What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Kant didn't view the mind as a separate, non-physical substance. Nor does indirect realism. Where do you have this random obsession from?

Phew. So the transcendental ego is a physical thing that transcends mere sense data, as is the mind that experiences mental representations of reality, rather than reality itself.

Now, since they're physical things, all we need is physical evidence for the existence of the transcendental ego, the mind, and mental representations.

Or will it be the usual excuses for why there can be no physical evidence for these physical things?

As with the myth of the soul in some religions, in philosophy, a great deal hangs on maintaining the myth of the mind. The investment has been enormous.

[Atla]

Kant didn't view the mind as a separate, non-physical substance. Nor does indirect realism. Where do you have this random obsession from?

Phew. So the transcendental ego is a physical thing that transcends mere sense data, as is the mind that experiences mental representations of reality, rather than reality itself.

Now, since they're physical things, all we need is physical evidence for the existence of the transcendental ego, the mind, and mental representations.

Or will it be the usual excuses for why there can be no physical evidence for these physical things?

As with the myth of the soul in some religions, in philosophy, a great deal hangs on maintaining the myth of the mind. The investment has been enormous.

Kant never said anything like that, the question is why you have this obsession with literal Cartesian transcendence? I'm asking this for about the 8th time.

[Atla]

Though it should be noted that Kant's

- transcendental idealism is neither transcendental, nor idealism

- transcendental realism is neither transcendental, nor realism

- phenomena don't mean phenomena and noumena don't mean noumena

- empirical doesn't mean empirical

- abstract doesn't mean abstract

- intuition doesn't mean intuition

- sensibility doesn't mean sensibility

and that's probably just the tip of the iceberg. He was the biggest genius of all time in the art of coming up with confusing names.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As far as I'm aware it was Descartes who posited the idea of the mind being a separate non-physical "substance" distinct from the body. And, again, as far as I'm aware, the jury is still in deliberation as to whether that is the case or not.

Yes it was Descartes [theistically driven] who separate the mind from the body, to justify there is a soul [mind] that will survive physical death which can go the heaven or be punished in Hell.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Now, answer this question: If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

Or consider this: If there are no things-in-themselves, then appearances are not appearances of things-in-themselves.

Or try this: What does a transcendental ego transcend?

You haven't begun to think critically about this Kantian nonsense. You've just swallowed the mysticism and magical thinking because, well 'Kant is a great philosopher', so he must have been right.

I did not claim Kant is the absolute and ONLY but rather one of [among a few] the Greatest of ALL times.

Who cares? All that matters is the truth of premises and the validity of conclusions. And Kant premises are false, so his argument is unsound.

I have stated many times [necessary for cases like this], I studied Kant for 3 years full sometime ago with continual research, reading, discuss and debates of Kant's philosophy.

So what? You can't have thought critically about his ideas, because to do so is to dismiss them.

Your whole post is full of ignorance and strawmen, thus misunderstanding my premises and arriving at invalid opinions and conclusions.

Where is your arguments that Kant arguments are false?
Kant CPR is only long continual argument that follow from chapter one the penultimate section.
If you have not read the CPR thoroughly and understood [not necessary agree] is arguments, how could you critique his argument as false.
This is your usual strawman.
You need to exercise a reasonable degree of intellectual integrity especially in a philosophical forum like this.

If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

There are no real noumena that exist to be known.
What is phenomena is the reality or fact that is contingent upon a human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.

Ah-ha! So here's the point of noumena: without them, there's no reason to say that things can only be things-as-they-appear-to-us - ie, phenomena. Think about it. If we abolish one pole of a dichotomy, it's no longer a dichotomy. The distinction vanishes - and Kant's argument collapses.

It is based on your illusory philosophical realism that you reason there must be a real noumena that is represented by the real phenomena.

What??
re Principle of Cause and Effect, all causes must lead to a first cause, i.e. God.
if we abolish the theists idea that God as one pole of the God-Creation dichotomy, their argument may collapse, but the creations or phenomena do not vanish.
For Kant the Phenomena-Noumena is just like the Creations-God dichotomy.
Without the 'noumena' as real and 'God as real' in both, the phenomena and Creation still exist as real which can be justified by a human based FSERC.

For Kant, he saw the realist's claim as this;
1. Phenomena [real]-Noumena [real]
to predicate the noumena as real is false.
to Kant it is
2. Phenomena [real]-Noumena [FALSE -Illusory]

Since it is in the middle of his long argument, and the realists are adamant, Kant temporary accept the realists'
1. Phenomena [real]-Noumena [real]
but ultimately he will prove
2. Phenomena [real]-Noumena [FALSE -Illusory]
in his final conclusion, i.e. noumena aka thing-in-itself is illusory.

