Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 3:50 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 12:38 pm
Things can and do exist independently from humans.
They did exist before humans turned up.
They would have existed had humans not turned up.
And they will exist when humans are gone.
You are making the above without being able to prove it independent of humans.
How can there be any proofs of existence if there are no humans?
This reality is conditioned and constraints by the existence of humans.
Think about this?
No,
you think about your silly argument.
Strawman as usual
1 We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - and so to 'prove' things exist - in humans ways.
(This is trivially true. We humans have no non-human - such as divine - perception and knowledge of reality.)
I have stated a '000' times,
For there to be reality, there are three phases of the FSERC,
1. the emergence [
human-based] of reality
2. the realization [
human based] of reality
3. the human-based perception, cognition, know and describe reality
Humans are the co-participator of the reality they are intricately part and parcel of.
As such there is NO absolutely human-independent reality the p-realists are cling to.
Again,
VA:
You are making the above without being able to prove it independent of humans.
How can there be any proofs of existence if there are no humans?
This reality is conditioned and constraints by the existence of humans.
Think about this?
2 If there were no humans, there would be no human perception, knowledge and descriptions of reality.
(This is trivially true. But there could be non-human - such as alien - ways of perceiving, knowing and describing reality.)
The above is a big "
IF."
If there were no humans, how is the
above speculation of the existence of aliens possible.
3 There can be no reality 'outside' or 'beyond' the ways we humans perceive, know and describe reality.
(This is an invalid conclusion from #1, undemonstrated, and anyway human-exceptionalist and anthropocentric. And anyway, the note after #2 falsifies it.)
Your #1 and #2 above as invalid arguments.
There is no other than the "anthropocentric" basis. This is unintuitive, but it is the most rational given all the issues and problems associated with the otherwise belief of absolute independence by itself regardless of humans.
To belief human independence as an absolute, dogmatic IDEOLOGY is delusional which you cannot prove it true without the inevitable grounded human conditions.
I have stated many times, the concept of external_ness and independence are critical for basic survival but to cling to it as a dogmatic ideology as philosophical realism and theism [my way of the highway] has led to much evil and will hinder humanity's future progress.
1 Concepts don't exist. They are misleading fictions designed to flesh out and maintain the myth of the mind containing mental things and events. Calling something a concept explains absolutely nothing. So externalness (?) and independence are not concepts. They and their cognates are words we use, in completely explicable ways, in different contexts.
You are very dogmatic based on ignorance and shallow thinking.
Concepts, i.e. the words themselves do not exists as real "concrete" things.
But concrete things exists contingent upon the following'
For there to be reality of concrete things, there are three phases of the FSERC,
1. the emergence [
human-based] of reality
2. the realization [
human based] of reality
3. the human-based perception, cognition, know and describe reality.
So with concrete things, they don't exists of based on 3, i.e. knowing and description.
It is the same with abstract or conceptualized things.
the knowing and description of the concept is not the-thing.
What is physically real with a concept is the whole complex set of 1, 2, 3 that is represented by the brain.
The concept of external_ness, outer_ness and independence are not just words but are represented by a set of
specific neural activities and their
neural correlates which are generic in ALL humans and which generate specific realization of its reality and then its perception and description.
ALL human babies [normal not brain damage] will spontaneously cognizes and knows their mothers' nipples [source of food] are 'external' [outer, independent] from them even though the babies cannot describe it yet.
This is the starting point of concepts [not merely their description] which are necessary leading to survival
Note the concepts of teams [sports] and symphonies [music] which are very productive.
This are only effective within the
collective brains [so human-based] of the team and symphony members and those who cognize them.
There are following phases to concepts;
1. The physical correlates of the concept [in the collective human brains],
2. The emergence
3. The realization of its reality
4. The perception, knowing and description of the concept.
So the concept of externalness, outerness or independence has physical realities, i.e. within 1, 2 and 3 above where 4 is the subsequent perception, knowing and description of the concept.
Your thinking is SO shallow, you are unable to cognize the elements of 1, 2 and 3 above.
Suggest you suggest current judgment and reflect [not to agree but to understand] on the above.
2 What has led, and still leads, to much evil and the hindrance of human progress is the delusion that there are moral facts - and 'we' happen to know what they are.
Where is your argument for the above?
You are probably condemning the so-called God Commanded theistic 'moral facts'.
But as I had argued, theism has negligible objectivity, thus no credibility as moral facts, so can be dismissed easily.
What I have been promoting are moral facts proper.
As for moral facts, they are contingent to the following human-based elements;
- 1. The physical correlates of the concept [in the collective human brains],
2. The emergence
3. The realization of its reality
4. The perception, knowing and description of the concept.
With moral facts [proper] as above which are objective, humanity will be able to strive towards moral progress, i.e. based on the improvement upon an objective moral standard.
I have already argued, moral relativism is to each their own and their 'morality' are to be tolerated.
So, if a group insist it is moral to torture and kill babies for pleasure, you will tolerate them and have no moral say in what they do.