A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?

[Peter Holmes]

TIL: The only real stuff is unobservable, purely theoretical particles whose existence is deduced via 3 generations of theory dependent observation, and everything else is the product of faulty imagination. And the moral implications of this? That all knowledge is formed on a finders keepers first come first served FSK basis... and that ladies and gentlemen is how we learn that it is a FSK-fact[moral, human, animal] that nothing you do to animals has any moral implication.

It's shocking really that I never connected the dots without the magnificent mister Vegetable Armpit to put it all together for me.

Steady on. If you harm someone else's goat, that's to the net detriment of the individual and society, which is evil. You can only do what you like to your own goat.

[Skepdick]

TIL: The only real stuff is unobservable, purely theoretical particles whose existence is deduced via 3 generations of theory dependent observation, and everything else is the product of faulty imagination. And the moral implications of this? That all knowledge is formed on a finders keepers first come first served FSK basis... and that ladies and gentlemen is how we learn that it is a FSK-fact[moral, human, animal] that nothing you do to animals has any moral implication.

It's shocking really that I never connected the dots without the magnificent mister Vegetable Armpit to put it all together for me.

Hey, look - if the term "real" carries any brand recognition amongst humans and is used to signify relative importance (e.g real stuff matters more than non-real stuff); or superior quality (e.g real stuff is better than fake stuff).

Then I'd be most happy to hijack the connotation of the term for whatever pragmatic agenda neccessary.

[Iwannaplato]

Therefore it is more realistic [realists' version], instead of saying there is a mind-independent goat out there, we should say, that specific bundle and cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in time t and space[l].
Does anyone deny this?

NO!!

And instead of saying there are mirror-neurons we should say there are clusters of atoms and molecules, though really we should say there are some quarks, some winking in and out of existence, all in motions, but not really particles but sort of also waves.

That's more realistic.

And all of these things disappear when we do not have a living skull open in front of us. Because no one is looking at the mirror neurons then, when the skull is closed.

[Iwannaplato]

Steady on. If you harm someone else's goat, that's to the net detriment of the individual and society, which is evil. You can only do what you like to your own goat.

Harming a goat?!??

You would be rearranging clusters of atoms of molecules or really quarks.
Quarks are not moral agents or subjects.

[Skepdick]

Quarks are not moral agents or subjects.

Ohhhh the naturalistic fallacy disguised as the moral agency nonsense.

It's fine to worry about parental child abuse because moral agency, but if the little fuckers die of malaria, or ass cancer - that's not a moral concern because natural causes have no moral agency.

[Peter Holmes]

Steady on. If you harm someone else's goat, that's to the net detriment of the individual and society, which is evil. You can only do what you like to your own goat.

Harming a goat?!??

You would be rearranging clusters of atoms of molecules or really quarks.
Quarks are not moral agents or subjects.

Ah, but who says what counts as a moral agent or subject? Your mother or your father? No! It takes an intersubjective consensus within a credible human-based morality FSK, dependent on the human conditions.

[Iwannaplato]

Ah, but who says what counts as a moral agent or subject? Your mother or your father? No! It takes an intersubjective consensus within a credible human-based morality FSK, dependent on the human conditions.

Excuse me, if you are a realist you cannot refer to 'humans'. You need to refer to quarks in motion.

I would also like to point out the political incorrectness of HUMAN conditions.

Neither mind nor reality is independent. We have the glob of mindquarks. It's mindquarks conditions, thank you.

[Peter Holmes]

Ah, but who says what counts as a moral agent or subject? Your mother or your father? No! It takes an intersubjective consensus within a credible human-based morality FSK, dependent on the human conditions.

Excuse me, if you are a realist you cannot refer to 'humans'. You need to refer to quarks in motion.

I would also like to point out the political incorrectness of HUMAN conditions.

Neither mind nor reality is independent. We have the glob of mindquarks. It's mindquarks conditions, thank you.

Tooshay. This glob of mindquarks stands corrected.

[Iwannaplato]

Quarks are not moral agents or subjects.

Ohhhh the naturalistic fallacy disguised as the moral agency nonsense.

It's fine to worry about parental child abuse because moral agency, but if the little fuckers die of malaria, or ass cancer - that's not a moral concern because natural causes have no moral agency.

You have the sense of humor of a hierophant.

What happened to you? [rhetorical]

[Iwannaplato]

Ah, but who says what counts as a moral agent or subject? Your mother or your father? No! It takes an intersubjective consensus within a credible human-based morality FSK, dependent on the human conditions.

Excuse me, if you are a realist you cannot refer to 'humans'. You need to refer to quarks in motion.

I would also like to point out the political incorrectness of HUMAN conditions.

