Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 9:34 am
Here are two things VA has just written.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 4:57 am
I have never asserted the following...
"There are no facts
outside the ways we
know about and
describe them."
There is no absolute atom-in-itself nor fact-in-itself, thus whatever is reality is conditioned upon human conditions.
So, VA does not claim that there are no facts outside the ways we know about and describe them. And that seems to mean that VA thinks that there are facts outside the ways we know and describe them. For example, VA seems to agree that there are (and would be) mirror neurons in brains, even if neuroscience didn't exist.
But VA then introduces the expressions 'absolute atom-in-itself' and 'absolute fact-in-itself', in order to deny their existence. The modifier 'absolute' seems to me redundant, because it hints at some other kind of thing-in-itself - perhaps a relative or contingent thing-in-itself - which is surely a contradiction in terms.
So here's VA's contradiction:
1 There are facts outside the ways we know and describe them.
2 There are no facts-in-themselves; 'whatever is reality is conditioned upon human conditions.'
First, notice the extremism of 2:
whatever is reality is conditioned upon human conditions.' This goes beyond saying (correctly) that we have to perceive, know and describe reality in a human way. It tips over into a completely unfounded claim that
reality can be nothing different from what we perceive, know and describe it to be. Can there be a clearer example of mistaking what we know and say for the way things are?
And the irony of this (arguably) misconstrued Kantianism is that, if there's no reality-in-itself, it makes no sense to say what reality can or can't be. If there are no noumena, there are also no phenomena.
Second, VA's mumbled mantra - 'conditioned upon human conditions' - remains, as ever, completely undefined and unexplained. It's anthropocentrism is unquestioned. Its mystical dualism is unjustified - like all mysticism. And its logical self-demolition has to be ignored.
Strawman again.
You deliberately ignored the full context of my questioning of your premise 2 which is;
As I had stated what is a FSK-Conditioned Fact comprise of the following phases;
1. The realization of the fact via a specific FSK that entangles with the human condition.
2. The realized FSK-conditioned-Fact is known
3. The realized then known fact is described in various ways.
viewtopic.php?p=625906#p625906
You ignored and is ignorant of the processes of realization and emergence of the fact [1] that precede the knowing [2] and describing [3].
Thus, mirror neurons emerge and exist upon realization and conditioned upon the neuroscience-FSK, it is only thereafter that it is known and described.
I wrote above in another post:
There is no absolute atom-in-itself nor fact-in-itself, thus whatever is reality is conditioned upon human conditions.
Note it [what is fact] is NOT confined to what is known or described but
the whole complex process of the realization of that reality where the human conditions are entangled therein.
Your strawman is you think I claimed facts emerged from what is known and described from a FSK, e.g. a neuroscience FSK.
But you ignored and is ignorant of the processes of realization and emergence of the fact that precede the knowing and describing.
I have explained in detail in this thread;
Objective Moral Facts are Enacted FSK-Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39630
Your above strawman is rubbish.
Read this new thread before you counter my claim.
And the irony of this (arguably) misconstrued Kantianism is that, if there's no reality-in-itself, it makes no sense to say what reality can or can't be. If there are no noumena, there are also no phenomena.
It is obvious you have not understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's point of phenomena vs noumena.
Kant wrote:The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
B311
According to Kant we can prove the Phenomena exist as real via a FSK e.g. science, but not the supposed noumenon [thing in itself -
a mere intelligible object of thought] which is illusory as a limit and can only be taken in the negative sense, i.e. not real or be taken only as an assumption.
You are taking [reifying] the noumenon [a mere intelligible object] as something real [i.e. your what is fact] and existing objectively out there when the noumenon [a mere intelligible object in thought only ] is merely an illusion.
Try proving I am wrong in interpreting Kant from his CRP? There is no way you can do it!
Second, VA's mumbled mantra - 'conditioned upon human conditions' - remains, as ever, completely undefined and unexplained. It's anthropocentrism is unquestioned. Its mystical dualism is unjustified - like all mysticism. And its logical self-demolition has to be ignored.
This 'conditioned upon human conditions' grounds the QM thesis that won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.
WHO ARE YOU to question their award of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics. If you are so sure of your claim, then challenge the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics award committee to claim the Nobel Prize for yourself.
Note this thread which you do not dare to counter?
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
