PH Believes in an Independent Soul

[Veritas Aequitas]

Does the above make sense to you?

No, that doesn't make sense to me. Still seems like a word game.

My end point is as a philosophical realist who believe in a mind-independent existence, your ultimate belief would be no different in principle [not exactly] from that of theists who believe in a mind independent soul that survive physical death and a mind-independent God.

I will have to reconcile your current beliefs to the above.
Will get to that later.

[Flannel Jesus]

My end point is as a philosophical realist who believe in a mind-independent existence...

Yeah, I think your point is really just a word game and not actually engaging with the actual model of the world that realists have. No disrespect intended, it just doesn't seem to me like it's really touching base with the actual ideas.

[Age]

As far as I understand PH [& Philosophical Realists] do not believe in an independent soul that survives physical death, BUT his belief that things exist independent of mind [human conditions] lead him to believe in such a soul.
Here is my argument and justification PH [& Philosophical Realists] believes in an independent Soul.

When I start with experiences and the empirical which is to be verified and justified by a human-based FSK, .e.g. the credible and reliable human-based scientific FSK, where can I go blatantly wrong?

Experiences of what? Empirical evidence of what? You deny that any of the things we experience are real - that the laptop I'm typing on is real - that experiences are real - that you and I exist at all. Where can you go wrong?! Please.

Strawman!!

(note:
mind = modern mind not Descartes's dualism,
there is duality to what is human, i.e. the I-THINK & the I-AM)


I stated objects of experience [TOP-DOWN] which can be verified and justified empirically via human-based FSK are real, where the scientific FSK realizes the most realistic reality.

The only REAL 'thing' I get from 'your' 'FSK' "veritas aequitas" is 'for Fuck SaKe'.

This object of experience [e.g. the moon] is the object is entangled, emerged and realized within a human-based FSK [physics, cosmology],

But 'the moon' was is also 'entangled, emerged, and realized' with 'observation, experience, and thought (or thinking)'.

which is then perceived [biology, psychology], known [epistemology] and described [linguistic].

'The moon' was and is also 'perceived, known, and described' with 'the brain'.

On the other hand, you are claiming 'the moon' pre-existed before there were humans and the moon exists whether there are humans 'looking' at it or not.

'you', "veritas aequitas", and 'your' "mom and dad" for example, are 'humans', are 'you' here REALLY suggesting that 'the moon' did NOT exist BEFORE 'humans'?

This is your Philosophical Realism ideology which insist mind-independent existence of things which is delusional in the ultimate sense.

If there were NOT 'things' like moons, planets, stars, et cetera existing BEFORE 'you', human beings, came to exist, then HOW, EXACTLY, did 'you', humans, come to exist?

that experiences are real - that you and I exist at all.

this pose a dilemma for you!

Yes, for me, you and I exists on the basis of anti-philosophical realism which is conditioned to the human conditions. So, if no human conditions, there is no you or I.

On the other hand, your ideology is things [including you & I] exist independent of the human conditions, i.e. things [including you & I] exist regards whether humans exist or not.
Logically, by the above principle, 'you' still exists if there are no humans [which include you as human].

This is your dilemma if you believe in things [reality] exist on the basis of independence from human conditions, i.e. that independent fact, as feature of reality, that is just-is, being-so and that is the case.

How do you resolve the above quandary and dilemma?

But there is NOTHING to 'resolve' here.

It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that 'things' existed BEFORE 'humans'.

And BECAUSE just one thing ALONE can NOT create NOR cause some 'thing' else, which MEANS that there has to be at least two 'things' interacting for ANY 'thing' to be created/caused, like 'humans' for example, this further REINFORCES and MEANS that THERE WAS at least two 'things' existing BEFORE 'humans' came into Existence.

Note:
This is what theists as philosophical realists believe, i.e. their physical soul still exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is why Jihadists would not press the button to exterminate the human species with WMDs because they are so sure, they [you, I and them] will exist in paradise with 72 virgins.

Views?

The ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY of this last paragraph of 'yours' here "veritas aequitas" SPEAKS for itself.

[Agent Smith]

There are elephants, many, many elephants, but a man once died ... unnaturally ... naturally but the point is the receptionist was in love with the 111,345th American who was actually half Albanian and half Guyanese. 1500 meters away or 1.5 clicks south, a cow mooed, it was in a truck, the truck was in a traffic jam.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My end point is as a philosophical realist who believe in a mind-independent existence...

