The Objective Realm

[Veritas Aequitas]

You agree?

I do not.

You disagree with what I wrote earlier? i.e.

To be realistic and objective,
I cannot simply state "I exists."
Rather it has to be predicated, i.e.

• 1. "I exists as a human person as predicated upon the common-sense FSK" which is not credible nor reliable.
  To be more credible, I will claim,
  "I exists as a human being as predicated upon the science-biology FSR-FSK.
  To be more precise, I will claim,
  "I exists as a specific quantity of particles as predicated upon the science-biology-chemistry-physics FSR-FSK.
  And so on based on other FSKs.
  The above are all verifiable and justifiable empirically as real and objective.
  You cannot deny the above are true as qualified to the specific FSK.
  
  Thus to insist "I exists" is not realistic and objective.
  It has to be predicated as above.

Aside from your addition point below, do you agree the above is realistic and objective with more details and precision?

Because when you use "I exist" as a statement or foundation of any meaning, it already implies separation between Subject-"I" and Object-"Existence". That's my interpretation.

I do not agree with that.
As I had stated "existence" cannot be an object.
Existence is 'being' or "is', thus a verb not a noun, thus cannot be an object as a noun.
So, to be more precise, the "I exist" which which is often taken for granted as something, has to be predicated with something to be an object or a noun.

Thus, the predicate is the Subject-Object division, dividing "Its-Self". Maybe this is what makes mankind Sentient, and animals Conscious. Maybe it's a core component of neuro-Logic. But what you, me, and Trajik seem to be aiming toward in understanding, is how any Synthesis between Subject and Object can possibly happen. I think that mere attempts to describe this, offer an inner-analysis of how any particular (Subjective) cognization "happens".

To seek the final cause [or to reproduce the process] on how non-sentient objects can combine to give sentience and consciousness is a frivolous quest.
This is why Hume applied Skepticism to such a question.

My approach is TOP-DOWN.
It is a fact that all humans have consciousness and a high degree of self-awareness in contrast to the 'higher animals' and no-self-awareness in the lower animals.
Consciousness is an emergent out of the complex interactions of billions of variables.
What we need to know is to study 'consciousness' and 'sentience' from a TOP DOWN basis to understand its mechanisms down to as far as the empirical evidences can support and couple that with rationality and critical thinking.

Whether such analyses are 'realistic' or 'objective' comes later, down the road, after the first attempts occur. Consider the level of sophistication and intelligence required by an animal to evolve up to "I" and "Exist"—most humans don't even confront this claim, philosophically. And they, perhaps wisely, leave it to the Philosophers.

It is not difficult from the TOP-DOWN approach to understand what is consciousness and sentience based on empirical evidences supported with critical thinking.
From within the Tree of Life one can analyze the evolution of consciousness from the one-cell animals to the most complex human being based on their neural complexities that enables the emergence of consciousness in humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Objectivity is outside all human or animal conscious awareness.
When you go to sleep at night, the sun, the moon, the earth all still exist.
Objective existence does not require Subjective experience, to exist.
You, your body, your life, your physical identity, still exists while you are in a coma.

So if objectivity is 'outside' consciousness, then how do we (humanity) know about it?

This is what I've been asking Wiz but can't get a straight answer. What is so special about consciousness that it deserves this special status, "subjective" when everything else is "objective"?
Everything is outside everything else. Every thing is not some other thing. When it is night on one side of the Earth does that mean the sun, or daytime, does not exist to the dark side of the planet? Does winter in the south mean that summer does not exist? Stars are "outside" planets, chairs are "outside" tables, etc. What exactly do they mean by "outside"?

How does one bridge the gap between "inside" and "outside"?
This is the core problem of all dualistic ideas (like subjective vs objective).

To resolve the problem you have to either include a third as the medium, or the direction I prefer (monism) is narrow them all down to just one
and the problem of describing how two opposing things can interact becomes moot.

I am engaging on the term "objectivity" extensively over in the "Ethical Theory" re "Is Morality Objective"

There is so much contention with 'objectivity' is because;
There are Two Senses or Views of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. The Philosophical Realist view - mind independent reality
2. The FSR-FSK conditioned view - mind entangled with reality

Wiz's sense of 'objectivity' is that of Philosophical Realism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical realism –.. is the view that a certain kind of thing [of an external world] has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

I have argued, Philosophical Realism is grounded on an illusion;
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

As such, the question of 'objectivity in the sense of philosophical realism' is a non-starter.