Note the above VERY important point and Kant's chess strategy and move.

Because of an evolutionary default, the majority will speculate there is something beyond the phenomena. Because it such a natural propensity to speculate the beyond, Kant agreed one can think of it but cannot take it as a real existence.
If the noumena is used, it can only be used in the negative sense but not as something real positively.

This is nonsense. The majority do not 'speculate [that] there is something beyond the phenomena'. We don't need to, because we don't think of reality as phenomenal. Only philosophers lumbered by Platonic and Kantian (repackaged) delusions do that.

You cannot be that ignorant of this.
The majority [>80%] of people are theists who are also philosophical realists.
The secular non-theists who philosophical realists could be <5% and antirealists 10% [Buddhists, etc.].

You are in denial, but your definition of what is fact as a feature of reality, that is the case, just-so is something that is beyond the phenomena.
Can you counter this?

As explained, Kant do not do that.
see my above point;
To Kant merely accept the phenomena noumena dichotomy
in this sense:
2. Phenomena [real]-Noumena [FALSE -Illusory]
NOT this of the realists';
1. Phenomena [real]-Noumena [real]

If there are no things-in-themselves, then appearances are not appearances of things-in-themselves.

Kant has a unique definition for 'appearance' which is different from the typical definition.
Whatever are appearances, they can be verified and justified by a human-based FSERC [science most credible]. There is no need for things-in-themselves when considering what is real and possible to be experience.

So an appearance is not an appearance. It's the thing-itself. But, oops. There are no things-themselves. (What a silly conceptual mess!)

This is why you are ignorant of the nuances in Kant's argument.
Kant's view is this;

2. Phenomena & appearances [real] - Noumena & things-in-themselves [FALSE -Illusory]

So, there are real phenomena & appearances but there are no real things-in-themselves.
The critical term here is 'real'.
What is real is contingent upon a human-based FSERC.

What does a transcendental ego transcend?

"By transcendental (a term that deserves special clarification) Kant means that his philosophical approach to knowledge transcends mere consideration of sensory evidence and requires an understanding of the mind's innate modes of processing that sensory evidence."

Quite. Kant was a man of his time, philosophical training and religious upbringing. He didn't question the myth of the mind as a separate, non-physical substance, containing mental things and events. He just repackaged the mysticism and magical thinking, in an attempt to reconcile empiricism and rationalism.

That's an ad hominen.
The empiricism vs rationalism dichotomy [also the realism vs antirealism] caused a very big chasm and Kant closed that with his Copernican Revolution.
Kant achievements was considered one of the most critical paradigm shift in the history of W philosophy, raising him as ONE of the Greatest Philosophy of ALL Times.

So the transcendental ego is merely an emerged state that is realized as real.
There where you realized you are real both physically and consciously.
There is nothing to transcend.
It is only the theists who believe their transcendental ego transcends to a soul that survives physical death.

Nonsense. The fictional mind supposedly can and does 'transcend' 'mere sensory evidence'. You just said that. You're trying to get Kant off the hook that he very deliberately hung himself on.

Again, you missed the point.
Yes, the mind is a transcendental state that 'transcend' beyond mere sensory elements of the brain.

You are asking whether the mind [transcendental ego] can further transcend beyond itself.
I answer No.

Your ignorance above is due to your philosophical realism grounded on all illusion, i.e. believing in an absolutely human-independent reality out there existing regardless of whether there are humans or not.

As Kant warned, this is the illusion that will haunt you eternally.
This is why you will raise the above sort of questions despite me repeating them >a '1000' times.
You are like a kindi kid arguing with an adult that it is the Sun that moves from one side to another everyday.

What's strange and perplexing is how you've been turned inside out by Kant's silly argument. It's like talking to a devout religious believer. Nothing can be allowed to disturb the faith. Certainly not reasoned argument.

Actually you are like a devout religious believer.
You and theists belong to a brotherhood of philosophical realism where both parties belief [as a dogmatic ideology] in an absolute human independent reality that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

An antirealist [Kantian] oppose the above dogmatic ideology of an absolute human independent reality that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Antirealists [Kantian] humbly conditioned reality upon the fallible human conditions and relies on as far as the evidences [with critical philosophy] can support.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant didn't view the mind as a separate, non-physical substance. Nor does indirect realism. Where do you have this random obsession from?

