Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 1:58 pm
VA thinks my version of his P1 - 'we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways' - misrepresents it. And he denies the conclusion 'therefore, humans generate facts'. Instead, it's a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs - conditioned facts, within a framework.
So here's another go at polishing the turd.
P: Perception, knowledge and description is of a reality - that 'emerged' over 13.7 billion years, and 'realised' over 3.5 billion years - by humans and 'other variables' which together comprise a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs (conditioned facts) within a 'framework'.
C1: Therefore, reality is not independent from humans and other variables. Or
C2: Therefore, reality is only relatively independent from humans and other variables. Or
C3: Therefore, humans and other variables construct reality.
But I probably need to sod around with the conclusions too - replacing 'humans' with 'a system (etc)' - or some such execrable nonsense.
Question: who or what generates a system and framework that generates facts?
I do not agree with your:
- PH: P: Perception, knowledge and description is of a reality - that 'emerged' over 13.7 billion years, and 'realised' over 3.5 billion years - by humans and 'other variables' which together comprise a 'system' that takes in inputs and generates outputs (conditioned facts) within a 'framework'.
Should be:
- P: Whatever is reality [facts, truth, objective] is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System comprising;
1. the emergence of reality FS - with a 13.7 billion years history [FSE]
2. the realization of reality FS - with a 3.5 billion years history [FSRR], and subsequently
3. the cognition, and description FS - epistemological, scientific few '000s year of history [FSK].
The above systems take in inputs [humans and other variables] generating outputs as conditioned facts within a framework.
Since the above is human-based [antirealism], the resultants of 1,2 and 3
cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions [realism].
Suggest you hold on to your "turding" until you are sure your views are actually not turds; I am sure yours are.
Question: who or what generates a system and framework that generates facts?
You are too presumptuous here.
You assumed there pre-exists a
what or
who thing before proving that such a 'who' or 'what' exists are real.
That is leading to begging the question.
That is where I argued;
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. the FSERC sense -science the most objective
2. the realists' absolute human-independent sense which is illusory.
As I had argued, your impulse to finding a human independent 'what' or 'who' is driven by primal psychology.
My FSERC don't give a damn with any independent 'who' or 'what' that generate the FS and the facts.
It is the collective-of-subjects [thus intersubjectivity] that facilitates the FSERC e.g. the scientific FSERC is established with its framework and system, maintained and sustained by a group of like minded rational human scientists in consensus and supported by millions of other humans who have confidence in the scientific FSERC.
My FSERC like scientific antirealism's focus on what emerged, is realized as reality, cognized as knowledge and described; this based as far at the empirical evidences and rationality that support the FSERC as a FSERC fact.
My FSERC don't give a damn with a 'who' or 'what' that generate the FS and the facts
beyond what the empirical evidences can be tested, verified and justified.
To reify what is beyond the empirical is chasing an illusion.
Take,
'snow is white' because
-the
human-based common, conventional sense FSERC said so
-the
human-based linguistic FSERC said so
-the
human-based Eskimo FSERC said so
-the
human-based science-physics-chemistry said so.
the question is, which of the above FSERC is more credible and objective.
it is frivolous to insist,
-'snow is white' because "it is a fact that 'snow is white' ".
-snow is white if and only if 'snow is white'.
The above are
inflationary facts chasing for something that is illusory.