2. Objectivity within the FSR-FSK conditioned view - mind entangled with reality
As you alluded in the above, all humans are intricately part and parcel of reality [all there is] as such CANNOT be absolute independent from reality, the external world.
In this case, objectivity must be conditioned within a human-based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and therefrom Knowledge[FSK].
Because a human-based FSK means conditioned upon a collective of subjects, objectivity is equated with intersubjectivity.

Dualism i.e. the subject-object dichotomy is a critically necessity for human at the relative level.

To resolve the problem of contentions arising from the above, the most effective approach is to adopt Pyrrhonian Skepticism [not Academic Radical Skepticism].
In this case, one just suspend judgment [shut up] on objectivity grounded on Philosophical Realism, i.e. there is a mind-independent objective reality out there regardless whether there are humans or not.

According to Hume, the very strong propensity to grasp on the idea of an absolutely mind-independent external objective reality is due to psychology.
I add, philosophical realism's objectivity is a fundamentalistic ideology based on very desperate psychological driven by an evolutionary default and to soothe very painful cognitive dissonances .

[Trajk Logik]

said stuff

Actuality is undifferentiated stuff, ie Aether, Chaos or change qua change. Reality is the subset of Actually that is accessible to a mind and contains all recognized patterns. Objective v subjective as a matter of knowledge which is always and only sufficient for a given use case, but can also be indistinguishable from objective, such as logic, which is relationships that always replicate. Actuality is objective, but we can't access it. Reality is subjective but knowledge is reducing that subjectivity as much as necessary for the purpose.

If Actuality is objective but you cannot access it then how did you come to know, or how were you informed, that actuality exists and is objective? This is the same problem that Wiz is making in claiming that there are aspects of reality that we cannot access, yet we can know about. This is a contradiction.

The problem is resolved in understanding that there is no "outside". Our minds are real. They are real parts of the world. They cause things to happen in the world. So the world and our minds are part of the same stuff and can interact causally. We have access to anything if we use the right sensory device to access it. As I pointed out in my prior posts we have developed technology to access parts of reality that we cannot access with our senses. We have the potential to access anything and everything when we look in the right place at the right time with the right senses.

I define reality as all there is which includes minds. Actuality isn't needed. If Actuality is undifferentiated, then how and why do we perceive reality as differentiated. Your explanation seems to fall into the same dualistic trap Wiz finds themselves in. In separating our minds and knowledge from the rest of the world you create problems of how they interact and end up making minds and knowledge special in relation to the other natural processes without any reason to support this special status other than your own subjective need to make it special. Minds are not special. Making value judgements stems from our own subjective need to be special, but humans and their minds are not any more special that the ocean and its waves or the sun and its shine. If you really want to reach some level of objectivity then discard your values because in the "eyes" of the universe, you and your mind are not special, or separate from reality.

[Trajk Logik]

I am engaging on the term "objectivity" extensively over in the "Ethical Theory" re "Is Morality Objective"

There is so much contention with 'objectivity' is because;
There are Two Senses or Views of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. The Philosophical Realist view - mind independent reality
2. The FSR-FSK conditioned view - mind entangled with reality

Wiz's sense of 'objectivity' is that of Philosophical Realism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical realism –.. is the view that a certain kind of thing [of an external world] has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

I have argued, Philosophical Realism is grounded on an illusion;
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

As such, the question of 'objectivity in the sense of philosophical realism' is a non-starter.

2. Objectivity within the FSR-FSK conditioned view - mind entangled with reality
As you alluded in the above, all humans are intricately part and parcel of reality [all there is] as such CANNOT be absolute independent from reality, the external world.
In this case, objectivity must be conditioned within a human-based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and therefrom Knowledge[FSK].
Because a human-based FSK means conditioned upon a collective of subjects, objectivity is equated with intersubjectivity.

Dualism i.e. the subject-object dichotomy is a critically necessity for human at the relative level.

