Nah, I prefer to use the term 'mind-independent' which is the common usage and usual to type; you are the only exceptional one.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:01 amTo be clear, don't use the expression 'mind-independent' any more, because it's deeply corrupted by substance dualism.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:40 amEvery time I mentioned 'mind-independent' you straight-away jumped at it to insist there is no such thing as mind, as such the term 'mind-independent' is non-sensical.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:17 am I don't say we don't have minds - or I hope I've never said that. If I have, I apologise. And I'm very interested in research that indicates that what we call the mind is not limited to the brain, or even to life forms with brains. I think the 'embodied mind' makes sense.
My point is this: pending evidence for the existence of the mind as a separate, abstract or non-physical thing, belief in its existence is irrational - and mentalist talk, about minds containing mental things and events, is metaphorical. Every single mentalist expression can be parsed or explained 'non-mentalistically'.
I go further. Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, what could be called non-dogmatic physicalism - or methodological naturalism in science - is the rational default position. And I'm happy to debate that claim with anyone who clings to the superstition that non-physical things exist.
That is despite telling you [a million times] what I meant my 'mind' in 'mind-independent' has nothing to do with Descartes's dualism and non-physical mind and me explaining my concept of 'what is mind' is the 'embodied mind'.
So in future whenever I mention 'mind-independent' it mean the embodied mind.
In this case, your ideology is Philosophical Realism,
'mind-independent' as above is embodied-mind-independent.
- Philosophical Realism is .... about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
The term "mind-independent" is the common usage.
In this case your 'what is fact' that is embodied-mind-independent is still illusory [noumenal].
You still have not proven how your 'what is fact' that is embodied-mind-independent is real?
In the future I will merely use 'mind-independent' as a convenience.
You can raise that in the Religion section where theists claim the non-physical things like God, Soul, real platonic ideas and the like exist.And I'm happy to debate that claim with anyone who clings to the superstition that non-physical things exist.
Instead, let's use 'human-body-independent' - because the embodied mind is the human body.
I suggest you interpret my 'mind-independent' as 'human-body-independent' which implied including the brain, mind and body.
I believe the term 'mind' is very critical, the living human body is the one that is highly minded relative to all other animals and organisms.
Reality CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.So now, your claim is that reality is not and cannot be independent from the human body.
And that's a load of cack - which is what I've been saying all along.
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a specific human based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible.
Just in case, you are tempted to revert to your 'the description is not the described' note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?t=40145
You have yet to prove the reality of your mind-independent fact, a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so, that is the case, and a state of affairs; i.e. the noumenal.