Noumena are Intelligible Objects, thus Illusory

[Sculptor]

As I had argued they are only the same continuum.
Theists believe in a God that is absolutely mind-independent without proofs just as the same with philosophical realist like you who believe in a mind-independent thing [non-dual] without proof.

I have every possibly proof for the table. You're an idiot.

Do you have proof for a non-dual table?

What is your proof for ANY table?

[seeds]

Anyway, with that being said, did you at least understand how VA has been promoting a philosophy of existential nihilism that very few people on earth (aside from a few hardcore atheists) will ever accept? - (and rightly so, for it invokes the ridiculous "chance hypothesis")

I dislike certain tendencies in his philosophy - not his antirealism, but some things he hasn't talked about for a while. But one person's nihilism is another person's, well, non-nihilism. I think he sees purpose and meaning. He's got his projects and they matter to him. I understand that his beliefs entails things that for you are nihilistic. In a certain sense I react that way my self, but I don't think he's a nihilist. He believes in objective morals

The fact that he has no respect for anything that you (or any of us) have to say, and basically ignores the valid counter arguments we make, to the point of you becoming so frustrated that you told him in a recent post that you are no longer going to read any of his responses to you,...

...makes me curious as to why you seem to be defending him from my criticisms?

With that being said,...

(and feeling mildly amused [or troubled] that our lives must be so boring that we have nothing better to do than to discuss little V's misunderstandings of reality)

...I too, am an antirealist. So, in that regard, I can agree with some of what he suggests.

He often brings up something that Professor Jim Al-Khalili says in one of his YouTube videos about the experiments involving Bell's Theorem that verified the strange implications of quantum entanglement:

"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exist when we're not looking. It truly defies common sense."

Indeed, little V uses that quote to support his conclusions in his "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" thread.

But the problem is that he carries Al-Khalili's suggestion too far by implying that the "noumenal-like" foundational essence...

(i.e., the "non-local" quantum fields of reality-delineating information)

...from which the moon's appearance is derived, doesn't exist.

However, what little V cannot seem to get into his thick skull is that to deny the pre-existence of that, again, "noumenal-like" underpinning of reality, then, to borrow from Kant, we are...

"...landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears."

And that's where little V's take on reality (and Kant) falls apart.
_______

[Iwannaplato]

Hey no fair, you are using logic.. let's be more considerate towards the less gifted among us - VA for example - who don't have access to such mental luxuries..

Well, he's not here, so he may not exist (right now).

OK, so he's person. He perceives. So, he exists due to this, even when he's not around me.

Where is he?

Because we have this odd universe, where parts of the world appear around people as they move around. So there are parts of the world around him. If he goes for a walk, parts of the world arise and disappear.

Are we in the void with these world parts appearing in the void? Or are we even in the same universe when we are alone?

It seems like antirealism must have an interesting idea of space and location.

And why do these different pieces keep connecting up so well? Like if he walks towards me, we suddenly, upon arriving in the same place, see generally the same things. We would categorize things the same. Park bench, trees, pidgeons eating bread off the asphalt. Suddenly there is the overlapping space, where we see the same things, even if we never met and have never been 'there' before.

I am not saying that what I said above demonstrates his antirealism can't work, but he is always presenting it via the individual perceiving. But if we imagine or try to all the individuals moving around in overlapping, disappearing, appearing spaces, with some kind of hard relations between the spaces regardless. The library is always experienced after I turn left from the pharmacy. It appears as the pharmacy disappears.

Why is there is hard map underneath these disappearing and appearing 'places'?

[Iwannaplato]

The fact that he has no respect for anything that you (or any of us) have to say, and basically ignores the valid counter arguments we make, to the point of you becoming so frustrated that you told him in a recent post that you are no longer going to read any of his responses to you,...

...makes me curious as to why you seem to be defending him from my criticisms?

Absence makes the heart grow fonder .

There's a seed of truth in that. Now, I am not locked in trying to find yet another way to say something so he might see a possibility that he's contradicted himself or incorrectly interpreted someone. Or yet again trying to get him to actually respond to what I wrote. But also if we are going to talk about him, I do want it to be fair and also correct in details. Partly out of some sick sense of honor, but also, if he happens to read what we write, I'd prefer it was less easy for him to dismiss. Confirmation bias could happily say 'that's not true so everything they are saying is false.'

With that being said,...

(and feeling mildly amused [or troubled] that our lives must be so boring that we have nothing better to do than to discuss little V's misunderstandings of reality)

Professor Jim Al-Khalili wrote:
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exist when we're not looking. It truly defies common sense."
Indeed, little V uses that quote to support his conclusions in his "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" thread.

But the problem is that he carries Al-Khalili's suggestion too far by implying that the "noumenal-like" foundational essence...

(i.e., the "non-local" quantum fields of reality-delineating information)

...from which the moon's appearance is derived, doesn't exist.

However, what little V cannot seem to get into his thick skull is that to deny the pre-existence of that, again, "noumenal-like" underpinning of reality, then, to borrow from Kant, we are...
"...landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears."
And that's where little V's take on reality (and Kant) falls apart.

Appearance would be a poor word choice.

[seeds]

Appearance would be a poor word choice.

Well, first of all, you need to take that up with Kant, or whoever it was that translated his writings into English.