To resolve the problem of contentions arising from the above, the most effective approach is to adopt Pyrrhonian Skepticism [not Academic Radical Skepticism].
In this case, one just suspend judgment [shut up] on objectivity grounded on Philosophical Realism, i.e. there is a mind-independent objective reality out there regardless whether there are humans or not.

According to Hume, the very strong propensity to grasp on the idea of an absolutely mind-independent external objective reality is due to psychology.
I add, philosophical realism's objectivity is a fundamentalistic ideology based on very desperate psychological driven by an evolutionary default and to soothe very painful cognitive dissonances .

There is a difference between being independent of reality and being independent of other things in reality. Correct, we are not independent of reality. But we are independent of other processes that are not minds, or else you would be implying solipsism.

How minds interact, or access, things that are not minds is the same way that anything else interacts and has access to anything else. Again, we need to get away from minds holding this special place in reality. Minds are not special. They are simply one of many different types of processes in reality that interact with the rest of reality the way every other processes does - causally. Information is causal. Information exists where causes leave effects. Information and meaning IS the relationship between causes and their effects. We are informed about states of the world via the causal process of light interacting with our eyes, converted to electrical signals and interpreted by our minds. In getting at the causes of our experience, we are getting at the real state of the world. We get at the causes by using our senses (empiricism) AND using logic (rationalism).

We are all born solipsists. After several months we empirically and logically deduce that our mothers still exist when they leave the room (object permanence). This is a conclusion that we all come to naturally as a result of our interactions with the world over time.

[Trajk Logik]

We need to be careful when trying to make a special case for minds. How is it that we can say that other minds exist independently but not other things that are not minds do not or are dependent upon minds for their existence? To say that there are other minds, what is it that separates minds to assert that they are other than my mind? How it is that we experience other minds as bodies (objects) yet declare that minds are real yet all the other things we observe as objects are not real and are dependent on minds to exist? This is a contradiction.

[Advocate]

[quote="Trajk Logik" post_id=674378 time=1697812244 user_id=12607]
We need to be careful when trying to make a special case for minds. How is it that we can say that other minds exist independently but not other things that are not minds do not or are dependent upon minds for their existence? To say that there are other minds, what is it that separates minds to assert that they are other than my mind? How it is that we experience other minds as bodies (objects) yet declare that minds are real yet all the other things we observe as objects are not real and are dependent on minds to exist? This is a contradiction.
[/quote]

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain.
All things are a set of attributes and boundary conditions in a mind, which means they have a neural/physical correlate, and some have an external referent.

As for other minds, we see beings that appear to have a similar physiology and similar response patterns to our own so it is prima facae Baysianp prior that they have similar experiences likewise.

Regardless of any proposed alternative, for which there is no evidence, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. If other apparent people act like they have minds, so be it. Same for AI, but non-brain cognition can't ever be intelligence

[seeds]

_______

Trajk Logik wrote to Advocate:

If Actuality is objective but you cannot access it then how did you come to know, or how were you informed, that actuality exists and is objective? This is the same problem that Wiz is making in claiming that there are aspects of reality that we cannot access, yet we can know about. This is a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction.

We each know (or at least are pretty darn sure) that other minds exist, yet we cannot directly access the interior reality of those other minds.

The problem is resolved in understanding that there is no "outside".

Wrong again.

All of the phenomenal features of the universe (including your own body and brain) exist "outside" of the interior reality of your mind. Indeed, your mind is like a parallel universe, not only relative to the universe in which these words are appearing on a screen,...

...but a parallel universe relative to the other minds reading these words.

Our minds are real. They are real parts of the world. They cause things to happen in the world. So the world and our minds are part of the same stuff and can interact causally. We have access to anything if we use the right sensory device to access it. As I pointed out in my prior posts we have developed technology to access parts of reality that we cannot access with our senses. We have the potential to access anything and everything when we look in the right place at the right time with the right senses.

In alluding to my arguments with VA (in an alternate thread) regarding the noumenal nature of a superpositioned electron as it traverses the interim space between the slitted wall and the phosphorescent screen of the Double Slit Experiment,...

...no matter how far we extend our senses via our tecnological advances, we will never be able to directly access the true status of an electron - (as it really is) - while it resides in its superpositioned context.

In other words, contrary to this,...

We have access to anything if we use the right sensory device to access it.

