What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

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.

What tripe. 'Reality emerges with the human condition.' =

1 Before there were humans, there was no reality (no universe).
2 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality (no universe).

But, by all means, keep wriggling. You know this is nonsense, and no amount of subtle prevarication saves it.

Humans have been around for an almost infinitesimally small time in the vast history of the universe. So the claim that 'reality emerges with the human condition' is mind-bogglingly stupid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

What tripe.

Don't be too arrogant with your ignorance.

'Reality emerges with the human condition.' =

1 Before there were humans, there was no reality (no universe).
2 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality (no universe).

There is big difference in the way I phrase the point, i.e. in the negative perspective:

'Reality does not emerge without the human condition.'

This view is to appose the p-realist ideological view that reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

But, by all means, keep wriggling. You know this is nonsense, and no amount of subtle prevarication saves it.

Humans have been around for an almost infinitesimally small time in the vast history of the universe. So the claim that 'reality emerges with the human condition' is mind-bogglingly stupid.

Here are some clues:

Note this
1. In the mask illusion;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKa0eaKsdA0

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... lusion.gif

a 'real' Convex ) shaped appears instantly when you set your eyes to it,
originally it is a Concave ( shaped thing.
Why is this so?
This is established by evolution over millions of years and hardwired in all normal humans.
Thus this is supported by its neural correlates.

It is because we humans are aware of the experiment we know the truth of this illusion.
If in ancient times, the people would think the Convex ) shaped figure is real if they do not have the access to check it physically.

2. Here is another one involving we humans moving;
Dinosaur that follow your gaze optical illusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZl7zeqFHS4

It appears the dinosaur is turning its head to follow your gaze when it is actually not moving.

As you will note from the above, the "reality" of the above only when human interact with it is a certain manner.
So without humans, there is no such "reality" which is apparent.

There are may other similar examples of the above where reality [apparent] only appears when there are human interactions.
These apparent reality do not emerge by themselves.
Such a reality of an illusion cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions

Here is the 'Eureka' truth;
The above are illusions which can be discovered by rational humans.
These sort of illusions evolved from millions of years.

But there are illusions of "reality" that evolved from billions of years ago.
This is the everyday reality of things you take as really real, .e.g. the apples and whatever solid things you observed outside you or even the parts inside you.
Such 'really' real things are actually illusions but the majority of humans even the most intelligent and rational could not detect they are illusions that had evolved organically from over 3.5 billions and 13.7 billions of years physically.

Just like the above 2 illusions, these hardcore illusions are only reality and realized with the human conditions.
But the latter are very difficult to understand as a refined kind of illusions by the majority.
There is a need for very refined deep reflections to understand, ultimately they cannot exist as absolutely independent without the human conditions.

So, my point;
'Reality does not emerge and is not realized as real without the human conditions.'
Reality as it is cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
(note the above is stated in the negative) which leaves room for deep reflections of the point.

You condemned my point with arrogance and ignorance because these sublime facts are beyond your cognition.

[Atla]

We couldn't know that they are illusions if indirect realism wasn't the case (we would have no external, mind-independent reality to compare phenomena to), which again shows that transcendental idealism is bollocks.

[Peter Holmes]

VA says his claims and argument are nuanced, subtle, profound and sublime. Here are some crude, obvious, mundane and tawdry points in response.

1 If all is illusion, then we humans are illusions, and reality is an illusion experienced by illusions.

2 If all is illusion, then there's no perspective from which to conclude that all is illusion.

3 Any claim about reality must come from a realist position. So an anti-realist claim or argument undermines it self. Iow, anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA says his claims and argument are nuanced, subtle, profound and sublime. Here are some crude, obvious, mundane and tawdry points in response.

1 If all is illusion, then we humans are illusions, and reality is an illusion experienced by illusions.

2 If all is illusion, then there's no perspective from which to conclude that all is illusion.

3 Any claim about reality must come from a realist position. So an anti-realist claim or argument undermines it self. Iow, anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.

You missed my point and so you ended with a strawman.

PH: 1 If all is illusion, then we humans are illusions, and reality is an illusion experienced by illusions.

