they're mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention.

But, sure, we won't agree about this.

You and W still don't see beyond Plato's box. Of course 'dog' doesn't point to any deep or ineffable or unreal thing, and of course the abstract isn't the concrete, but for example language can merely point to the more general, "underlying" nondual philosophy as language is dualistic.

Why would we analyze the POINTER and claim there's no turning back?

1 What is 'the abstract'?
2 What is the more general, 'underlying' nondual philosophy? What does it deal with?
3 Why is language 'dualistic'?

Sorry, this is word salad. But by all means, give an example of a general, underlying nondual issue or question that you think a linguistic expression 'points to'. And I'll show why it's actually about the ways we do or could use the expression, about which there's no mystery.

There really was a philosophical turn to language, though it had wrong turns, as in W's Tractatus and logical positivism - and the so-called analysis of concepts was and is a wild goose chase, in my opinion.

[Atla]

No, signs are real, physical things that we use as tools in many, various ways. The word 'dog' doesn't point to any deep or ineffable or unreal thing. And the delusion that there are deep, ineffable things - supposedly denoted by abstract nouns - that philosophy deals with has led to the inertia of philosophy since at least Plato. We're still arguing about the same things - because they're mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention.

But, sure, we won't agree about this.

You and W still don't see beyond Plato's box. Of course 'dog' doesn't point to any deep or ineffable or unreal thing, and of course the abstract isn't the concrete, but for example language can merely point to the more general, "underlying" nondual philosophy as language is dualistic.

Why would we analyze the POINTER and claim there's no turning back?

1 What is 'the abstract'?
2 What is the more general, 'underlying' nondual philosophy? What does it deal with?
3 Why is language 'dualistic'?

Sorry, this is word salad. But by all means, give an example of a general, underlying nondual issue or question that you think a linguistic expression 'points to'. And I'll show why it's actually about the ways we do or could use the expression, about which there's no mystery.

There really was a philosophical turn to language, though it had wrong turns, as in W's Tractatus and logical positivism - and the so-called analysis of concepts was and is a wild goose chase, in my opinion.

Language works through binary pairs, oppositions of contrast, but reality is devoid of such fundamental pairs. Language works through structures, objects, and it's clear cut where structures, objects begin and end, where they are and where they aren't, but reality is continuous. Certainly from the human perspective.

For example Western philosophy can't solve the problem of consciousness, we are trying to solve the problem using dualistic thinking, which created the problem.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How to sharpen up VA's argument?

Premise: We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
(Note: This sentence is a description of a feature of reality, or a state-of-affairs. And it has a truth-value.)
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is nothing more than the ways we humans perceive, know and describe it.
(Note: This sentence is a description of reality. And it has a truth-value.)

Now, I think the premise is true. And I think it's what VA's palaver about a human EFFSRC amounts to. (His blather about emergence and realisation is so much mystical nonsense.)

But I think the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, so the argument is a non sequitur fallacy. We can't conclude from our necessary 'limitation' that reality is nothing more than our 'limitation' allows.

VA will shout 'straw man' and fail to address this refutation. But can anyone else here have a go at it?

In the interests of intellectual enquiry.

What is there to refute when you are building strawman by deliberately ignoring the emergence and realization of reality elements despite me raising numerous threads to explain what they are about.

You are stuck with as Russell stated "the way of a straightforward and confident answer" and thus NOT doing mature philosophy proper.

Tell you what - explain simply and quickly why emergence and realisation changes your main premise, so that the conclusion is valid. In other words, why does the term 'human EFFSRC' not cover what you call emergence and realisation?

Here is a crude but more obvious analogy:

Say, a carpenter constructed a chair, sold the chair and was asked to make some repairs of the same chair.
From the common sense and conventional sense, the carpenter would perceive [& describe] that chair as absolutely independent thing regardless of humans. If he dies, the chair will still exists within common and conventional sense. [Perspective A]

But in another higher sense [higher-order modality??], the carpenter cannot be dogmatic with perspective A because from a more nuanced perspective B, the chair was constructed by the carpenter personally; as such, the carpenter cannot ignore perspective B wherein in actuality, the so-called external chair he constructed was actually somehow related [dependent] on him.