(and in parity with the conditions associated with the Kantian noumenon)

...we can only "know" the noumenal status of a superpositioned electron via "intellect and intuition," and never by means of direct access.

So then, getting back to this...

If Actuality is objective but you cannot access it then how did you come to know, or how were you informed, that actuality exists and is objective? This is the same problem that Wiz is making in claiming that there are aspects of reality that we cannot access, yet we can know about. This is a contradiction.

As I suggested earlier, without being able to access the actual status of a superpositioned electron via any sort of direct or empirical means, we can still "know" (be "informed" of) its objective "actuality" via the intellect and intuition.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is a difference between being independent of reality and being independent of other things in reality. Correct, we are not independent of reality. But we are independent of other processes that are not minds, or else you would be implying solipsism.

Generally, the philosophical realists [ignorantly] will claim dogmatically,
1. there is a mind that is independent of reality and
2. the human mind is independent of other things in reality.

Since reality is "all there is" wherein humans are intricately part and parcel of, there cannot be 1. human minds that are independent of reality [all there is].
This is easily refuted, but there are still some philosophical realists who cannot let go of this instinctual dogmatic thinking.

However, point 2 the human mind is independent of other things in reality, is more difficult for the philosophical realist to detach from philosophically because it is an evolutionary default and biological.
As such, the majority [philosophical realists] will adopt this instinctual idea as a fundamentalistic and dogmatic ideology as absolute without compromise.

On the other hand, the ANTI-philosophical realists [of many types] will reject and oppose the philosophical realists' ideology that the human mind is "absolutely' independent of other things in reality. Note "absolutely" without compromise, some p-realists [theists] will even kill those who oppose their mind-independent ideology.

ANTI-philosophical realists DO accept the human mind is independent of other things [minds] in reality BUT they DO NOT accept is in an absolute term [or suspend judgment as in P-skepticism], rather they accept this mind-independence in the relative sense. This stance avoid the so-called solipsism.
In Kant's view, this is Empirical Realism, i.e. what is empirically independent of minds are really real but only relatively real which is ultimately grounded on the subjective- the collective of subjects.

Hope you get my point between absolutely mind-independent vs relatively mind-independent.

How minds interact, or access, things that are not minds is the same way that anything else interacts and has access to anything else. Again, we need to get away from minds holding this special place in reality.
Minds are not special.
They are simply one of many different types of processes in reality that interact with the rest of reality the way every other processes does - causally. Information is causal. Information exists where causes leave effects. Information and meaning IS the relationship between causes and their effects.
We are informed about states of the world via the causal process of light interacting with our eyes, converted to electrical signals and interpreted by our minds. In getting at the causes of our experience, we are getting at the real state of the world. We get at the causes by using our senses (empiricism) AND using logic (rationalism).

Re your above.
The term 'mind' is a very loose term used as a convenience.
As such, it is critical we must define the contexts and whenever the term 'mind' is used.
The controversy with 'mind' started with Descartes' "body and mind dualism" which is not realistic.

We are all born solipsists. After several months we empirically and logically deduce that our mothers still exist when they leave the room (object permanence). This is a conclusion that we all come to naturally as a result of our interactions with the world over time.

Solipsism is an incoherent idea.

The Incoherence of Solipsism
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

Thus I would generally ignore this idea except where if anyone were to accuse me of adopting solipsism, then I will counter they are the ones who are really solipsistic.

Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

All humans are born with an evolutionary default of a sense of externalness, permanence & solidness of thing and mind-independence of realty to facilitate survival which is active from birth to adulthood.
The problem starts when this externalness is adopted [quite naturally] as a fundamentalistic ideology as philosophical realism with absoluteness without compromise.

As the human person matures philosophically and wiser [collectively], he will note that, that sense of externalness and mind-independence has limitations and is embedded with lots of contradictions in regard the more finer aspects of reality.
As such, the wiser persons will resort to ANTI-philosophical_realism to deal with the dilemma of p and not-p in the same time; fortunately, he will notice a way out of the dilemma that they are not in the same sense.

• In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
  WIKI

[Wizard22]

Just a brief moment for one reply, before I can address others later:

We are all born solipsists. After several months we empirically and logically deduce that our mothers still exist when they leave the room (object permanence). This is a conclusion that we all come to naturally as a result of our interactions with the world over time.