Antirealists [Kant] do not believe all of reality [all there is] is an illusion.
It only when philosophical realists claim there is something beyond the empirical, the experienced and possible-to-be-experienced, that antirealist charge the p-realists as chasing an illusion.

Here is where I explain your sort of misunderstanding;

viewtopic.php?p=711721&sid=ce7b4717087e ... 6d#p711721

To the antirealist [Kantian] reality is all there is, even an illusion has a basis of reality to it, i.e. the neural correlates that generate the illusion.

It only when philosophical realists claim there is something beyond the empirical, the experienced and possible-to-be-experienced, that antirealist charge the p-realists as chasing an illusion.

• Analogy
  This is like people of primitive tribeA [aka p-realists] seeing an "oasis" across a river on the desert they do not have access to, and they claim [by inherent instinct] that the "oasis" is absolutely real. They believe if they can get to it, they will have access to the water and dates therein; thus generating some kind of hope.
  There is no way they have access to understand what is a 'mirage'.
  
  One day a person-B from another tribeB [antirealists] 100 km away chance upon the primitive tribe who have had experienced and understood that such a 'oasis' is an illusion and it it not something real.
  Person B told the people of tribeA that the "oasis' they are seeing is not the real thing.
  Since there is no way for the people of tribeA to verify and justify their belief what they perceived is real or false, they naturally stuck to their inherent instinct that the "oasis" they perceived is absolutely real.
  
  In this analogy, person-B [antirealist] did not believe in any illusion; but charged the people of tribe-A [p-realist] is believing in an illusion when they insist the 'oasis' [mirage] is absolutely real.

So, antirealist do not believe reality is an illusion.
It only when philosophical realists claim there is something beyond the empirical, the experienced and possible-to-be-experienced, that antirealist charge the p-realists as chasing an illusion.

[Peter Holmes]

Antirealists [Kant] do not believe all of reality [all there is] is an illusion.
It only when philosophical realists claim there is something beyond the empirical, the experienced and possible-to-be-experienced, that antirealist charge the p-realists as chasing an illusion.

Wow. So this all that antirealism amounts to?

Newsflash. Philosophical realists don't claim 'there is something beyond the empirical, the experienced and possible-to-be-experienced'.

That 'something beyond' (the noumenon) is a Kantian invention, a fiction - an illusion.

To repeat. Antirealism is really an objection to the claim that any one description of reality can capture its essence or fundamental nature - reality-as-it-really-is - as though there is such a thing.

But the antirealist conclusion - that, because there's no such thing as reality-in-itself, reality must be (somehow) dependent on humans - is fallacious. That simply doesn't follow.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Antirealists [Kant] do not believe all of reality [all there is] is an illusion.
It only when philosophical realists claim there is something beyond the empirical, the experienced and possible-to-be-experienced, that antirealist charge the p-realists as chasing an illusion.

Wow. So this all that antirealism amounts to?

News to you??
I had been saying that for a LONG LONG time, i.e. > '1000' times already.

There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The FSERC realistic sense
2. The p-realists' illusory sense of absolute human independence.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992 Apr 23, 2023 8:06 am

I [as an antirealist(Kantian)] have never claimed 'reality is an illusion'.
To antirealists(Kantian), whatever "is" is real but contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC.

Newsflash. Philosophical realists don't claim 'there is something beyond the empirical, the experienced and possible-to-be-experienced'.

That 'something beyond' (the noumenon) is a Kantian invention, a fiction - an illusion.

To repeat. Antirealism is really an objection to the claim that any one description of reality can capture its essence or fundamental nature - reality-as-it-really-is - as though there is such a thing.

Your fact, i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, just-is and is absolutely independent of the human conditions [opinion, belief, judgement] is a type of philosophical realism.

What you call 'fact' [human independent] is in fact a 'thing'.
Because your fact or thing is human independent,
then your thing exist by itself, regardless of whether they are humans or not.
As such, your 'fact' is a 'thing-by-itself' or 'thing-in-itself'.
Your fact-in-itself is no different from Kant's thing-in-itself.

