Why the Moon is not Absolutely Mind-Independent

[Atla]

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.

Those proofs are based on direct perception, that's why you have failed in >100 threads.

How many times must I tell you my proposals has nothing to do with direct [naive] perception which is common sense and vulgar, & kindergartenish.
Show specifically how they are based on direct perception?

Btw, you are too coward to counter the three arguments I provided above.

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 whatever is scientific or psychological proof of positive claims are based on a human-based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].

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

• 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.

The above is also applicable to the human-based psychology FSK.

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.

You are the one who is the very ignorant one.
Despite me providing details and summary arguments, you still cannot understand them.

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.

I have done so, note these arguments [again]

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.

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:

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.

[Skepdick]

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent.

Prove that WHAT can't be absolutely mind-independent?

Turning the definite pre-supposition into an indefinite requiring proof thus shifting the burden of making the indefinite a definite to you.

Q.E.D

Might as well ask him to prove that the mind games you are busy playing are absolutely mind-independent.

[Atla]

Prove that WHAT can't be absolutely mind-independent?
...

The Moon. Most people are familiar with the Moon but apparently there are exceptions.

[Skepdick]

Prove that WHAT can't be absolutely mind-independent?
...

The Moon. Most people are familiar with the Moon but apparently there are exceptions.

Why do you keep bringing people into a mind-independence proof?

[Sculptor]

This is really painful .

This contributor, or should I say clown, has been trying to convince himself and others that morality, and moral systems are completely mind independant, that they hold truths that are universal, objective and absolute.

Now he is trying to wear long trousers and is trying to claim that physical objects might not has the same qualities as morals.

So he is now saying that a fucking great lump of matter of mass 7.346 x10^22 Kg relies partly on our perception of it, yet morals do not.


It is a complete no brainer to suggest that were the human race to be wiped out the Moon would abide, but morals would not.

[Skepdick]

This contributor, or should I say clown, has been trying to convince himself and others that morality, and moral systems are completely mind independant, that they hold truths that are universal, objective and absolute.

So the contributor who rejects the notion of mind independence is trying to convince you that morals are mind-independent?

If there ever was a sign you are incompetent at English comprehension...

It is a complete no brainer to suggest that were the human race to be wiped out the Moon would abide, but morals would not.

So you don't think that humans being wiped out would be an immoral outcome? So weird!

Do you also support genocide?

[Atla]

Prove that WHAT can't be absolutely mind-independent?
...

The Moon. Most people are familiar with the Moon but apparently there are exceptions.

Why do you keep bringing people into a mind-independence proof?

VA claims to have a proof, so ask him.

[Skepdick]

The Moon. Most people are familiar with the Moon but apparently there are exceptions.

Why do you keep bringing people into a mind-independence proof?

VA claims to have a proof, so ask him.

I am asking the person demanding the proof.

Surely you know what it is that you are demanding from others?

Then again, maybe you don't.

[Atla]

Why do you keep bringing people into a mind-independence proof?

VA claims to have a proof, so ask him.

I am asking the person demanding the proof.

Surely you know what it is that you are demanding from others?

Yes, to show that he has indeed proven what he claims to have proven.

[Skepdick]

Yes, to show that he has indeed proven what he claims to have proven.

But you are asking him. Which implies he hasn't proven it to you.

At the dinner table do you ask people to pass you the salt even when you are busy holding it?

[Atla]

Yes, to show that he has indeed proven what he claims to have proven.

But you are asking him. Which implies he hasn't proven it to you.

At the dinner table do you ask people to pass you the salt even when you are busy holding it?

As usual complete word salad from you. You have absolutely no idea where you are, what others are talking about, what you are talking about, what any of this is.

[Skepdick]

As usual complete word salad from you. You have absolutely no idea where you are, what others are talking about, what you are talking about, what any of this is.

As usual, you project your inability to comprehend onto my words. Is it my word salad or is it your mind salad?

There sure is a pattern...

[Atla]

As usual complete word salad from you. You have absolutely no idea where you are, what others are talking about, what you are talking about, what any of this is.

As usual, you project your inability to comprehend onto my words. Is it my word salad or is it your mind salad?

There sure is a pattern...

If you can't speak human then don't try.

[Skepdick]

As usual complete word salad from you. You have absolutely no idea where you are, what others are talking about, what you are talking about, what any of this is.

As usual, you project your inability to comprehend onto my words. Is it my word salad or is it your mind salad?

There sure is a pattern...

If you can't speak human then don't try.

If you can't understand human - say so.

There's no shame in being dumber than you give yourself credit for. It's just pride - put it aside.

[Sculptor]

This contributor, or should I say clown, has been trying to convince himself and others that morality, and moral systems are completely mind independant, that they hold truths that are universal, objective and absolute.

So the contributor who rejects the notion of mind independence is trying to convince you that morals are mind-independent?

If there ever was a sign you are incompetent at English comprehension...

It is a complete no brainer to suggest that were the human race to be wiped out the Moon would abide, but morals would not.

So you don't think that humans being wiped out would be an immoral outcome? So weird!

Do you also support genocide?

You you complete flathead moron.
The humans could as easily be wiped out by an asteroid. no a moral content at all. But that has nothing to do with what I am saying. Nothing what ever.
Are you really that stupid?
Comparing the persistence of the moon without humans, and the persistence of morals without humans, has nothing to do with whether or not humans were wiped out morally or immorally. You are so trajically stupid, it is beyond reason.

When I said "no brainer", I had not thought that a person with no brain would read my post. You are the gift that keeps giving. You are a laugh a minute.