...so you agree with me after all then?!

You've got the first step down—now apply that rationale not only to your mother, but to all other existent objects??

If a baby can do it, then why can't adults?

[Trajk Logik]

Just a brief moment for one reply, before I can address others later:

We are all born solipsists. After several months we empirically and logically deduce that our mothers still exist when they leave the room (object permanence). This is a conclusion that we all come to naturally as a result of our interactions with the world over time.

...so you agree with me after all then?!

You've got the first step down—now apply that rationale not only to your mother, but to all other existent objects??

If a baby can do it, then why can't adults?

I was never disagreeing with you in this regard. I am a realist but not a materialist.

I am looking for an explanation as to how you think that consciousness/life deserves this special property, "subjective" when the explanation you have provided thus far can be applied to things that are not conscious and not alive.

[Trajk Logik]

We need to be careful when trying to make a special case for minds. How is it that we can say that other minds exist independently but not other things that are not minds do not or are dependent upon minds for their existence? To say that there are other minds, what is it that separates minds to assert that they are other than my mind? How it is that we experience other minds as bodies (objects) yet declare that minds are real yet all the other things we observe as objects are not real and are dependent on minds to exist? This is a contradiction.

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain.
All things are a set of attributes and boundary conditions in a mind, which means they have a neural/physical correlate, and some have an external referent.

As for other minds, we see beings that appear to have a similar physiology and similar response patterns to our own so it is prima facae Baysianp prior that they have similar experiences likewise.

Regardless of any proposed alternative, for which there is no evidence, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. If other apparent people act like they have minds, so be it. Same for AI, but non-brain cognition can't ever be intelligence

It's the other way around. Brains are metaphors for the mind. You know you have a mind by first-hand experience. You only know you have a brain by second-hand experience, via the mind. In this sense, brains are models of other minds. Objects are metaphors/models of external relations, processes and information.

Seeing other beings as objects and believing that is what things are really like apart from your mind (naive realism), and then trying to reconcile that with the nature of your own mind is the foundation of the false dichotomy of dualism. Too many philosophers disregard the mind altogether as if they are a homunculus inside their own skull looking out through the windows of their eyes and thinking that they are seeing the world as it truly is.

[Trajk Logik]

_______

Trajk Logik wrote to Advocate:

If Actuality is objective but you cannot access it then how did you come to know, or how were you informed, that actuality exists and is objective? This is the same problem that Wiz is making in claiming that there are aspects of reality that we cannot access, yet we can know about. This is a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction.

We each know (or at least are pretty darn sure) that other minds exist, yet we cannot directly access the interior reality of those other minds.

I did not use the qualifier, "direct". What does it mean to "directly" access something as opposed to simply accessing it? What information is lost by simply accessing something rather than "directly" accessing something? When you cut an apple in half are you "directly" accessing its seeds when looking at it? Why can't we do the same thing with a brain but cutting it open and "directly" accessing the mind? When looking at a human body are you "directly" accessing it?

The problem is resolved in understanding that there is no "outside".

Wrong again.

All of the phenomenal features of the universe (including your own body and brain) exist "outside" of the interior reality of your mind. Indeed, your mind is like a parallel universe, not only relative to the universe in which these words are appearing on a screen,...

...but a parallel universe relative to the other minds reading these words.

Does it make sense to say that the skin of the apple is outside its seeds and do we assert that the seeds are in another universe than the skin of the apple? If not, then why does that make any sense when describing the relationship between the mind and the body? Why do we not need to invoke parallel universes when talking about how a plastic container is "outside" the of the juice that it contains?

The "physical object" nature of your body and others' is not real. It is how biological processes and information are modeled by your mind. So you are confusing the map with the territory. The map is part of the territory, not inside it and not in some other parallel universe.

Our minds are real. They are real parts of the world. They cause things to happen in the world. So the world and our minds are part of the same stuff and can interact causally. We have access to anything if we use the right sensory device to access it. As I pointed out in my prior posts we have developed technology to access parts of reality that we cannot access with our senses. We have the potential to access anything and everything when we look in the right place at the right time with the right senses.