The above analogy is applicable to reality except it is very subtle which you are unable to cognize.
Perspective B is similar [not exactly the same] as what I have termed as 'emergence' and realization of reality, i.e. in this the construction of the finished chair.

Your premise above, i.e.
[PH] We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. (Note: This sentence is a description of a feature of reality, or a state-of-affairs. And it has a truth-value.)
is merely confined to perspective A [FSC] but ignored the critical perspective B [FSER]

The proper term would be FSERC, i.e. a human based Framework and System of Emergence & Realization of Reality and Cognition [incl, perceiving, knowing and describing]

Your above premise is merely the FSC but ignored the critical FSER.

To put it another way. What is that 'emerges' and 'realises'? Is it reality? Or is it an evolved, fundamental human FSRC? Or is it both? Or is it something else - in which case, what?

And - because I'm impatient, and this is tedious - here are some responses.

If it's reality (the universe) that 'emerges' and 'realises' over billions of years - then that's a standard, banal, and realist claim about reality. But if it's a human EFFSRC that 'emerges' and 'realises' - then that's also a standard, banal and realist claim - this time, about humans.

But if it's something else that 'emerges' and 'realises', then wtf is it?

The above has a lot of nuances which one need to untangle very carefully else it will end up with an impossible [almost] to untangle knot.

First you need to take note [repeated many times];
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. human based FSERC sense
2. Absolute human independent sense - philosophical realism [illusory]

The problem is you are too dogmatic and ideological with seeing reality in sense 2 [illusory], thus your conclusion always end with the 'realist[p]' sense which does not represent my view.

In sense 2, the human based FSERC sense, it include both the empirical-realist & Transcendental-realist sense.
As above with the carpenter-chair analogy, it means the carpenter while viewing the chair is independent from him within common sense [FSK], he is also at the same time understands the chair is not independent of him because he was the creator of the chair [FSER].

So as with reality, universe, all-there-is, it is interpreted within sense 2 as follows;
1. Within empirical realism, the universe in independent of humans - it exists regardless of humans, [even a child can understand that] but at the same time,
2. the realization of 1 cannot be absolute independent of the human conditions as with Transcendental Idealism. [this will need mature philosophical thinking which you are incapable of]

Btw, I as with any normal humans was born with the evolutionary default re empirical realism [1], but upon serious philosophical reflection, I also realize and understand another sense of reality, i.e. sense 2 [transcendental Idealism].

You should suspend judgment on your dogmatic philosophical realism and try to understand [not agree with] empirical_realism-transcendental_idealism perspective.
This is for your own philosophy sake, it is not like I am trying to convert you to Christianity or Islam.

[Peter Holmes]

VA. So - humans make reality in the way a carpenter makes a chair. You have got to be kidding. Meanwhile.

1 Reality is all there is. (You agree.)
2 We humans are part of that reality, and in no way separate from it. (You agree.)
3 We humans have to perceive, know and describe that reality in human ways. (You agree.)
4 That reality can be perceived, known and described in different - for example non-human - ways. (If you disagree, please explain why. Why can reality be perceived, known and described only by humans?)
5 There is no reason to think that there is or can be no reality outside the ways we humans perceive, know and describe it. (This follows from 1 to 4.)

Metaphysical anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

Your 'two senses of reality' merely begs the question. How can reality be 'all there is', if it's nothing more than we humans perceive, know and say about it? We haven't been around for long, and we needn't have evolved at all. Would reality - 'all there is' - then be nothing?

If there were no humans, would there have been and be no universe? Cos that's what your theory entails.

