Anti-P-Realists Believe in a Mind-Independent Reality, BUT ..

[Veritas Aequitas]

Since I have to answer this point often and repeated, here is a thread for future reference; this ultimately has grounds to why Morality is Objective.

Thesis: Anti-P-Realists Believe in Mind-Independent Reality, BUT whatever is mind-independent is relative and ultimately subsume with a human-based FSR-FSK, thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Anti-realists do accept the beliefs other minds exist when no one is "looking" at them.

But, anti-realists [nb: Kantian] believe in the various perspectives of reality, i.e. common-sense, conventional sense empirical reality, ultimate anti-philosophical-realism [not mind-independent].
Whilst anti-realists do use terms with the 'ism' suffix, they do not cling to any of the above perspectives of reality as an ideological 'ism' dogmatically in surrendering to the evolutionary default.

Anti-realists [nb: Kantian] like all humans are embedded with the evolutionary default of externality and mind-independence which is necessary for basic survival, but [as stated above] they do not cling to any of the above perspectives of reality as an ideological 'ism' dogmatically in surrendering to the evolutionary default.

As such, in the basic common conventional sense of reality, the Anti-realists [nb: Kantian] do not insist when they turn their back to the oncoming train on the track they are standing on, the unobserved oncoming train do not exist independent of mind.

Whatever perspective of reality the anti-p-realist accept, the ultimate reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK, thus it follows, ultimately there CANNOT be an absolutely mind-independent reality.

Because the Anti-realists [nb: Kantian] do not subscribe or be dogmatic on externality and mind-independence as an ideology [due to psychological weaknesses within] they are able to switch to a more refine perspective of reality whereby reality CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent as the dogmatic p-realist insist upon ideologically.
This is like seeing the other of the 2 cubes in the Necker Cube Exercise, whereas the p-realist can only see 1 cube and never be able to cognize the 2nd cube.

Because the Anti-realists [nb: Kantian] has to option to switch between different perspectives of reality, they are able break off from the chains of p-realism to contribute to a greater state of well-being and progress of humanity, e.g. potentially from Buddhism's 'nothingness' QM non-local-realism, etc.

Note this perspective of reality which Einstein the hardcore p-realist rejected;
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
Since the ideas that Einstein rejected has won the 2023 Nobel Prize.

My point;
Anti-realists do accept the beliefs other minds exist when no one is "looking" at them.
However, for pragmatic reasons, anti-p-realists do not cling to the above dogmatically as an ideological 'ism'.
Anti-p-realists believe there are other perspectives of reality subject to their specific human-based FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Harbal]

Since I have to answer this point often and repeated, here is a thread for future reference; this ultimately has grounds to why Morality is Objective.

Morality does not exist outside of human minds, and what only exists in the mind is considered to be subjective.

[Skepdick]

Morality does not exist outside of human minds, and what only exists in the mind is considered to be subjective.

Then morality has absolutely no measurable effect on the world and is of no consequence to anyone.

[Harbal]

Morality does not exist outside of human minds, and what only exists in the mind is considered to be subjective.

Then morality has absolutely no measurable effect on the world and is of no consequence whatsoever.

Our subjective feelings can motivate us into actions that affect the world, but that doesn't cause the feelings to become objective.

You might say that if a feeling only exists in a mind, it is an objective fact that it exists there, but where is the usefulness of describing objectivity in such a way?

[Skepdick]

Morality does not exist outside of human minds, and what only exists in the mind is considered to be subjective.

Then morality has absolutely no measurable effect on the world and is of no consequence whatsoever.

Our subjective feelings can motivate us into actions that affect the world, but that doesn't cause the feelings to become objective.

You might say that if a feeling only exists in a mind, it is an objective fact that it exists there, but where is the usefulness of describing objectivity in such a way?

I might also say that if subjective feelings cause objective consequences then there must be some sort of explanation, some continuous process which turns the subjective into the objective.

And what's the usefulness of the subjective/objective distinction if you can''t account for the explanatory gap?

[Harbal]

Then morality has absolutely no measurable effect on the world and is of no consequence whatsoever.

Our subjective feelings can motivate us into actions that affect the world, but that doesn't cause the feelings to become objective.

You might say that if a feeling only exists in a mind, it is an objective fact that it exists there, but where is the usefulness of describing objectivity in such a way?

I might also say that if subjective feelings cause objective consequences there's a discontinuity in your train of thought.

At which point does the subjective become objective?

And what's the usefulness of the subjective/objective distinction if you can''t account for the explanatory gap?