In alluding to my arguments with VA (in an alternate thread) regarding the noumenal nature of a superpositioned electron as it traverses the interim space between the slitted wall and the phosphorescent screen of the Double Slit Experiment,...

...no matter how far we extend our senses via our tecnological advances, we will never be able to directly access the true status of an electron - (as it really is) - while it resides in its superpositioned context.

Again, what do you mean by "directly" accessing the true status of an electron? How does that differ from simply accessing the true status of an electron? It seems like you are describing simple access, not "direct" access - whatever that is.

Access is a relation between one entity and another. How is access established? I don't know of any theory or explanation of access that implies that the accessor becomes what is accessed. They remain distinct entities so the accessor can only ever represent, or symbolize, what is accessed.

How can you even assert what that we can't access the true status of an electron unless you know there is some other status the electron has that is true? To lie, you have to first now the truth. To know that what you perceive isn't the truth, you'd have to know what the truth is that you're not perceiving. How did you come to know that the electron has some kind of property that you are not able to access and what makes this property "true"?

How do we know the true state of the slit and the screen, which are themselves composed of electrons? The whole system is composed of electrons. Measurements "change" the state of the electron, which the slits, screen and your eyes are measuring devices. Your perception (your map) of the electron's effects on the screen is itself a measurement. So you would be confusing the measurement with what is measured. The measurement is about what is measured. You are informed of the state of the electron by the causal effect the electron has on other things, like the slit, the screen and the light that is reflected into your eyes. Effects (your perception) carry information about their causes (the state of the electron).

We have access to anything if we use the right sensory device to access it.

(and in parity with the conditions associated with the Kantian noumenon)

...we can only "know" the noumenal status of a superpositioned electron via "intellect and intuition," and never by means of direct access.


So then, getting back to this...

If Actuality is objective but you cannot access it then how did you come to know, or how were you informed, that actuality exists and is objective? This is the same problem that Wiz is making in claiming that there are aspects of reality that we cannot access, yet we can know about. This is a contradiction.

As I suggested earlier, without being able to access the actual status of a superpositioned electron via any sort of direct or empirical means, we can still "know" (be "informed" of) its objective "actuality" via the intellect and intuition.
_______

What does that look like? What is it like to be informed of its objective actuality via intellect and intuition? What are the contents of your mind that allow you to say that you know or are informed of its objective actuality? Knowing entails having access to the facts. It seems to me that you are saying that we still access the truth but not directly. But it is you that brought this term, "directly" into the conversation, not me. So you seem to creating a straw-man, or putting words in my mouth that I did not say, and are actually agreeing with me that we can know the truth by simply accessing it with our senses and reason.

[Trajk Logik]

There is a difference between being independent of reality and being independent of other things in reality. Correct, we are not independent of reality. But we are independent of other processes that are not minds, or else you would be implying solipsism.

Generally, the philosophical realists [ignorantly] will claim dogmatically,
1. there is a mind that is independent of reality and
2. the human mind is independent of other things in reality.

Since reality is "all there is" wherein humans are intricately part and parcel of, there cannot be 1. human minds that are independent of reality [all there is].
This is easily refuted, but there are still some philosophical realists who cannot let go of this instinctual dogmatic thinking.

However, point 2 the human mind is independent of other things in reality, is more difficult for the philosophical realist to detach from philosophically because it is an evolutionary default and biological.
As such, the majority [philosophical realists] will adopt this instinctual idea as a fundamentalistic and dogmatic ideology as absolute without compromise.

On the other hand, the ANTI-philosophical realists [of many types] will reject and oppose the philosophical realists' ideology that the human mind is "absolutely' independent of other things in reality. Note "absolutely" without compromise, some p-realists [theists] will even kill those who oppose their mind-independent ideology.

ANTI-philosophical realists DO accept the human mind is independent of other things [minds] in reality BUT they DO NOT accept is in an absolute term [or suspend judgment as in P-skepticism], rather they accept this mind-independence in the relative sense. This stance avoid the so-called solipsism.
In Kant's view, this is Empirical Realism, i.e. what is empirically independent of minds are really real but only relatively real which is ultimately grounded on the subjective- the collective of subjects.

Hope you get my point between absolutely mind-independent vs relatively mind-independent.

