What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The description of subjectivity as mind-dependence, and objectivity as mind-independence, perpetuates the myth that there are two substances: the mental and the physical - a myth still promoted by many dictionaries, both philosophical and general. (Mentalist talk gets everywhere.)

I have countered the above a "million" times yet you are so stuck dogmatically with your archaic thinking.

Yes, subjectivity is mind-dependence [entangled with the mind].
But objectivity is mind-independence at one level but mind-dependence at a higher level.

Note scientific facts are supposedly objective. You deny this?
As such they are independent of the scientist's or any subject's opinion and beliefs.
But objective scientific facts are subjective in a higher perspective, i.e. it is intersubjective based on the scientific FSK which is created and sustained by human subjects and mind, thus subjective.
There is no myth of two substance in this case.
So what is objectivity is intersubjectivity, i.e. fundamentally 'subjective'.
How do you counter this?

And that myth is at the root of - and still causes - much philosophical confusion, not least in the debate about the nature of morality - what we call moral rightness and wrongness: are they mind-dependent or mind-independent?

Which ever individual claim his rightness or wrongness is moral and based on his personal FSK, that is purely subjective.
But any claims of moral facts from a credible moral FSK of near credibility to the scientific FSK, is objective based on intersubjectivity, thus fundamentally subjective.
Thus moral facts are possible when they meet the above criteria.

You have not countered my claim here,

There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002

The existence of a feature of reality (what we call a fact), such as the chemical composition of water, doesn't depend on a descriptive context. And it doesn't depend on our intersubjective consensus that it exists. So these two conditions for what constitutes a fact are not necessary - and therefore not jointly sufficient.

And the very reliabiity of natural science descriptions and the knowledge they embody - on which we agree - comes from an explicit rejection of these two conditions. A scientist who claimed that water is H2O simply because we agree it is, and agree how to describe it, would be rightly ignored or ridiculed.

Your thinking above is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic.

Your reality, fact and it
are merely from your fictional illusory creations thus delusional.

What you failed to understand is the following 4 conditions;

• 1. The reality, fact and it by themselves which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
  
  2. The emergence & realization of reality of which the participating person[s] are intricately part and parcel of.
  
  3. The empirical verification and justification of the realization of the entangled-reality via a specific FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK as the most credible.
  
  4. The reporting and description of the facts from 2 & 3.

What is really real is 2 & 3 and 1 is the fictional illusions that you [the majority] have necessarily invented.
Your reality, fact and it existing by themselves in 1 are those illusional realities which are inferred via the Correspondence Theory of Truth. [you are in it no matter how you deny you are not].
You are trying to mirror [correspond] your description with illusions as conceived in 1 above.
Thus you have ended with Nihilism and Solipsism.

That 'mirroring' is what Rorty had been condemning in his "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature".

• Rorty argues that philosophy has unduly relied on a representational theory of perception and a correspondence theory of truth, hoping our experience or language might mirror the way reality actually is.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... _of_Nature

Many of us have been suckered by a tired postmodern canard that was fashionable around seventy years ago: the arse-puckering, pernicious idea that scientists deal with merely polished conjectures about reality, not reality (nature) itself.

Meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality - opinions about moral rightness and wrongness.

From my argument above, it is realistic to see scientific facts at their best as mere 'polished conjectures'.

It has relevance to moral facts which are equated as of near credibility to scientific facts.

Of course! I agree there are no moral facts IF they are equated with your reality, fact and it existing by themselves [re 1], because there are no such "facts" such as your 1 which are illusory.

[Peter Holmes]

I have countered the above a "million" times yet you are so stuck dogmatically with your archaic thinking.

Yes, subjectivity is mind-dependence [entangled with the mind].
But objectivity is mind-independence at one level but mind-dependence at a higher level.

Note scientific facts are supposedly objective. You deny this?
As such they are independent of the scientist's or any subject's opinion and beliefs.
But objective scientific facts are subjective in a higher perspective, i.e. it is intersubjective based on the scientific FSK which is created and sustained by human subjects and mind, thus subjective.
There is no myth of two substance in this case.
So what is objectivity is intersubjectivity, i.e. fundamentally 'subjective'.
How do you counter this?


