Default Sense of Externalness Drive P-Realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

"What counts in any philosophical forum [such as here] are rational valid and sound arguments counts.
So far you have not provided any."

I already refuted your mind-dependent reality theory with my Problem Of The Interdependence Of Dual Percievers dilemma... or what i call my 'Berkeley Buster'.

Where?? I am very interested.
It is because you did not quote the post you are replying to that I did not get notified of your refutation.

Btw, what I believe has nothing to do with Berkeley's Subjective Idealism.
Mine is Kant's Transcendental Idealism where he refuted Berkeley's Subjective Idealism in his very famous 'Refutation of Idealism'.

Kant’s Attempts to Distance Himself from Berkeley
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... ment1.html

Kant’s Critique of Berkeley
This chapter shows that despite the superficial similarities to which Turbayne and others point, Immanuel Kant’s transcendental standpoint differs fundamentally from George Berkeley’s position, and that Kant’s criticisms are a legitimate and philosophically significant expression of this difference.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/ ... ry-allison

In fact, Kant held Berkeley in contempt, by referring to him as the “good Bishop.” He only devoted like four pages to Berkeley, in the Critique. If I remember correctly, the section is titled "Refutation of Idealism", where he shows that Berkeley's subjective idealism is just false.
https://www.quora.com/Was-Berkeley-a-ce ... ce-of-Kant#:

[promethean75]

Aw man, u mean I gotta post it again? Twice now I've posted the berkeley buster and both times u missed it.

I don't use the quote function becuz not doing so forces members to bookmark my post history page... and this insures that they'll see all the most important posts at PN. Pretty smaht, right?

*taps forehead*

[Veritas Aequitas]

Aw man, u mean I gotta post it again? Twice now I've posted the berkeley buster and both times u missed it.

I don't use the quote function becuz not doing so forces members to bookmark my post history page... and this insures that they'll see all the most important posts at PN. Pretty smaht, right?

*taps forehead*

Obviously I will miss it if you do not trigger the notification to me.

No need to post again, just provide the link[s] to the relevant post.

I believe it is more effective to quote to notify.

All you need is to click " " on the top right hand corner.
If you don't want to repeat the post, the below will do to enable a notification of your response.

..

[Veritas Aequitas]

Aw man, u mean I gotta post it again? Twice now I've posted the berkeley buster and both times u missed it.

Actually I did not miss it but did reply to it.
Noted my response is a bit confusing.
Here your post again:

viewtopic.php?p=668477#p668477
A very simple thought experiment that immediately presents a problem with this stuff about reality not being mind-independent.

If two people and only two people are hanging out and one of em falls over dead, the other guy should stop existing becuz the guy who was perceiving him (making him exist) is now dead.

The only way to solve this one is to insert a third party observer (god) like Berkeley did. And u don't wanna do that do ya, VA?

Here is my revised response.

Clarifying your point:
If two people and only two people [A & B] are hanging out and one of em [B..] falls over dead, the other guy [A] should stop existing becuz the guy who was perceiving him (making him exist) is now dead.

Your argument is a strawman.
I did not argue for esse est percipi, i.e. to exist is to be perceived.

My argument is as follows:
Whatever exists, is real, factual, knowledge and objective is contingent upon a human-based framework and system of realization and Knowledge [FSRK].
As such it cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

In general, the existence of humans is best confirmed by science-biology-FSK by all rational people.
If say, there are only two people [A & B] left on Earth, they would confirm each other existence based on what they know of Science.

If A dies, B can still confirm his own existence based on what he know of Science or his own first-person experience.

The mentioned of Berkeley is irrelevant in this case.