Reality is not Absolutely Independent

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is my argument re Why Reality as-it-is Cannot* be absolutely independent of the human conditions in support of why there are objective moral facts.
*(this is from the negative view)

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).

Don't be too arrogant with your ignorance.
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



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' moment;
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.
These refer to 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.
They are so 'permanent' and 'persistent' that humans take them as the-real as opposed to other visual illusion, abstract objects, imaginations, etc.

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.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is one objection to the above:

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)

Obviously he did not read the whole OP thoroughly; I wrote in the OP

Here is the 'Eureka' moment;
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.
These refer to 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.
They are so 'permanent' and 'persistent' that humans take them as the-real as opposed to other visual illusion, abstract objects, imaginations, etc.

What the person did not realize is
the supposed "external, mind-independent reality to compare phenomena to"
in also an illusion of the finer type.

There are no things-in-themselves that exist absolutely independently by themselves.
Things only exist as conditioned upon the human conditions.

You yearn for something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions is only due to psychological desperations that serves no other practical purposes.

[Atla]

The one yearning here for something out of psychological desperations is clearly the one who wants the world to be just an illusion, never real. So now we even have an illusion upon another finer illusion, allegedly. Illusion squared.

VA used to be a rabid theist. Conjecture: the instant VA even just entertains the possibility of realism, GOD pops up in his mind again and says: "I'm BAACK! You didn't think you could just get rid of me, did you? I'm very disappointed with you, VA."

So he must never ever think that the world is real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

[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 antirealists charge the p-realists as chasing an illusion.

See details explanations in my post above.

[Atla]

Another self-refuting attempt. Some oases we see turn out to be illusions/hallucinations when we get there, other oases turn out to be real when we get there. That's the difference between illusions and real things.