Neither mind nor reality is independent. We have the glob of mindquarks. It's mindquarks conditions, thank you.

Tooshay. This glob of mindquarks stands corrected.

Mazetov! Though I'm not sure why we're talking about your butt.

[Skepdick]

You have the sense of humor of a hierophant.

What happened to you? [rhetorical]

I was told philosophy; and the search for truth is serious business. In fact I never post without a bowtie.

We'll joke about it when we find it!

Meanwhile, the class clown is free to leave the room...

[Atla]

yadi yadi yada..

FSK-ed minds

Woah

[Skepdick]

yadi yadi yada..

FSK-ed minds

Woah

We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold.

[Iwannaplato]

that is a strawman.
I find your points confusing.
'I never claim goats are not real' without qualification.

He finds your points, Flannel, confusing.
Then adds....

'I never claim goats are not real' without qualification.

What does he mean by putting the first part in citation marks?
When he says he never claims goats are real without qualification, which part of that is the 'without qualitication' modifying. The whole first part, the claiming, something else??

Even the OP begins with confusion....

Say if one is 'seeing' a goat in a farm.
Is there really an absolutely mind-independent goat out there under all conditions?

We've got 'seeing' in citation marks. This means we aren't exactly seeing, from the antirealist perspective. But the antirealist perspective entails that minds are not independent of things and things are not independent of minds, so both 'one' and 'goat' should also be in citation marks. I mean, if that was the point of putting seeing in citation marks.
Then the second sentence....
why add in 'absolutely'? What are these all conditions and what part of the question is that modifying?

That's just the first two sentences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Exist: have objective reality or being.

'Exist' is a verb and naturally extended to 'existence' - noun.
I am not interested in the semantics aspects at all, other than listing down what they actually mean in the above.

Thus the most effective basis to deal with exist and existence is the following;
What is real & exist, as facts, truths, knowledge, and objectivity is conditioned upon a specific human based FSK.
How else?

When you see a goat, you need to invoke [or reference] the science-biology-FSK [verify, repeat testing, justify,] to ensure you are seeing a real objective goat and not an illusion.

Aaaand onto the merry-go-round again!

using 3 metaphysical words (objective, reality, being) to define 1 metaphysical word.

Let me get you a shovel. You seem determined to stay in the metaphysical cave.

So what if it's an illusion? It's a bloody persistent illusion! It's still eating grandma's roses!

It is only an illusion for those who are philosophical realists in insisting the real goat is existing as a mind-independent thing out there without any qualification to the human conditions [mind] and the human-based FSKs.
There is no way for a philosophical realists to nail down what is exactly the real mind-independent goat, since 'what is the real goat' is in constant flux with so many variations of what is really real.

For an anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian] there is no illusory goat at all.
Yes, the goat is still eating grandma' roses, but what that real goat "is" must be qualified to a human-based FSK [like modal dependent realism] e.g.

1. Human Based Common sense FSK.
In this case, the goat is real but qualified to the common sense FSK. It is likely, grandma will shoo the goat away or build a fence around her roses. As such, this common sense FSK as an evolutionary default, has its own utilities.
This is acceptable as long as grandma do not adopts such a sense of reality as an ideological "ism" like the realists dogmatically clinging on to Philosophical Realism.

2. Science-biological FSK.
This is a more detailed reality of what a goat is in accordance to what as biologist would see the real goat as within his science-biological FSK. This real goat within the science-biological FSK has its own utilities.

3. Science-QM-Chemistry-biological FSK.
Within this human-based FSK, we cognize the goat as a cluster of particles, sometimes actualized as waves. In term of reality, surely this sense is obviously more realistic than the two FSKs above. It will be much more realistic when we can track every particles/waves in every nano-seconds and its location is space.
It is not illusory because we are qualifying it against a human-based FSK or Hawking's model-dependent-realism.
However, there would not be much utilities in cognizing the whole goat within this sense of reality but perhaps useful if we cognize the brain of the goat and every living brain in more detail re the particles activities within the synapse and it relation to the whole brain.

An anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian] will wear the above hat 1, 2 or 3 depending on situation to gain the most optimal utility out of it.
It would be very stupid to wear hat 3 dogmatically if one were to keep standing on a railway track when there is a train coming towards him. Instead, he will wear hat 1 and jump off the track ASAP.

The 'goat' is only an illusion when Philosophical Realists insist that goat exists as a mind-independent reality, i.e. not conditioned within a human based FSK.

This is the point I am driving at when I request Peter Holmes to show me what is his fact as a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so, that is the case, a state of affairs that is independent of the human conditions [human mind].
If he ever apply reflective & critical thinking as in this OP, he will realize his 'what is fact' is an illusion.