Phew. So the transcendental ego is a physical thing that transcends mere sense data, as is the mind that experiences mental representations of reality, rather than reality itself.

Now, since they're physical things, all we need is physical evidence for the existence of the transcendental ego, the mind, and mental representations.

Or will it be the usual excuses for why there can be no physical evidence for these physical things?

As with the myth of the soul in some religions, in philosophy, a great deal hangs on maintaining the myth of the mind. The investment has been enormous.

You are conflating too many elements.

Not long ago the human-based science-Physics FSERC only deal with "matter".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
The concept of materialism was refuted by Berkeley's no human independent primary and secondary qualities.

Upon the above, the science-physics FSERC adopted the concept of Physicalism;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
"In philosophy, physicalism or specifically physimonism (physical monism) is the view that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical; -WIKI"

What is 'physical' in the real sense are only things that are dealt with the science-physics FSERC.

The transcendental ego, the mind, and mental representations are not physical things within the science-physics FSERC.
So if you are thinking of evidence for the above as real physical from the science-physics FSERC, that is no such things, thus impossible.

However transcendental ego [empirical self], the mind, and mental representations can be assessed as real within the science-psychology-FSERC.
This science-psychology-FSERC will rely on inputs from its own empirical observations, neurosciencs, biology, and if necessary chemistry and physics in generating science-psychology-FSERC facts.

See your thinking is too messed up, conflating different variable and ignoring the inherent nuances.

[Peter Holmes]

It is based on your illusory philosophical realism that you reason there must be a real noumena that is represented by the real phenomena.

Have a look at these two assertions:

1 There is no distinction between noumena and phenomena. The dichotomy doesn't exist.

2 Philosophical realism is belief in the existence of noumena.

Remember what a straw man is? It's a misrepresentation of an argument in order to refute the misrepresentation. You misrepresent (at least my) philosophical realism as belief in the existence of noumena.

I have no idea - as nor do you, and as nor did Kant - what a noumenon - a thing-in-itself - actually is. He invented it as a purposeful fiction designed to justify his argument about the origin and nature of human knowledge. It went like this.

If there are just things, such as humans, there's no reason to doubt that some things, such as humans, can know other things, such as rocks and stones and trees, and other humans.

Ah...but...a human can't prove the existence of 'the external world' - 'empiricist skepticism' - and that's a philosophical scandal. Kant's solution?: a Copernican revolution.

The human self - a transcendental ego - constructs knowledge of reality by using innate mental categories to organise sense data. Conclusion: we can never know 'just things' - 'things-in-themselves' - because...empiricist skepticism...all we can know are things-as-a-transcendental-ego constructs them.

To repeat: no noumena = no contrast with phenomena = Kant's theory of knowledge collapses.

PS. Whence empiricist skepticism? To repeat. Knowledge comes from experience, which boils down to sense data. Sense data are necessarily first person and unreliable. (Russell: Two people can never know they're looking at the same table. So the existence and nature of the 'object' - ie, 'the external world' - can never be proven.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is based on your illusory philosophical realism that you reason there must be a real noumena that is represented by the real phenomena.

Have a look at these two assertions:

1 There is no distinction between noumena and phenomena. The dichotomy doesn't exist.

2 Philosophical realism is belief in the existence of noumena.

Remember what a straw man is? It's a misrepresentation of an argument in order to refute the misrepresentation. You misrepresent (at least my) philosophical realism as belief in the existence of noumena.

OK, you claim you do not belief in the noumena.

However, I want to argue [as indicated somewhere] your what is fact as a feature of reality that is absolutely independent and exists regardless of whether humans exist or not is equivalent to the idea of a noumena aka things-in-themselves.

In Kantian philosophy, the thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is the status of objects as they are, independent of representation and observation. It is closely related to Kant's concept of noumena or the objects of inquiry, as opposed to phenomena, its manifestations. -WIKI

Philosophical realism– – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

As such, thing-in-itself aka noumenon [object, thing] is the same as the thing [object] of philosophical realism is the same as your "what is fact" that something that is a feature of reality which is absolutely independent of whether humans exist or not.

Based on the above definitions tell me why your 'what is fact' is not the same as Kant's and philosophical realism.

I have no idea - as nor do you, and as nor did Kant - what a noumenon - a thing-in-itself - actually is. He invented it as a purposeful fiction designed to justify his argument about the origin and nature of human knowledge. It went like this.