But the antirealist conclusion - that, because there's no such thing as reality-in-itself, reality must be (somehow) dependent on humans - is fallacious. That simply doesn't follow.

Your above is a strawman.
I have stated many times, to use "dependent on humans" do not represent my point at all.

Philosohically realism make the following ideological claim, i.e.
What is reality [things] is absolutely independent of the human conditions [mind]; things exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

What I am asserting is in a negative claim;
Antirealists oppose the above ideological claim.
What is reality [all there is] CANNOT be absolutely human[mind] independent.
To add, somehow, reality is intricately related to the human conditions.

[Peter Holmes]

What I am asserting is in a negative claim;

What is reality [all there is] CANNOT be absolutely human[mind] independent.
To add, somehow, reality is intricately related to the human conditions.

P: There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. (Agreed. The expression 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. (Why?)
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans. (Why?)

Neither conclusion follows from the meaningless premise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What I am asserting is in a negative claim;

What is reality [all there is] CANNOT be absolutely human[mind] independent.
To add, somehow, reality is intricately related to the human conditions.

P: There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. (Agreed. The expression 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. (Why?)
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans. (Why?)

Neither conclusion follows from the meaningless premise.

You are the one who is having the problem.

PH: P: There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. (Agreed. The expression 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)

The expression 'thing-in-itself' or 'reality-in-itself' is not realistic as per antirealism.

However, Kant introduced the term 'thing-in-itself' or 'reality-in-itself' as a useful basis to expose p-realists' [like you] and theists' illusory thoughts.
Kant later used the 'thing-in-itself' [illusory] for his purpose but not as something real but merely as some fictitious thing.

As explained above;
Your fact, i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, just-is and is absolutely independent of the human conditions [opinion, belief, judgement] is a type of philosophical realism.

What you call 'fact' [human independent] is in fact a 'thing'.
Because your fact or thing is human independent,
then your thing exist by itself, regardless of whether they are humans or not.
As such, your 'fact' is a 'thing-by-itself' or 'thing-in-itself'.
Your fact-in-itself is no different from Kant's thing-in-itself.

Your definition of what is fact is also a fact-in-itself which is no different from the thing-in-itself or reality-in-itself or whatever-in-itself.

P: There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. (Agreed. The expression 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. (Why?)
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans. (Why?)

It should be this

P: [.i]There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. [ii] There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. [Pii]
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans [Pii].

[Peter Holmes]

What I am asserting is in a negative claim;

What is reality [all there is] CANNOT be absolutely human[mind] independent.
To add, somehow, reality is intricately related to the human conditions.

P: There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. (Agreed. The expression 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. (Why?)
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans. (Why?)

Neither conclusion follows from the meaningless premise.

You are the one who is having the problem.

PH: P: There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. (Agreed. The expression 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)

The expression 'thing-in-itself' or 'reality-in-itself' is not realistic as per antirealism.

However, Kant introduced the term 'thing-in-itself' or 'reality-in-itself' as a useful basis to expose p-realists' [like you] and theists' illusory thoughts.
Kant later used the 'thing-in-itself' [illusory] for his purpose but not as something real but merely as some fictitious thing.

As explained above;
Your fact, i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, just-is and is absolutely independent of the human conditions [opinion, belief, judgement] is a type of philosophical realism.

What you call 'fact' [human independent] is in fact a 'thing'.
Because your fact or thing is human independent,
then your thing exist by itself, regardless of whether they are humans or not.
As such, your 'fact' is a 'thing-by-itself' or 'thing-in-itself'.
Your fact-in-itself is no different from Kant's thing-in-itself.

Your definition of what is fact is also a fact-in-itself which is no different from the thing-in-itself or reality-in-itself or whatever-in-itself.

P: There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. (Agreed. The expression 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. (Why?)
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans. (Why?)

It should be this

P: [.i]There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. [ii] There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. [Pii]
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans [Pii].

Have a think. You're trying to get to the conclusion that reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, or that reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans, or that there is only reality-contingent-with-humans. These are all ways of saying much the same thing.