But that's silly. What you're actually saying is this: we humans can have no non-human perspective on reality. And that is an ordinary, realist claim about the human condition, with no anti-realist entailment - and no 'absolute conception of reality' entailment, which is and has always been your straw man criticism of philosophical realism.

Anti-realists aren't 'anti' (opposed to) reality - because what on earth could that mean? Instead, anti-realists are opposed to the idea that there is or can be an absolute, essential, complete or perfect conception and so description of reality - as though there could be such a thing. It's shadow-boxing - tilting at windmills.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA. So - humans make reality in the way a carpenter makes a chair. You have got to be kidding.

What is wrong with the carpenter made that specific real chair [a part of reality] existing within reality [all there is]?

Meanwhile.
1 Reality is all there is. (You agree.)
2 We humans are part of that reality, and in no way separate from it. (You agree.)
3 We humans have to perceive, know and describe that reality in human ways. (You agree.)
4 That reality can be perceived, known and described in different - for example non-human - ways. (If you disagree, please explain why. Why can reality be perceived, known and described only by humans?)
5 There is no reason to think that there is or can be no reality outside the ways we humans perceive, know and describe it. (This follows from 1 to 4.)

Metaphysical anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

You are very deceptive in the above.

PH: 1 Reality is all there is. (You agree.)
We have to be precise here.
1. Reality [sense 1 - FSERC] is all there is. (I agree.)
1. Reality [sense 2 - p-realism] is all there is. (I do not agree.)

To me, your argument above is a sham to start with.

Your 'two senses of reality' merely begs the question. How can reality be 'all there is', if it's nothing more than we humans perceive, know and say about it? We haven't been around for long, and we needn't have evolved at all. Would reality - 'all there is' - then be nothing?

You are conflating the two senses, that is why you see it as begs the question.
Based on your illusory view, you assumes there is something out there absolutely independent of what you perceive, know and say about it.
This assumption create a Reality-GAP between that-something and your perception, knowing and saying about it, which can never be bridged eternally.

This is where the problem of doubts, skepticism, dualism are raised as with Descartes, evil demon, matrix, correspondence theory of truth, others and worst of all - an independent God [theism].
so, obviously your p-realist view has loads of problems from grounding on an assumption, thus illusory.

If there were no humans, would there have been and be no universe? Cos that's what your theory entails.
But that's silly. What you're actually saying is this: we humans can have no non-human perspective on reality. And that is an ordinary, realist claim about the human condition, with no anti-realist entailment - and no 'absolute conception of reality' entailment, which is and has always been your straw man criticism of philosophical realism.

Anti-realists aren't 'anti' (opposed to) reality - because what on earth could that mean? Instead, anti-realists are opposed to the idea that there is or can be an absolute, essential, complete or perfect conception and so description of reality - as though there could be such a thing. It's shadow-boxing - tilting at windmills.

As explained above p-realists ASSUME reality and thus create a REALITY-GAP that can never be bridged eternally.

Antirealists [Kantian] ground the emergence and realization of reality on what is empirical, observable [directly and indirectly] experienced and possible to be experienced as reality [all there is] and it is verifiable and justifiable via a human-based FSERC -science the most credible and objective.
In this case, what is reality is entangled with the human self individually and collectively.
As such, there is no need to ASSUME there is something beyond all the above.

In addition, there is no need affirm what is speculated as 'there something before there were humans' is the real deal.
Antirealists [Kantian] accept whatever is speculated or inferred is part and parcel of the reality that emerged and is realized.

So, yes, if there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe!
So, what!!

Will reality -all there is - just disappear if we hold the above belief?
No! what emerged and is realized via the evolved FSERC will be there regardless of our beliefs, i.e. whether
1. - if there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe! or
2. - the universe existed and exists regardless of humans.

That you insist upon belief 2 [p-realist] and reject 2 [FSERC] is due to desperate psychology, bugged by 'ex nihilo fit' and avoiding cognitive dissonances from an existential crisis.