Which ever individual claim his rightness or wrongness is moral and based on his personal FSK, that is purely subjective.
But any claims of moral facts from a credible moral FSK of near credibility to the scientific FSK, is objective based on intersubjectivity, thus fundamentally subjective.
Thus moral facts are possible when they meet the above criteria.

You have not countered my claim here,

There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002

The existence of a feature of reality (what we call a fact), such as the chemical composition of water, doesn't depend on a descriptive context. And it doesn't depend on our intersubjective consensus that it exists. So these two conditions for what constitutes a fact are not necessary - and therefore not jointly sufficient.

And the very reliabiity of natural science descriptions and the knowledge they embody - on which we agree - comes from an explicit rejection of these two conditions. A scientist who claimed that water is H2O simply because we agree it is, and agree how to describe it, would be rightly ignored or ridiculed.

Your thinking above is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic.

Your reality, fact and it
are merely from your fictional illusory creations thus delusional.

What you failed to understand is the following 4 conditions;

• 1. The reality, fact and it by themselves which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
  
  2. The emergence & realization of reality of which the participating person[s] are intricately part and parcel of.
  
  3. The empirical verification and justification of the realization of the entangled-reality via a specific FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK as the most credible.
  
  4. The reporting and description of the facts from 2 & 3.

What is really real is 2 & 3 and 1 is the fictional illusions that you [the majority] have necessarily invented.
Your reality, fact and it existing by themselves in 1 are those illusional realities which are inferred via the Correspondence Theory of Truth. [you are in it no matter how you deny you are not].
You are trying to mirror [correspond] your description with illusions as conceived in 1 above.
Thus you have ended with Nihilism and Solipsism.

That 'mirroring' is what Rorty had been condemning in his "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature".

• Rorty argues that philosophy has unduly relied on a representational theory of perception and a correspondence theory of truth, hoping our experience or language might mirror the way reality actually is.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... _of_Nature

Many of us have been suckered by a tired postmodern canard that was fashionable around seventy years ago: the arse-puckering, pernicious idea that scientists deal with merely polished conjectures about reality, not reality (nature) itself.

Meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality - opinions about moral rightness and wrongness.

From my argument above, it is realistic to see scientific facts at their best as mere 'polished conjectures'.

It has relevance to moral facts which are equated as of near credibility to scientific facts.

Of course! I agree there are no moral facts IF they are equated with your reality, fact and it existing by themselves [re 1], because there are no such "facts" such as your 1 which are illusory.

Blithering nonsense. The chemical composition of water has nothing to do with human beings or the way we describe it. It just is what it is. It was what it was before human beings turned up, and it will be what it is after we're gone.

Please consider the following.

1 The supposed polished conjectures (viz, guesses) of natural science are not about a model of reality. They're about reality itself. A scientific description is a description of something. And that something is not a model.

2 There's no reason to think a scientific claim about reality can never be true. The so-called problem of induction is not about the truth-value of a scientific conclusion. It's about our confidence in its truth-value. The expression 'certain knowledge' is a grammatical misattribution. And there can be doubt only against a background of certainty.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The existence of a feature of reality (what we call a fact), such as the chemical composition of water, doesn't depend on a descriptive context. And it doesn't depend on our intersubjective consensus that it exists. So these two conditions for what constitutes a fact are not necessary - and therefore not jointly sufficient.

And the very reliabiity of natural science descriptions and the knowledge they embody - on which we agree - comes from an explicit rejection of these two conditions. A scientist who claimed that water is H2O simply because we agree it is, and agree how to describe it, would be rightly ignored or ridiculed.

Your thinking above is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic.

Your reality, fact and it
are merely from your fictional illusory creations thus delusional.

What you failed to understand is the following 4 conditions;

• 1. The reality, fact and it by themselves which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
  
  2. The emergence & realization of reality of which the participating person[s] are intricately part and parcel of.
  
  3. The empirical verification and justification of the realization of the entangled-reality via a specific FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK as the most credible.
  
  4. The reporting and description of the facts from 2 & 3.

What is really real is 2 & 3 and 1 is the fictional illusions that you [the majority] have necessarily invented.
Your reality, fact and it existing by themselves in 1 are those illusional realities which are inferred via the Correspondence Theory of Truth. [you are in it no matter how you deny you are not].
You are trying to mirror [correspond] your description with illusions as conceived in 1 above.
Thus you have ended with Nihilism and Solipsism.