But if your premise is 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans', you're using your conclusion as a premise, which is called 'begging the question'. It means the argument is useless. By adding 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans' to your premise, you've achieved nothing. See below.

P: There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C: Therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, etc.

The conclusion in effect restates the premise.

The issue is: why does 'there is no such thing as reality-in-itself' entail 'therefore, there is only reality-contingent-with-humans'? You have to answer that question.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's the VA argument.

P1 Reality is not an illusion.
P2 Reality-in-itself is an illusion.
C Therefore, there is only reality-contingent-with-humans.

So that clears it all up. And 'morality is objective' follows as night follows day. Shall we move on?

[Veritas Aequitas]

P: There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. (Agreed. The expression 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. (Why?)
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans. (Why?)

Neither conclusion follows from the meaningless premise.

You are the one who is having the problem.

PH: P: There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. (Agreed. The expression 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)

The expression 'thing-in-itself' or 'reality-in-itself' is not realistic as per antirealism.

However, Kant introduced the term 'thing-in-itself' or 'reality-in-itself' as a useful basis to expose p-realists' [like you] and theists' illusory thoughts.
Kant later used the 'thing-in-itself' [illusory] for his purpose but not as something real but merely as some fictitious thing.

As explained above;
Your fact, i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, just-is and is absolutely independent of the human conditions [opinion, belief, judgement] is a type of philosophical realism.

What you call 'fact' [human independent] is in fact a 'thing'.
Because your fact or thing is human independent,
then your thing exist by itself, regardless of whether they are humans or not.
As such, your 'fact' is a 'thing-by-itself' or 'thing-in-itself'.
Your fact-in-itself is no different from Kant's thing-in-itself.

Your definition of what is fact is also a fact-in-itself which is no different from the thing-in-itself or reality-in-itself or whatever-in-itself.

P: There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. (Agreed. The expression 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. (Why?)
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans. (Why?)

It should be this

P: [.i]There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. [ii] There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. [Pii]
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans [Pii].

Have a think. You're trying to get to the conclusion that reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, or that reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans, or that there is only reality-contingent-with-humans. These are all ways of saying much the same thing.

But if your premise is 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans', you're using your conclusion as a premise, which is called 'begging the question'. It means the argument is useless. By adding 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans' to your premise, you've achieved nothing. See below.

P: There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C: Therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, etc.

The conclusion in effect restates the premise.

The issue is: why does 'there is no such thing as reality-in-itself' entail 'therefore, there is only reality-contingent-with-humans'? You have to answer that question.

I was using and modifying your earlier syllogism.

The argument proper would be something like this;

• i. A part cannot be absolutely independent of the whole which it is intricately a part of.
  E.g. the spokes of wheel cannot be absolutely independent of the wheel it is intricately a part of.
  
  P1 Reality is a whole, i.e. all there is.
  P2 Humans are parts of reality [the whole]
  C Therefore humans cannot be absolutely independent of reality [the whole]

Show me your argument your 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is the case, just-so, state of affair, which is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not?

By your definition, your 'what is fact' is a fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself, i.e. is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not.

If you insist in relating your fact to science, then it is a fact-by-science.
Since science is contingent on humans, whatever the fact-by-science cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Your absolute independent fact-in-itself is an illusion.

[Peter Holmes]

You are the one who is having the problem.

PH: P: There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. (Agreed. The expression 'reality-in-itself' is meaningless.)

The expression 'thing-in-itself' or 'reality-in-itself' is not realistic as per antirealism.

However, Kant introduced the term 'thing-in-itself' or 'reality-in-itself' as a useful basis to expose p-realists' [like you] and theists' illusory thoughts.
Kant later used the 'thing-in-itself' [illusory] for his purpose but not as something real but merely as some fictitious thing.

As explained above;
Your fact, i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, just-is and is absolutely independent of the human conditions [opinion, belief, judgement] is a type of philosophical realism.