Point is belief 2, i.e. p-realism is full of holes as grounded on an illusion, while 1 [FSERC] is more realistic, pragmatic, involves no assumption, no reality-Gap and facilitate humanity's progress more effectively.

[Peter Holmes]

VA. So - humans make reality in the way a carpenter makes a chair. You have got to be kidding.

What is wrong with the carpenter made that specific real chair [a part of reality] existing within reality [all there is]?

Meanwhile.
1 Reality is all there is. (You agree.)
2 We humans are part of that reality, and in no way separate from it. (You agree.)
3 We humans have to perceive, know and describe that reality in human ways. (You agree.)
4 That reality can be perceived, known and described in different - for example non-human - ways. (If you disagree, please explain why. Why can reality be perceived, known and described only by humans?)
5 There is no reason to think that there is or can be no reality outside the ways we humans perceive, know and describe it. (This follows from 1 to 4.)

Metaphysical anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

You are very deceptive in the above.

PH: 1 Reality is all there is. (You agree.)
We have to be precise here.
1. Reality [sense 1 - FSERC] is all there is. (I agree.)
1. Reality [sense 2 - p-realism] is all there is. (I do not agree.)

To me, your argument above is a sham to start with.

Your 'two senses of reality' merely begs the question. How can reality be 'all there is', if it's nothing more than we humans perceive, know and say about it? We haven't been around for long, and we needn't have evolved at all. Would reality - 'all there is' - then be nothing?

You are conflating the two senses, that is why you see it as begs the question.
Based on your illusory view, you assumes there is something out there absolutely independent of what you perceive, know and say about it.
This assumption create a Reality-GAP between that-something and your perception, knowing and saying about it, which can never be bridged eternally.

This is where the problem of doubts, skepticism, dualism are raised as with Descartes, evil demon, matrix, correspondence theory of truth, others and worst of all - an independent God [theism].
so, obviously your p-realist view has loads of problems from grounding on an assumption, thus illusory.

If there were no humans, would there have been and be no universe? Cos that's what your theory entails.
But that's silly. What you're actually saying is this: we humans can have no non-human perspective on reality. And that is an ordinary, realist claim about the human condition, with no anti-realist entailment - and no 'absolute conception of reality' entailment, which is and has always been your straw man criticism of philosophical realism.

Anti-realists aren't 'anti' (opposed to) reality - because what on earth could that mean? Instead, anti-realists are opposed to the idea that there is or can be an absolute, essential, complete or perfect conception and so description of reality - as though there could be such a thing. It's shadow-boxing - tilting at windmills.

As explained above p-realists ASSUME reality and thus create a REALITY-GAP that can never be bridged eternally.

Antirealists [Kantian] ground the emergence and realization of reality on what is empirical, observable [directly and indirectly] experienced and possible to be experienced as reality [all there is] and it is verifiable and justifiable via a human-based FSERC -science the most credible and objective.
In this case, what is reality is entangled with the human self individually and collectively.
As such, there is no need to ASSUME there is something beyond all the above.

In addition, there is no need affirm what is speculated as 'there something before there were humans' is the real deal.
Antirealists [Kantian] accept whatever is speculated or inferred is part and parcel of the reality that emerged and is realized.

So, yes, if there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe!
So, what!!

Will reality -all there is - just disappear if we hold the above belief?
No! what emerged and is realized via the evolved FSERC will be there regardless of our beliefs, i.e. whether
1. - if there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe! or
2. - the universe existed and exists regardless of humans.

That you insist upon belief 2 [p-realist] and reject 2 [FSERC] is due to desperate psychology, bugged by 'ex nihilo fit' and avoiding cognitive dissonances from an existential crisis.

Point is belief 2, i.e. p-realism is full of holes as grounded on an illusion, while 1 [FSERC] is more realistic, pragmatic, involves no assumption, no reality-Gap and facilitate humanity's progress more effectively.

1 VA's question-begging

Here's our question: is reality independent from humans?