That 'mirroring' is what Rorty had been condemning in his "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature".

• Rorty argues that philosophy has unduly relied on a representational theory of perception and a correspondence theory of truth, hoping our experience or language might mirror the way reality actually is.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... _of_Nature

Many of us have been suckered by a tired postmodern canard that was fashionable around seventy years ago: the arse-puckering, pernicious idea that scientists deal with merely polished conjectures about reality, not reality (nature) itself.

Meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality - opinions about moral rightness and wrongness.

From my argument above, it is realistic to see scientific facts at their best as mere 'polished conjectures'.

It has relevance to moral facts which are equated as of near credibility to scientific facts.

Of course! I agree there are no moral facts IF they are equated with your reality, fact and it existing by themselves [re 1], because there are no such "facts" such as your 1 which are illusory.

Blithering nonsense. The chemical composition of water has nothing to do with human beings or the way we describe it. It just is what it is. It was what it was before human beings turned up, and it will be what it is after we're gone.

You are unable to grasp my points 1-4 above in totality.

It is just 'what it is' is a no-brainer and it is not even philosophy.

Note the notable Bertrand Russell who did real philosophy and attempted to know 'what it is' with a table,
"doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all."
Chapter 1 Problems of Philosophy

Your thinking is too narrow, shallow, common sense and dogmatic.

Note your statement itself is conditioned within the human and linguistic conditions.
"It was what it was before human beings turned up, and it will be what it is after we're gone."
Thus it follows, the above 'reality' is entangled with the human conditions.
There is no way it can stand-by-itself alone and independent with absolute certainty.

The Chemical composition of water has everything to do with human being establishing the Chemistry FSK under the Scientific FSK to verify and justify 'water as H20'. There is no fact 'water is H20' without the human made Chemistry FSK.
Now H20 is comprised of 2 atoms of H and one O.
Within the QM FSK there is no certain as to what H and O are made of.

As such "It just is what it is" is a coward's answer to a philosophical question.

There is no certain answer to 'what it is' as in-itself or by-itself.
'what it is' must always be conditioned and qualified to a specific FSK of which the scientific is the most credible.

Please consider the following.

1 The supposed polished conjectures (viz, guesses) of natural science are not about a model of reality. They're about reality itself. A scientific description is a description of something. And that something is not a model.

Note my the sequence of points 1-4 above.
The only reality there is that is comprehensible is 2, i.e. the emergence and realization in entanglement spontaneously with the human conditions.
The model is used in 3.
The description is in 4.

It is impossible for reality-in-itself to exists as real without conditioning it to a specific humans made FSK.

2 There's no reason to think a scientific claim about reality can never be true. The so-called problem of induction is not about the truth-value of a scientific conclusion. It's about our confidence in its truth-value. The expression 'certain knowledge' is a grammatical misattribution. And there can be doubt only against a background of certainty.

There you go again with imposing your linguistic 'what is truth'.
I did not state scientific claims are never true.

I have stated many times,
Scientific facts, truths, knowledge are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
From another perspective the above are at best mere "polished conjectures" which is a necessary presentation to prevent Scientism or those who want to replace Science with God's omniscience.

[Peter Holmes]

It is impossible for reality-in-itself to exists as real without conditioning it to a specific humans made FSK.

Just to deal with this assertion.

1 I have no idea what reality-in-itself is, or why it's different from reality. So I don't claim that reality-in-itself exists. So the claim that my argument assumes the existence of reality-in-itself is a straw man.

2 I have no idea what it means to say that reality, or reality-in-itself, exists 'as real'. Could reality exist 'as unreal'? I think this nonsense demonstrates a lack of clarity in the thinking behind the expression.

3 It could be that the quoted assertion means simply this: what we call reality can exist only within a descriptive context. And that profoundly absurd claim incurs a burden of proof. My argument is that the burden of proof can never be met, simply because the claim itself is incoherent. It conflates the description and the described, as follows.

A description of reality is necessarily contextual; therefore reality is necessarily contextual.

Nuff said?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is impossible for reality-in-itself to exists as real without conditioning it to a specific humans made FSK.

Just to deal with this assertion.