What you call 'fact' [human independent] is in fact a 'thing'.
Because your fact or thing is human independent,
then your thing exist by itself, regardless of whether they are humans or not.
As such, your 'fact' is a 'thing-by-itself' or 'thing-in-itself'.
Your fact-in-itself is no different from Kant's thing-in-itself.

Your definition of what is fact is also a fact-in-itself which is no different from the thing-in-itself or reality-in-itself or whatever-in-itself.



It should be this

P: [.i]There is no such thing as reality-in-itself. [ii] There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C1: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from humans. [Pii]
C2: Therefore, reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans [Pii].

Have a think. You're trying to get to the conclusion that reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, or that reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans, or that there is only reality-contingent-with-humans. These are all ways of saying much the same thing.

But if your premise is 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans', you're using your conclusion as a premise, which is called 'begging the question'. It means the argument is useless. By adding 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans' to your premise, you've achieved nothing. See below.

P: There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C: Therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, etc.

The conclusion in effect restates the premise.

The issue is: why does 'there is no such thing as reality-in-itself' entail 'therefore, there is only reality-contingent-with-humans'? You have to answer that question.

I was using and modifying your earlier syllogism.

The argument proper would be something like this;

• i. A part cannot be absolutely independent of the whole which it is intricately a part of.
  E.g. the spokes of wheel cannot be absolutely independent of the wheel it is intricately a part of.
  
  P1 Reality is a whole, i.e. all there is.
  P2 Humans are parts of reality [the whole]
  C Therefore humans cannot be absolutely independent of reality [the whole]

Show me your argument your 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is the case, just-so, state of affair, which is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not?

By your definition, your 'what is fact' is a fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself, i.e. is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not.

If you insist in relating your fact to science, then it is a fact-by-science.
Since science is contingent on humans, whatever the fact-by-science cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Your absolute independent fact-in-itself is an illusion.

This is a swerve to a different argument and conclusion. Yes, of course, we humans are real, so we can't be absolutely independent from the whole (reality), of which we're a part.

But it doesn't follow that there can be no reality-in-itself, independent from humans. The 'whole' (reality) can and does continue to exist even if one of its parts disappears - for example, when an individual dies or a species goes extinct.

Reality was a 'whole' before humans evolved, would have been a 'whole' had we not evolved, and will be a 'whole' when we're gone. So this 'whole' (reality/the universe) is indeed patently and demonstrably independent from humans.

You're dodging the big questions:

1 What exactly is 'reality-in-itself'? (Because, if the expression is meaningless, then so is any premise in which it appears. And any argument from such a premise is incoherent.)

2 Why does the premise 'there is no reality-in-itself' entail the conclusion 'therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans'?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Have a think. You're trying to get to the conclusion that reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, or that reality is (somehow) intricately related to humans, or that there is only reality-contingent-with-humans. These are all ways of saying much the same thing.

But if your premise is 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans', you're using your conclusion as a premise, which is called 'begging the question'. It means the argument is useless. By adding 'There is only reality-contingent-with-humans' to your premise, you've achieved nothing. See below.

P: There is only reality-contingent-with-humans.
C: Therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans, etc.

The conclusion in effect restates the premise.

The issue is: why does 'there is no such thing as reality-in-itself' entail 'therefore, there is only reality-contingent-with-humans'? You have to answer that question.

I was using and modifying your earlier syllogism.

The argument proper would be something like this;

• i. A part cannot be absolutely independent of the whole which it is intricately a part of.
  E.g. the spokes of wheel cannot be absolutely independent of the wheel it is intricately a part of.
  
  P1 Reality is a whole, i.e. all there is.
  P2 Humans are parts of reality [the whole]
  C Therefore humans cannot be absolutely independent of reality [the whole]

Show me your argument your 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is the case, just-so, state of affair, which is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not?

By your definition, your 'what is fact' is a fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself, i.e. is absolutely independent regardless there are humans or not.

If you insist in relating your fact to science, then it is a fact-by-science.
Since science is contingent on humans, whatever the fact-by-science cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Your absolute independent fact-in-itself is an illusion.

This is a swerve to a different argument and conclusion. Yes, of course, we humans are real, so we can't be absolutely independent from the whole (reality), of which we're a part.