To beg the question is to assume the conclusion in a premise, and here's how he does it.

He says there are two senses of the word reality: reality as all there is; and reality as humans perceive, know and describe it.

Then he says 'reality as all there is' is not independent from humans - that it's a delusion - so that all we're left with is 'reality as humans perceive, know and describe it'.

And that begs the question. VA's answer is: reality is not independent from humans, because reality is not independent from humans.

2 VA's silly claim

VA says this: if there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe.

All the evidence we have from the natural sciences demonstrates that this is about as false as any such claim could be. And VA's counter - that such evidence comes from the human natural science practices and discourses, which are not independent from humans - merely recycles his question-begging argument.

It's a plodding, painful walk in a circle. Enough already. A long time ago.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA. So - humans make reality in the way a carpenter makes a chair. You have got to be kidding.

What is wrong with the carpenter made that specific real chair [a part of reality] existing within reality [all there is]?

Meanwhile.
1 Reality is all there is. (You agree.)
2 We humans are part of that reality, and in no way separate from it. (You agree.)
3 We humans have to perceive, know and describe that reality in human ways. (You agree.)
4 That reality can be perceived, known and described in different - for example non-human - ways. (If you disagree, please explain why. Why can reality be perceived, known and described only by humans?)
5 There is no reason to think that there is or can be no reality outside the ways we humans perceive, know and describe it. (This follows from 1 to 4.)

Metaphysical anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

You are very deceptive in the above.

PH: 1 Reality is all there is. (You agree.)
We have to be precise here.
1. Reality [sense 1 - FSERC] is all there is. (I agree.)
1. Reality [sense 2 - p-realism] is all there is. (I do not agree.)

To me, your argument above is a sham to start with.

Your 'two senses of reality' merely begs the question. How can reality be 'all there is', if it's nothing more than we humans perceive, know and say about it? We haven't been around for long, and we needn't have evolved at all. Would reality - 'all there is' - then be nothing?

You are conflating the two senses, that is why you see it as begs the question.
Based on your illusory view, you assumes there is something out there absolutely independent of what you perceive, know and say about it.
This assumption create a Reality-GAP between that-something and your perception, knowing and saying about it, which can never be bridged eternally.

This is where the problem of doubts, skepticism, dualism are raised as with Descartes, evil demon, matrix, correspondence theory of truth, others and worst of all - an independent God [theism].
so, obviously your p-realist view has loads of problems from grounding on an assumption, thus illusory.

If there were no humans, would there have been and be no universe? Cos that's what your theory entails.
But that's silly. What you're actually saying is this: we humans can have no non-human perspective on reality. And that is an ordinary, realist claim about the human condition, with no anti-realist entailment - and no 'absolute conception of reality' entailment, which is and has always been your straw man criticism of philosophical realism.

Anti-realists aren't 'anti' (opposed to) reality - because what on earth could that mean? Instead, anti-realists are opposed to the idea that there is or can be an absolute, essential, complete or perfect conception and so description of reality - as though there could be such a thing. It's shadow-boxing - tilting at windmills.

As explained above p-realists ASSUME reality and thus create a REALITY-GAP that can never be bridged eternally.

Antirealists [Kantian] ground the emergence and realization of reality on what is empirical, observable [directly and indirectly] experienced and possible to be experienced as reality [all there is] and it is verifiable and justifiable via a human-based FSERC -science the most credible and objective.
In this case, what is reality is entangled with the human self individually and collectively.
As such, there is no need to ASSUME there is something beyond all the above.

In addition, there is no need affirm what is speculated as 'there something before there were humans' is the real deal.
Antirealists [Kantian] accept whatever is speculated or inferred is part and parcel of the reality that emerged and is realized.

So, yes, if there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe!
So, what!!

Will reality -all there is - just disappear if we hold the above belief?
No! what emerged and is realized via the evolved FSERC will be there regardless of our beliefs, i.e. whether
1. - if there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe! or
2. - the universe existed and exists regardless of humans.