1 I have no idea what reality-in-itself is, or why it's different from reality. So I don't claim that reality-in-itself exists. So the claim that my argument assumes the existence of reality-in-itself is a straw man.

2 I have no idea what it means to say that reality, or reality-in-itself, exists 'as real'. Could reality exist 'as unreal'? I think this nonsense demonstrates a lack of clarity in the thinking behind the expression.

3 It could be that the quoted assertion means simply this: what we call reality can exist only within a descriptive context. And that profoundly absurd claim incurs a burden of proof. My argument is that the burden of proof can never be met, simply because the claim itself is incoherent. It conflates the description and the described, as follows.

A description of reality is necessarily contextual; therefore reality is necessarily contextual.

Nuff said?

You often claim without qualifications "there are facts of reality".
Therefrom you claim there are description of the facts of reality.
There is no issue with 'description' which is not contentious here.

The point is when you do not qualify your 'reality' and "facts of reality" it implies you are referring to a reality-in-itself or reality-by-itself supporting your claim that such a reality exists even if there are no human beings entangling with it.
To you this reality-in-itself is absolutely real.
I do not agree there is such an absolute real reality-in-itself, thus from my perspective your so-called real reality is unreal-reality, i.e. an illusion.

I claim, there is only a real reality-by-FSK, with degrees of credibility and reliability of which the scientific FSK is most reliable.

The difference is whenever I claim "what is fact" it is always qualified to a FSK,
OTOH, you are just claiming there are 'facts of reality' without any qualification at all.
You are not a God to claim that your 'facts of reality' is the absolute answer.

So as long as you don't qualify your 'what is fact' it is implied to be absolutely independent without qualification to anything, i.e. it is an absolute reality-in-itself which is an impossibility.

Actually your 'what is fact' is conditioned to your personal FSK and that of the linguistic FSK which was improvised from that of the defunct logical positivists. But somehow you are unable to grasp and accept this truth of your real condition.

The problem with you is selective attention disorder, i.e. you just cannot see that 500 pound gorilla even when it is right in front of you!
see this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo&t=19s

[Sculptor]

The difference is whenever I claim "what is fact" it is always qualified to a FSK,

This is Stalinism.

[Peter Holmes]

It is impossible for reality-in-itself to exists as real without conditioning it to a specific humans made FSK.

Just to deal with this assertion.

1 I have no idea what reality-in-itself is, or why it's different from reality. So I don't claim that reality-in-itself exists. So the claim that my argument assumes the existence of reality-in-itself is a straw man.

2 I have no idea what it means to say that reality, or reality-in-itself, exists 'as real'. Could reality exist 'as unreal'? I think this nonsense demonstrates a lack of clarity in the thinking behind the expression.

3 It could be that the quoted assertion means simply this: what we call reality can exist only within a descriptive context. And that profoundly absurd claim incurs a burden of proof. My argument is that the burden of proof can never be met, simply because the claim itself is incoherent. It conflates the description and the described, as foll

A description of reality is necessarily contextual; therefore reality is necessarily contextual.

Nuff said?

You often claim without qualifications "there are facts of reality".
Therefrom you claim there are description of the facts of reality.
There is no issue with 'description' which is not contentious here.

The point is when you do not qualify your 'reality' and "facts of reality" it implies you are referring to a reality-in-itself or reality-by-itself supporting your claim that such a reality exists even if there are no human beings entangling with it.
To you this reality-in-itself is absolutely real.
I do not agree there is such an absolute real reality-in-itself, thus from my perspective your so-called real reality is unreal-reality, i.e. an illusion.

I claim, there is only a real reality-by-FSK, with degrees of credibility and reliability of which the scientific FSK is most reliable.

The difference is whenever I claim "what is fact" it is always qualified to a FSK,
OTOH, you are just claiming there are 'facts of reality' without any qualification at all.
You are not a God to claim that your 'facts of reality' is the absolute answer.

So as long as you don't qualify your 'what is fact' it is implied to be absolutely independent without qualification to anything, i.e. it is an absolute reality-in-itself which is an impossibility.

Actually your 'what is fact' is conditioned to your personal FSK and that of the linguistic FSK which was improvised from that of the defunct logical positivists. But somehow you are unable to grasp and accept this truth of your real condition.

The problem with you is selective attention disorder, i.e. you just cannot see that 500 pound gorilla even when it is right in front of you!
see this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo&t=19s

Please answer these questions with yes or no.