Kind of. It depends on what they mean by "independent". I haven't seen a realist use the term "absolute" in describing this independence. They cannot be causally independent as minds are both effects AND causes of other events in the world. In my opinion, all things, not just minds have relative properties in that they only manifest themselves when interacting with other things. For instance, the apple is red when interacting with light and an eye-brain system.

How minds interact, or access, things that are not minds is the same way that anything else interacts and has access to anything else. Again, we need to get away from minds holding this special place in reality.
Minds are not special.
They are simply one of many different types of processes in reality that interact with the rest of reality the way every other processes does - causally. Information is causal. Information exists where causes leave effects. Information and meaning IS the relationship between causes and their effects.
We are informed about states of the world via the causal process of light interacting with our eyes, converted to electrical signals and interpreted by our minds. In getting at the causes of our experience, we are getting at the real state of the world. We get at the causes by using our senses (empiricism) AND using logic (rationalism).

Re your above.
The term 'mind' is a very loose term used as a convenience.
As such, it is critical we must define the contexts and whenever the term 'mind' is used.
The controversy with 'mind' started with Descartes' "body and mind dualism" which is not realistic.

Agreed. When I use the term, "mind" I'm referring to your conscious state of awareness - where colors, shapes, sounds, feelings, etc. are held and experienced. Everything you know about, including brains, takes on the form of colors, shapes, sounds, feelings, etc. So when some philosopher argues that minds are illusions then they end up pulling the rug out from under their own knowledge because everything you know if via your mind, and if that is an illusion then so is everything you know.

We are all born solipsists. After several months we empirically and logically deduce that our mothers still exist when they leave the room (object permanence). This is a conclusion that we all come to naturally as a result of our interactions with the world over time.

Solipsism is an incoherent idea.

The Incoherence of Solipsism
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

Thus I would generally ignore this idea except where if anyone were to accuse me of adopting solipsism, then I will counter they are the ones who are really solipsistic.

Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

All humans are born with an evolutionary default of a sense of externalness, permanence & solidness of thing and mind-independence of realty to facilitate survival which is active from birth to adulthood.
The problem starts when this externalness is adopted [quite naturally] as a fundamentalistic ideology as philosophical realism with absoluteness without compromise.

As the human person matures philosophically and wiser [collectively], he will note that, that sense of externalness and mind-independence has limitations and is embedded with lots of contradictions in regard the more finer aspects of reality.
As such, the wiser persons will resort to ANTI-philosophical_realism to deal with the dilemma of p and not-p in the same time; fortunately, he will notice a way out of the dilemma that they are not in the same sense.

• In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
  WIKI

What I mean about we are born solipsists is that we do not possess objective permanence. The things we experience only exist when we experience them and as newborn infants we do not think about things existing outside of our awareness. That only comes with practice in interacting with the world over time.

The problem with solipsism is there needs to be an explanation as to how the solipsist has come to experience, or imagine, an external world if there isn't one.

I like to use the term, "aboutness" instead of "externalness". I think it compliments the theme of everything being information. The contents of your mind have an aboutness to them in that they are informative. Colors and shapes inform you of various states of the world. They are not the states of the world unless we are talking about minds themselves, which are a part of the world. This is what it means to confuse the map with the territory - when we believe that the apple really is colored red rather than as you being informed that the apple is ripe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is a difference between being independent of reality and being independent of other things in reality. Correct, we are not independent of reality. But we are independent of other processes that are not minds, or else you would be implying solipsism.

Generally, the philosophical realists [ignorantly] will claim dogmatically,
1. there is a mind that is independent of reality and
2. the human mind is independent of other things in reality.

Since reality is "all there is" wherein humans are intricately part and parcel of, there cannot be 1. human minds that are independent of reality [all there is].
This is easily refuted, but there are still some philosophical realists who cannot let go of this instinctual dogmatic thinking.

However, point 2 the human mind is independent of other things in reality, is more difficult for the philosophical realist to detach from philosophically because it is an evolutionary default and biological.
As such, the majority [philosophical realists] will adopt this instinctual idea as a fundamentalistic and dogmatic ideology as absolute without compromise.

On the other hand, the ANTI-philosophical realists [of many types] will reject and oppose the philosophical realists' ideology that the human mind is "absolutely' independent of other things in reality. Note "absolutely" without compromise, some p-realists [theists] will even kill those who oppose their mind-independent ideology.