That you insist upon belief 2 [p-realist] and reject 2 [FSERC] is due to desperate psychology, bugged by 'ex nihilo fit' and avoiding cognitive dissonances from an existential crisis.

Point is belief 2, i.e. p-realism is full of holes as grounded on an illusion, while 1 [FSERC] is more realistic, pragmatic, involves no assumption, no reality-Gap and facilitate humanity's progress more effectively.

1 VA's question-begging

Here's our question: is reality independent from humans?

To beg the question is to assume the conclusion in a premise, and here's how he does it.

He says there are two senses of the word reality: reality as all there is; and reality as humans perceive, know and describe it.

Then he says 'reality as all there is' is not independent from humans - that it's a delusion - so that all we're left with is 'reality as humans perceive, know and describe it'.

And that begs the question. VA's answer is: reality is not independent from humans, because reality is not independent from humans.

Strawman as usual.
Somehow you cannot resisting cheating.

I stated:
We have to be precise here.
1. Reality [sense 1 - FSERC] is all there is. (I agree.)
1. Reality [sense 2 - p-realism] is all there is. (I do not agree.)

I never said or agreed with this;
PH: Then he says 'reality as all there is' is not independent from humans - that it's a delusion - so that all we're left with is 'reality as humans perceive, know and describe it'.

In sense 1 within my non-independent FSERC all-there-is reality, reality is not independent from humans and it is not an illusion, and we can perceive, know and describe it.

But it I accuse your [not mine] reality is illusory because you accept sense 2 p-realism's all there is.

2 VA's silly claim

VA says this: if there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe.

All the evidence we have from the natural sciences demonstrates that this is about as false as any such claim could be. And VA's counter - that such evidence comes from the human natural science practices and discourses, which are not independent from humans - merely recycles his question-begging argument.

It's a plodding, painful walk in a circle. Enough already. A long time ago.

It is a fact whatever emerged and is realized, then perceived, known, and described is via a human-based scientific FSERC.
Since it is human-based, whatever the resultant, i.e. emergence and realization of reality, perceived, known and described via the human-based science-FSERC it cannot be independent of the human conditions.
The resultants [reality] are somehow entangled and embodied with the human conditions.

Therefore the claim of the p-realists that reality and things are absolutely independent of the human conditions is false.

You did not address these points?
Did you note the reasons why you are desperate to cling to the realist[p] view and the terrible problems that are associated with it?
As you aware you are merely ASSUMING without proof there is an absolutely independent reality beyond what you perceive it to be?
Are you aware you are caught with a REALITY-GAP that cannot be bridged eternally?

[Peter Holmes]

Claim: If there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe.
Reason: This is because the universe is somehow entangled with humans.

Utter claptrap.

The universe, which includes humans, is not an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Claim: If there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe.
Reason: This is because the universe is somehow entangled with humans.

Utter claptrap.

The universe, which includes humans, is not an illusion.

Strawman again - the 'millionth' time.

You did not read my point, i.e.??
VA: In sense 1 within my non-independent FSERC all-there-is reality, reality is not independent from humans and it is not an illusion, and we can perceive, know and describe it.

You cannot deny humans are intricately part and parcel of reality - all there is.
There is no way, one can extricate itself from the universe.
There is only the human-entangled universe and no other.

Remember W's
"whereof one cannot speak, one must remain in silence"
this is eternal, thus as good as being illusory and Kant had argued it is indeed illusory,
W's point alludes to the thing-in-itself where one cannot speak of since it is in-itself.

[Peter Holmes]

Claim: If there were no humans, there would have been and be no universe.

Nonsense.

[Atla]

He says there are two senses of the word reality

What VA has been saying all these years is that there are only two philosophies: naive realism and Kantian naive anti-realism. And that he's super smart because he knows that the second one beats the first one.

Kant told him that the "naive" (direct) part is always a must, it can't be any other way. So that's what VA will insist on forever.