The first part is the obvious premise.

You are unable to realize the vice-versa, i.e. reality cannot be absolutely independent of humans because your evolutionary default sense of externalness and outerness is too strong and domineering over your higher rational faculty and turning it into an ideology.

But it doesn't follow that there can be no reality-in-itself, independent from humans. The 'whole' (reality) can and does continue to exist even if one of its parts disappears - for example, when an individual dies or a species goes extinct.

Can't you see the logic and rationality?

1. Humans [the parts] cannot be absolutely independent of reality [the whole].
if follows logically and rationally,
2. Reality [the whole] cannot be absolutely independent of humans [its parts].
3. Therefore there is no reality-in-itself independent of humans [its parts].

What is reality is an emergence and is realized via a human-based FSER then perceive, known, and described via a human-based FSC [knowledge]. i.e. FSERC.

Reality was a 'whole' before humans evolved, would have been a 'whole' had we not evolved, and will be a 'whole' when we're gone. So this 'whole' (reality/the universe) is indeed patently and demonstrably independent from humans.

The above is not a realization of reality.
It is merely your speculation [empty] based on reason from a posteriori experience without any real basis at all.
Note the above is conditioned upon before and after humans which is time and space based where both are contingent upon the human conditions.

What is reality is an emergence and is realized via a human-based FSER then perceive, known, and described via a human-based FSC [knowledge]. i.e. FSERC.

Your above is merely speculated from a FSC [cognition and knowledge] but without real emergence and realization of reality [the FSER].

The above dilemma has been around for thousands of years, that is why there is dualism and pyrrhonian skepticism which Kant resolved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism

You're dodging the big questions:

1 What exactly is 'reality-in-itself'? (Because, if the expression is meaningless, then so is any premise in which it appears. And any argument from such a premise is incoherent.)

As I had stated when you state your 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is the case, a state of affairs, is just-is absolutely independent, i.e. regardless whether there are humans or not. that exactly is literally reality-in-itself, or if refer to things, then things-in-themselves.
So your fact is a fact-in-itself,
when refer to factual reality, your's is reality-in-itself.

But somewhere, you realize, you are also a fact which is a part of reality so cannot be in-itself. That is your dilemma! not mine.

2 Why does the premise 'there is no reality-in-itself' entail the conclusion 'therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans'?

The above "reality can't be absolutely independent from humans" is a direct objection and opposition to the ideology of realists who claim 'reality' or things are absolutely independent from humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Philosophical realists claim 'reality' or things are absolutely independent from humans.
This is the same as 'reality' or things exist absolutely independent by-themselves, therefore exists by-themselves or in-themselves without any human relations.

Thus, the premise 'there is no reality-in-itself' [existing absolutely independent from humans ]
entail the conclusion,
'therefore, reality [in-itself] can't be absolutely independent from humans'

Note the antirealism [Kantian] paradigm shift, i.e. humans are part and parcel of reality, thus not absolutely independent of reality is to enable humanity to some degrees of 'control' reality rather than be at the mercy of an absolutely independent reality or a God.
This move is critical to enable moral progress within humanity in the future via the recognition of objective moral facts [FSERC-ed].

[Peter Holmes]

Thus, the premise 'there is no reality-in-itself' [existing absolutely independent from humans ]
entail the conclusion,
'therefore, reality [in-itself] can't be absolutely independent from humans'

Your argument is a mess.

P1: Reality is not an illusion.

Agreed. You've said this many times recently. And it's philosophically realist. And it doesn't entail 'therefore. reality can't be absolutely independent from humans'. That doesn't follow at all.

'Reality is real; therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans.' That's either mysticism, or maybe some semi-mystical extrapolation from quantum mechanics - or, simply, a realist claim: 'all real things are connected, as parts of a whole'. Whatever 'connected' means, that is not an antirealist claim.

P2: Reality-in-itself is an illusion.

Agreed. The term 'reality-in-itself' is incoherent/meaningless. And anyway, it can have no entailment with regard to reality, which is not an illusion - see P1.