ANTI-philosophical realists DO accept the human mind is independent of other things [minds] in reality BUT they DO NOT accept is in an absolute term [or suspend judgment as in P-skepticism], rather they accept this mind-independence in the relative sense. This stance avoid the so-called solipsism.
In Kant's view, this is Empirical Realism, i.e. what is empirically independent of minds are really real but only relatively real which is ultimately grounded on the subjective- the collective of subjects.

Hope you get my point between absolutely mind-independent vs relatively mind-independent.

Kind of. It depends on what they mean by "independent". I haven't seen a realist use the term "absolute" in describing this independence. They cannot be causally independent as minds are both effects AND causes of other events in the world. In my opinion, all things, not just minds have relative properties in that they only manifest themselves when interacting with other things. For instance, the apple is red when interacting with light and an eye-brain system.

Yes, it appears I am the only one who had introduced "absolute" in reference to mind-independent.

It is very necessary when the relevant nuances has to be considered.

When p-realists claimed there are mind-independent things [or and reality] they assumed anti-p-realists in contrast believed things and reality are "dependent" on one's mind; as if the person's mind is creating reality and things on the go which is absurd.
This lead them to charge [mock] anti-p-realists with solipsism.

As stated, the point is anti-p-realists [mine=Kantian] i.e. Empirical Realism also believe in mind-independent things [reality], but not in the sense of the p-realists which is in the absolute sense without compromise.
This is why there is a need to qualify the p-realists' mind-independence as absolute, while that of the anti-p_realists are relative.

I agree with your other points.

I like to use the term, "aboutness" instead of "externalness". I think it compliments the theme of everything being information. The contents of your mind have an aboutness to them in that they are informative. Colors and shapes inform you of various states of the world. They are not the states of the world unless we are talking about minds themselves, which are a part of the world. This is what it means to confuse the map with the territory - when we believe that the apple really is colored red rather than as you being informed that the apple is ripe.

My concept of "externalness" is quite distinct from "aboutness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboutness

About Aboutness
https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/About_Aboutness

The concept of 'aboutness' is more sophisticated than "externalness"

The sense of "externalness" in introduced is adapted from early stages of evolution of animals where every organism perceived foods and threats [humans and things] as physically external to their body [implied mind] with a gap of distance.
This is necessary and critical to facilitate basic survival.
This sense of externalness is basic and adaptive.

Since it was adapted from the very early stages of evolution, it "instinctualized" and an evolutionary default within the DNA of all living animals and still exists in modern humans.

My point is to highlight to p-realists that they have converted the above evolutionary default to a fundamentalistic ideology which they are not aware of, i.e. they are clinging to some very primal and primordial thinking.

[Wizard22]

I was never disagreeing with you in this regard. I am a realist but not a materialist.

I am looking for an explanation as to how you think that consciousness/life deserves this special property, "subjective" when the explanation you have provided thus far can be applied to things that are not conscious and not alive.

If humans have object-permanence, then we are Objects, in addition to what we call "Subjects"—so both Subject & Object.

You premised Reality on your own Subjectivity. This contradicts object-permanence through your own reasoning. You've repeatedly claimed that we only can know object-permanence first through the senses. But now you've stated that object-permanence does come about through empirical/logical/rational thought. Why does it matter how you, or babies, come about it, when it is already taken for given? It doesn't matter that object-permanence comes after your conscious-awareness is formed; because I argue, object-permanence represents any person, any baby, and Subject discovering something innate (some process/pattern/activity) about the universe, about Existence, that precedes Awareness, Perception, and Consciousness.

In other words, object-permanence is not an "Imagining" about the universe, it is a type of "waking up" as to the Nature of the Universe or Existence.

So once you've awakened...why not apply this newfound Rationality to everything else, not just your mother?

This means that it is The Subject, what you've agued is your Reality, that is the Exception to the rule, not the Norm. Your Subjective-Reality is the "rarity" of Nature, not the Object-Permanence. Or another argument...human consciousness is unique because of the Evolution required to "build" or "create" or "manifest" such a "Subjective-Reality". The Object-Permanence precedes Awareness.

Do you disagree?