When you just say stuff at random like this, do you do it with the hope that it might by some inexplicable process end up meaning something, or make some sort of sense?

I think VA's determination to concoct an argument to justify the claim of morality being objective is misguided. I'm all for developing morality in order to make the world a better, and nicer, place for us to live in, but I don't see how that can be achieved by refusing to acknowledge what morality actually is.

[Skepdick]

When you just say stuff at random like this, do you do it with the hope that it might by some inexplicable process end up meaning something, or make some sort of sense?

What doesn't make sense to you? I am happy to explaint it?

There's a continuous process from the mind to reality. If the mental is "subjective" and the real is "objective" then explain how the subjective becomes objective.

Please ensure that your explanation is continuous. If you don't understand that word - I am happy to explain it also.

I think VA's determination to concoct an argument to justify the claim of morality being objective is misguided.

And I think the objective-subjective distinction is misguided in a universe without discontinuities.

I'm all for developing morality in order to make the world a better, and nicer, place for us to live in, but I don't see how that can be achieved by refusing to acknowledge what morality actually is.

Sure. Once we abandon the stupid subjective-objective distinction then what is morality actually?

[Harbal]

When you just say stuff at random like this, do you do it with the hope that it might by some inexplicable process end up meaning something, or make some sort of sense?

What doesn't make sense to you? I am happy to explaint it?

There's a continuous process from the mind to reality. If the mental is "subjective" and the real is "objective" then explain how the subjective becomes objective.

Please ensure that your explanation is continuous. If you don't understand that word - I am happy to explain it also.

I think VA's determination to concoct an argument to justify the claim of morality being objective is misguided.

And I think the objective-subjective distinction is misguided in a universe without discontinuities.

I'm all for developing morality in order to make the world a better, and nicer, place for us to live in, but I don't see how that can be achieved by refusing to acknowledge what morality actually is.

Sure. Once we abandon the stupid subjective-objective distinction then what is morality actually?

I'm sorry, but I have put a limit on how much time I will allow myself to waste on you per day. You've used today's quota.

[Skepdick]

When you just say stuff at random like this, do you do it with the hope that it might by some inexplicable process end up meaning something, or make some sort of sense?

What doesn't make sense to you? I am happy to explaint it?

There's a continuous process from the mind to reality. If the mental is "subjective" and the real is "objective" then explain how the subjective becomes objective.

Please ensure that your explanation is continuous. If you don't understand that word - I am happy to explain it also.

I think VA's determination to concoct an argument to justify the claim of morality being objective is misguided.

And I think the objective-subjective distinction is misguided in a universe without discontinuities.

I'm all for developing morality in order to make the world a better, and nicer, place for us to live in, but I don't see how that can be achieved by refusing to acknowledge what morality actually is.

Sure. Once we abandon the stupid subjective-objective distinction then what is morality actually?

I'm sorry, but I have put a limit on how much time I will allow myself to waste on you per day. You've used today's quota.

Silly old fart.

Uses up his own quota.

Blames me.

[Harbal]

What doesn't make sense to you? I am happy to explaint it?

There's a continuous process from the mind to reality. If the mental is "subjective" and the real is "objective" then explain how the subjective becomes objective.

Please ensure that your explanation is continuous. If you don't understand that word - I am happy to explain it also.


And I think the objective-subjective distinction is misguided in a universe without discontinuities.


Sure. Once we abandon the stupid subjective-objective distinction then what is morality actually?

I'm sorry, but I have put a limit on how much time I will allow myself to waste on you per day. You've used today's quota.

Silly old fart.

Uses up his own quota.

Blames me.

Your call cannot be connected, please try again later.

[Skepdick]

Your call cannot be connected, please try again later.

My call was connected just fine, but then some old fart picked up and started acting like an answering machine.

[Harbal]

Your call cannot be connected, please try again later.

My call was connected just fine. Some old fart picked up and started acting like an answering machine.

Oh, Septic, you say the funniest things.

[Atla]

When you just say stuff at random like this, do you do it with the hope that it might by some inexplicable process end up meaning something, or make some sort of sense?

I tried to convince Skepdick once to get a brain transplant, I saw that he was in desperate need of this. He even contacted a few brain-donors, but unfortunately shied away in the end. I don't understand why.

[Skepdick]

I tried to convince Skepdick once to get a brain transplant, I saw that he was in desperate need of this. He even contacted a few brain-donors, but unfortunately shied away in the end. I don't understand why.

Isn't it obvious? Even with a brain you can't understand that you need it way more than I do.