Do you think that, before humans appeared, what we call reality did not exist?

Do you think that, after humans have disappeared, what we call reality will not exist?

Do you think that, if there were no humans, what we call reality would not exist?

[Skepdick]

The existence of morality is not in question dip shit.
It is the "facts" of morality that is in question.

What is it that you are questioning about the wrongness of murder?

[Skepdick]

Please answer these questions with yes or no.

Do you think that, before humans appeared, what we call reality did not exist?

Do you think that, after humans have disappeared, what we call reality will not exist?

Do you think that, if there were no humans, what we call reality would not exist?

What are you even asking? All questions are nonsencical without the existence of humans.

Also, reality and existence are synonymous terms. So your question is incoherent.

You might as well be asking whether existence is real; or whether reality is real; or whether existence exists.

[Sculptor]

The existence of morality is not in question dip shit.
It is the "facts" of morality that is in question.

What is it that you are questioning about the wrongness of murder?

"Murder" is defined as unlawful killing.
The question that you fetid brain is incapable of answering is where does the morality come in to this statement.
Who is the state, or an individual allowed to kill before it is deemed illegal.
All these are moral questions, and deciding upon guilt is also morally charged.
All these are subjective and relative.
Now run along and go and boil your small head.

[Skepdick]

The existence of morality is not in question dip shit.
It is the "facts" of morality that is in question.

What is it that you are questioning about the wrongness of murder?

"Murder" is defined as unlawful killing.
The question that you fetid brain is incapable of answering is where does the morality come in to this statement.

It comes in the fact that somebody bothered to define it.

The principle of least action dictates that people didn't have to do any of those things. And yet they did. Why?

Who is the state, or an individual allowed to kill before it is deemed illegal.

What a stupid question.

WHY was it ever deemed illegal? Comlpete this sentence for me: Unlawful killing was outlawed because...

All these are subjective and relative.

You don't seem to understand how relativity works.

Everything being relative doesn't prevent the speed of light being agreed upon by all observers - which makes it an objective fact within the relativistic framework.

Morality being relative doesn't prevent the wrongness of murder being agreed upon by all observers -which makes it an objective fact within the relativistic framework.

All these are moral questions, and deciding upon guilt is also morally charged.

Why would we ever need to outlaw certain kind of killings?
Why would we ever have to decide whether anyone's guilty of anything?

We could have just... NOT define murder. We could have just NOT bothered to outlaw stuff. So once more for the slow kid in the classroom.

WHY did humans even bother to outlaw a bunch of behaviors? There must be an objective reason - a motive for inventing laws and legal systems.

[Sculptor]

What is it that you are questioning about the wrongness of murder?

"Murder" is defined as unlawful killing.
The question that you fetid brain is incapable of answering is where does the morality come in to this statement.

It comes in the fact that somebody bothered to define it.

The principle of least action dictates that people didn't have to do any of those things. And yet they did. Why?

Who is the state, or an individual allowed to kill before it is deemed illegal.

What a stupid question.

WHY was it ever deemed illegal? Comlpete this sentence for me: Unlawful killing was outlawed because...

All these are subjective and relative.

You don't seem to understand how relativity works.

Everything being relative doesn't prevent the speed of light being agreed upon by all observers - which makes it an objective fact within the relativistic framework.

Morality being relative doesn't prevent the wrongness of murder being agreed upon by all observers -which makes it an objective fact within the relativistic framework.

All these are moral questions, and deciding upon guilt is also morally charged.

Why would we ever need to outlaw certain kind of killings?
Why would we ever have to decide whether anyone's guilty of anything?

We could have just... NOT define murder. We could have just NOT bothered to outlaw stuff. So once more for the slow kid in the classroom.

WHY did humans even bother to outlaw a bunch of behaviors? There must be an objective reason - a motive for inventing laws and legal systems.

You are just an argumentative idiot, with no interest in discussion.
And you are wrong.
SO bugger off

[Skepdick]

You are just an argumentative idiot, with no interest in discussion.
And you are wrong.
SO bugger off

I am the argumentative idiot?

You are the one arguing against the wrongness of murder for the sake of discussion, you moron.