And secondly, why is "appearance" a poor word choice?
_______

[Iwannaplato]

Appearance would be a poor word choice.

Well, first of all, you need to take that up with Kant, or whoever it was that translated his writings into English.

And secondly, why is "appearance" a poor word choice?
_______

It implies there is something that appears which is other than the appearance. It's fine if you think there is something behind the appearance, but if you are denying that, then it's a poor word choice.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you have proof for a non-dual table?

The most credible proof [verification and justification] of a real table is via a human-based scientific FSK which is inevitably "dualist" i.e. scientists observing a table.
Your non-dual table, that noumenon table is an illusion.

That's nonsense. According to science, the scientists and the table are part of the same world, made of the same atoms etc., which is consistent with the nondual picture. Science isn't dualist.

You are changing your mind?
If you claim Science is discovering something unknown, i.e. a noumenon, that is dualism.

Generally, science is dualist i.e. scientists are making observations which are external to them but in my case, that is not philosophical realism [mind-independence] like yours but mine is empirical realism which is not-mind-independent.

Look VA, I had you in checkmate since like our first exchanges a few years ago. It's just a long checkmate because we have to go through Kant and Buddhism and nondualism and all that.

Checkmate? you must be dreaming.
Show me prove or some clues to your claim.
I definitely like to know where I am wrong and if confirm will change my position [I have done that, converting from theism to non-theism], but so far there is nothing like that coming from a philosophical gnat like you.

I had been a non-dualist for a very long time in the principles and practices of Advaita-Vedanta;

• The term Advaita (literally "non-secondness", but usually rendered as "nondualism", and often equated with monism) refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real, while the transient phenomenal world is an illusory appearance (maya) of Brahman.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#:

It is claimed to be nondualism but that is pseudo regardless what is believed because in reality that is still the individual and the illusory Brahman.
Note Hume explanation re Projection.

Btw, absolute non-dualism like yours is delusional.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have every possibly proof for the table. You're an idiot.

Do you have proof for a non-dual table?

What is your proof for ANY table?

My proof for any table would be based on a human-based science FSK and linguistic FSK [language games].
The human-based linguistic FSK will identify 'what is table' as defined and commonly accepted within the language game.
The human-based science-physics-chemistry FSK will verify and justify the physical table as empirical-rationally real.
Since the above processes in arriving at the proof are human-based FSK, the ultimately resultant conclusion cannot be absolutely mind-independent nor nondual.

[Iwannaplato]

Appearance would be a poor word choice.

Well, first of all, you need to take that up with Kant, or whoever it was that translated his writings into English.

And secondly, why is "appearance" a poor word choice?
_______

It implies there is something that appears which is other than the appearance. It's fine if you think there is something behind the appearance, but if you are denying that, then it's a poor word choice.

And you can see in VAs thread on appearances, Mr. Bird makes it clear that Kant was neither assuming noumena behind appearances, nor was he denying their possibility. If Bird is right.

So, if Kant is right and Bird is right about Kant, then VA's conclusions that we know there are no noumean is false.

So we should be grateful that VA provides support for a position that is against his own.

Not his epistemological positing, but rather VA's ontological position.

You know, the position he thinks you have to agree with or...well he has a variety of insults and ad homs.

[Sculptor]

Do you have proof for a non-dual table?

What is your proof for ANY table?

My proof for any table would be based on a human-based science FSK and linguistic FSK [language games].

I think it's the way you tell 'em!!

[Atla]

You are changing your mind?
If you claim Science is discovering something unknown, i.e. a noumenon, that is dualism.

Noumenon has nothing to do with dualism, unless you insist on a delusional version of the noumenon. Which is to be expected from you.

Generally, science is dualist i.e. scientists are making observations which are external to them but in my case, that is not philosophical realism [mind-independence] like yours but mine is empirical realism which is not-mind-independent.

No, science isn't dualist and no, there is no "your case" of science. Science isn't compatible with your not-mind-independent claim.

Or if you WANT to make science compatible with your not-mind-independent claim ANYWAY, then you'll have to assume some massive background mechanism or God behind the universe, or simulated universe theory or some other exotic idea.

Checkmate? you must be dreaming.
Show me prove or some clues to your claim.
I definitely like to know where I am wrong and if confirm will change my position [I have done that, converting from theism to non-theism], but so far there is nothing like that coming from a philosophical gnat like you.

I had been a non-dualist for a very long time in the principles and practices of Advaita-Vedanta;
The term Advaita (literally "non-secondness", but usually rendered as "nondualism", and often equated with monism) refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real, while the transient phenomenal world is an illusory appearance (maya) of Brahman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#:
It is claimed to be nondualism but that is pseudo regardless what is believed because in reality that is still the individual and the illusory Brahman.
Note Hume explanation re Projection.

Btw, absolute non-dualism like yours is delusional.

No, you don't want to know where you are wrong, who do you think you're deceiving with that lie?
And no, you don't know the first thing about genuine nondualism (not limited to Advaita). That's how you fell for this maya nonsense or completely misunderstood it. How dumb that you started out so close to the best philosophy and missed it so completely, because you were some fanatic theist. But the Brahman is nothing more than a name we put on the world.

I read it back, looks like every claim of yours here was a lie. Let's say you are mentally deranged/ill and also agressive so potentially a danger to society