I have explained what a noumenon is in the previous post and reconciled the independent things of philosophical realism and your what is fact.

If there are just things, such as humans, there's no reason to doubt that some things, such as humans, can know other things, such as rocks and stones and trees, and other humans.

The can obviously know things but only as conditioned within a human-based FSERC.
Things cannot exist by themselves independent of the human factor.

There are so philosophical issues with claiming there are things and fact that are absolutely independent of human conditions.
Are you even aware of these problems that had been raised since philosophy started.

Ah...but...a human can't prove the existence of 'the external world' - 'empiricist skepticism' - and that's a philosophical scandal. Kant's solution?: a Copernican revolution.

Yes to resolve all the issue related to philosophical realism.

The human self - a transcendental ego - constructs knowledge of reality by using innate mental categories to organise sense data. Conclusion: we can never know 'just things' - 'things-in-themselves' - because...empiricist skepticism...all we can know are things-as-a-transcendental-ego constructs them.

To repeat: no noumena = no contrast with phenomena = Kant's theory of knowledge collapses.

PS. Whence empiricist skepticism? To repeat. Knowledge comes from experience, which boils down to sense data. Sense data are necessarily first person and unreliable. (Russell: Two people can never know they're looking at the same table. So the existence and nature of the 'object' - ie, 'the external world' - can never be proven.)

The whole of the above is a misrepresentation.
There is no construction [per se] of reality but note the emergence and realization of reality I have explained before.

[Peter Holmes]

Things cannot exist by themselves independent of the human factor.

Nonsense. 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.

And you know damn well this is true. But your stupid Kantian theory demands that you deny these unarguable facts. Your cognitive dissonance must be fantastically painful. And perhaps that's why you have to dis anyone and any argument that threatens your faith position.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Things cannot exist by themselves independent of the human factor.

Nonsense. 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.

And you know damn well this is true. But your stupid Kantian theory demands that you deny these unarguable facts. Your cognitive dissonance must be fantastically painful. And perhaps that's why you have to dis anyone and any argument that threatens your faith position.

There are some missing critical points above where I have explained many times.

As an evolutionary default all humans are encoded with a sense of outer_ness and external_ness to facilitate basis survival, i.e. search for food and be wary of threats [fatal or otherwise] out there.
A Kantian do not deny the above inherent and natural senses.
A Kantian merely take this as relative to the human conditions, i.e. taking into account emergences and realization of reality.
In this sense, a Kantian is an empirical realist, i.e. believed as far as the empirical evidences can support his claim.

On the other hand, philosophical realists [the majority including theists] cling to this sense of outer_ness and external_ness as absolute, unconditional and a dogmatic ideology, i.e. philosophical realism due to cognitive dissonance and emotional pains. This is so obvious with your dogmatic insistent cries, e.g.

• PH: Nonsense. 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?

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.

[Peter Holmes]

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.

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

[Atla]

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

Such a 3-step process looks suspiciously artificial. It must have been put there by someone.. Allah.. thank you again, second prophet!

[Peter Holmes]

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

1 #1 is meaningless drivel. The universe began and evolved without humans, so reality wasn't human-based.
2 #2 is mystical drivel. 'The human-based realisation of reality.'? Utter codswallop!
3 #3 is trivial. Our perception, knowledge and description of reality is necessarily human.

You're saying this: For there to be reality, there must be humans. And this is patently and demonstrably false.

So your main premise fails. And your ridiculous conclusion about morality is not worth bothering with.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

1 #1 is meaningless drivel. The universe began and evolved without humans, so reality wasn't human-based.
2 #2 is mystical drivel. 'The human-based realisation of reality.'? Utter codswallop!
3 #3 is trivial. Our perception, knowledge and description of reality is necessarily human.

It is best you don't be too arrogant in condemning #1 and #2 because you are at present active with it.

You're saying this: For there to be reality, there must be humans. And this is patently and demonstrably false.

So your main premise fails. And your ridiculous conclusion about morality is not worth bothering with.

My point is there is no reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

It is not 'for there to be reality' there MUST be humans;
rather
'reality emerges with the human condition'
the difference above is critical and subtle.

The main purpose of my point is;
Antirealists oppose the p-realists' ideology of absolutely human-independence.

For example anti-communists do not oppose co-operations, cooperatives, social elements but rather when such elements are constituted as an ideology. i.e. my way of the highway.

Btw, I do not expect you to agree with my views above, but your continual opposition to them is very much welcome.