[Sculptor]

You are just an argumentative idiot, with no interest in discussion.
And you are wrong.
SO bugger off

I am the argumentative idiot?

You are the one arguing against the wrongness of murder for the sake of discussion, you moron.

Please refer to the answer I gave earlier

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just to deal with this assertion.

1 I have no idea what reality-in-itself is, or why it's different from reality. So I don't claim that reality-in-itself exists. So the claim that my argument assumes the existence of reality-in-itself is a straw man.

2 I have no idea what it means to say that reality, or reality-in-itself, exists 'as real'. Could reality exist 'as unreal'? I think this nonsense demonstrates a lack of clarity in the thinking behind the expression.

3 It could be that the quoted assertion means simply this: what we call reality can exist only within a descriptive context. And that profoundly absurd claim incurs a burden of proof. My argument is that the burden of proof can never be met, simply because the claim itself is incoherent. It conflates the description and the described, as foll

A description of reality is necessarily contextual; therefore reality is necessarily contextual.

Nuff said?

You often claim without qualifications "there are facts of reality".
Therefrom you claim there are description of the facts of reality.
There is no issue with 'description' which is not contentious here.

The point is when you do not qualify your 'reality' and "facts of reality" it implies you are referring to a reality-in-itself or reality-by-itself supporting your claim that such a reality exists even if there are no human beings entangling with it.
To you this reality-in-itself is absolutely real.
I do not agree there is such an absolute real reality-in-itself, thus from my perspective your so-called real reality is unreal-reality, i.e. an illusion.

I claim, there is only a real reality-by-FSK, with degrees of credibility and reliability of which the scientific FSK is most reliable.

The difference is whenever I claim "what is fact" it is always qualified to a FSK,
OTOH, you are just claiming there are 'facts of reality' without any qualification at all.
You are not a God to claim that your 'facts of reality' is the absolute answer.

So as long as you don't qualify your 'what is fact' it is implied to be absolutely independent without qualification to anything, i.e. it is an absolute reality-in-itself which is an impossibility.

Actually your 'what is fact' is conditioned to your personal FSK and that of the linguistic FSK which was improvised from that of the defunct logical positivists. But somehow you are unable to grasp and accept this truth of your real condition.

The problem with you is selective attention disorder, i.e. you just cannot see that 500 pound gorilla even when it is right in front of you!
see this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo&t=19s

Please answer these questions with yes or no.

1. Do you think that, before humans appeared, what we call reality did not exist?

2. Do you think that, after humans have disappeared, what we call reality will not exist?

3. Do you think that, if there were no humans, what we call reality would not exist?

Note I highlighted 'think' [i.e. a human act] in all the above questions.
As such the answers that follow [logically] are inevitably conditioned upon and entangled with 'human thinking' either it is mine or yours. So a basic human-FS-Reality [FSR] is involved.

Thus my answer [in this serious philosophical context] to 3 [cover 1 & 2] would be,
-if there were no humans, a human-entangled-reality would not emerge for consideration of its existence. [A]

In your case, your 'what we call reality' implied an unqualified reality-in-itself that is absolutely independent of the human conditions and entanglement.
Base on this, your answer would be 'YES' to all the above questions.

But this 'YES' especially to an absolute independent reality is an impossibility because you had already qualified it without knowing that when you state 'what we call' where 'we' implied the embedment of some human conditions to your 'reality'.
In addition, before and after are time-based where 'time' is interdependent with the human conditions and is not absolutely independent and so is 'space'.

If we are discussing the issue above within the common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian & Einsteinian's perspective and the likes, yes, I will agree 'what-we-call' reality do exists if there are no humans.

BUT in a higher and serious levels of philosophical discussion then my answers is in A above which take some effort to deliberate above the common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian & Einsteinian's paradigm.

Btw, this is not ME who is providing such an answer, but Kant and other anti-realisms of the likes will provide the same answers in counter to Philosophical/Metaphysical Realism which hold the same absolutely independent reality view as yours.

The above answer A is not simply a theoretical claim but has implications in religion, theism, quantum physics, morality and [others] which has produced positive results for the well being of humanity.

To be serious and where relevant, I suggest you don't simply present the term 'reality' in an unqualified way as if you own it.
Rather than 'what we call reality' you should qualify 'what I call reality' if you want to use "we" then indicate who are the 'we'.