Your argument is based on direct perception, where you seem to be claiming that the Moon as "thought" by humans and the Moon "out there" are one and the same thing. As you said, this is vulgar & kindergartenish. Again:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:42 amHow many times must I tell you my proposals has nothing to do with direct [naive] perception which is common sense and vulgar, & kindergartenish.Atla wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:03 amThose proofs are based on direct perception, that's why you have failed in >100 threads.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:57 am
Where did you get your above 'protocol'?
There is no certainty [99.9%] that 'everything else we know' is definitely true, consistently e.g. 'the Earth is flat' was once consistent with everything else we [the flat earthers as majority] knew as based on empirical evidence [their limited evidence].
Then it later took more advanced proofs to prove the Earth is not Flat.
It is the same with your 'absolutely mind-independent things' which the majority [including you] claim they are right based of the ad populum fallacy.
Your 'absolutely mind-independent things' is a positive claim, you have to have intellectual honesty and integrity to prove your positive claim.
Note the challenge from Kant 'that is an insult to philosophy' philosophical realists are unable to prove their positive claim 'things are absolutely mind-independent'.
G.E. Moore did try to prove the positive claim. [not like you a philosophy gnat and coward running away from giving proof to a positive claim]
The later-Wittgenstein critiqued Moore's claim as ineffective.
Don't make a fool of yourself and insult your own intelligence.
The proper intellectual protocol is, the onus is on the one who is making the positive claim to provide proofs.
It is not obligatory, but I have made the concession to provide proof for my negative claim.
I have already done that.
You are so blind, you cannot see the proofs?
Here is a summary;
1. Philosophical Realism claims reality and things are absolutely mind-independent.
2. Philosophical Realism is grounded on an illusion. [see link above]
3. Therefore philosophical realism is false.
1. Reality on the whole is all there is.
2. All parts of the whole of reality are intricately connected [relative determination, chaos theory, system theory]
3. Humans are part of reality.
4. The moon is a part of reality.
5. Since humans and the moon are intricately connected within the universe as a system, the moon cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions [mind, brain, body].
6. Therefore the moon cannot be absolutely independent from the mind.
1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
3. The moon as a fact is conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
4. Since 3, the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
The above is merely a summary, the details are in the links I have provided so far in this thread.
Btw, I have >100 threads in this Ethical Theory Section and elsewhere supporting my thesis, why the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
I have differentiated absolutely vs relative mind-independence but you don't seem to grasp this.
Show specifically how they are based on direct perception?
Btw, you are too coward to counter the three arguments I provided above.
Note whatever is scientific or psychological proof of positive claims are based on a human-based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].Again, it looks like neither the positive nor the negative claim can be 100% proven when it comes to indirect perception. But the positive claim seems to be perfectly consistent with established science/psychology, so the onus is on you to prove YOUR negative claim, show that the positive claim can't be right.
Note my argument above;
1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
3. The moon as a fact is conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
4. Since 3, the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
The human based scientific FSK grounds.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
The above is also applicable to the human-based psychology FSK.
- 1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
3. All positive scientific claims as scientific facts are conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
4. Since 3, all positive scientific claims as scientific facts cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
You are the one who is the very ignorant one.You've always been an incompetent gnat that you don't even understand the nature of the topic. It's nonsense to always cling to negative claims whenever there's no 100% certainty. Arguably there never is.
Despite me providing details and summary arguments, you still cannot understand them.
I have done so, note these arguments [again]Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.
1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
3. The moon as a scientific fact is conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
4. Since 3, the moon cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
The human based scientific FSK grounds.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
- 1. A human-based FSK is conditioned upon human conditions [mind, brain, body].
2. What is fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
3. All positive scientific claims as scientific facts are conditioned upon the human based science-astronomy FSK.
4. Since 3, all positive scientific claims as scientific facts cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without resorting to direct perception. Science and psychology have refuted direct perception, so it's a non-starter.