Yeah, I think your point is really just a word game and not actually engaging with the actual model of the world that realists have. No disrespect intended, it just doesn't seem to me like it's really touching base with the actual ideas.

I have presented [to the best of my abilities] what I philosophical realists believe;
viewtopic.php?p=637880#p637880

The ultimate belief of a philosophical realist is;
the moon exists regardless of any human looking at it,
the moon pre-existed humans,
the moon will exist even if the human species is extinct.

If you do not agree, appreciate if could present [.. I am very interested] what are the actual ideas of realists [philosophical realism].

[Flannel Jesus]

My end point is as a philosophical realist who believe in a mind-independent existence...

Yeah, I think your point is really just a word game and not actually engaging with the actual model of the world that realists have. No disrespect intended, it just doesn't seem to me like it's really touching base with the actual ideas.

I have presented [to the best of my abilities] what I philosophical realists believe;
viewtopic.php?p=637880#p637880

The ultimate belief of a philosophical realist is;
the moon exists regardless of any human looking at it,
the moon pre-existed humans,
the moon will exist even if the human species is extinct.

If you do not agree, appreciate if could present [.. I am very interested] what are the actual ideas of realists [philosophical realism].

Everything you said about the moon is, barring quibbles about reductionism, what most realists would agree with. It's when you get into the self referential stuff that you say things realists wouldn't say. "I exist independent of me" for example.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think the whole "human conditions" phrase is not ideal. I think it's sneaking weird confusions into the sentence.

The moon exists independent of human awareness. Awareness is I think more specific than "conditions" - I don't know what "conditions" have to do with it anyway.

If we say awareness instead of conditions, then we might be able to also say "I exist independent of my awareness", which amounts to a model of the world where, if I suddenly became UNAWARE of my own existence, somehow, I would still exist.

When I'm unconscious fully and not even dreaming, does that count as a moment where I'm unaware of my existence? If so, then I think realists would generally agree that they exist even when they're unaware of themselves.

Maybe some realists would argue that the thing that "I" refers to is the conscious part of "me", and so when they're unconscious and not dreaming, "I" doesn't necessarily "exist", but idk. Defining what "I" refers to exactly is part of the problem.

In any case, it seems to me like you've only created a paradox by using imprecise language, and the paradox will clear up when you go into more precision. The logic you're using seems to rest of layers of equivocation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think the whole "human conditions" phrase is not ideal. I think it's sneaking weird confusions into the sentence.

Whenever I mentioned 'mind-independent' which is the modern norm, it triggered PH severely. PH had done this so MANY times. Note this;

PH: From this, it follows that talk of mind-dependence and mind-independence is incoherent.
viewtopic.php?p=637938#p637938

I have to repeat the following each time, but it never go sunk into his head;

• As I had repeated many times, my use of the term 'mind' is not related to 'mind' as in Descartes' dualism.
  While I refer to 'mind' as in
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
  viewtopic.php?p=638101#p638101

Thus I had to resort to 'human conditions' which in human nature, human body, human brain within an environment.

The moon exists independent of human awareness. Awareness is I think more specific than "conditions" - I don't know what "conditions" have to do with it anyway.

'Human conditions' [whatever it takes to be a human being] is more effective to convey the point that 'the moon pre-existed humans' and 'will exists if the human species is extinct'.
Surely you can agree with this?

If we say awareness instead of conditions, then we might be able to also say "I exist independent of my awareness", which amounts to a model of the world where, if I suddenly became UNAWARE of my own existence, somehow, I would still exist.

When I'm unconscious fully and not even dreaming, does that count as a moment where I'm unaware of my existence? If so, then I think realists would generally agree that they exist even when they're unaware of themselves.

Human conditions is still valid to deal with 'awareness'.

In this case within the human conditions, there is
1. the Empirical "I" - capable of being aware
2. the "I" independent of one's awareness, the unconscious self which is the permanent self.

Maybe some realists would argue that the thing that "I" refers to is the conscious part of "me", and so when they're unconscious and not dreaming, "I" doesn't necessarily "exist", but idk. Defining what "I" refers to exactly is part of the problem.

In any case, it seems to me like you've only created a paradox by using imprecise language, and the paradox will clear up when you go into more precision. The logic you're using seems to rest of layers of equivocation.

Actually it is you who created a paradox by using too precise language.
The paradox will clear up when you are less dogmatic with the use of language but focus on your own human conditions.

From the above, there exist 2 selves within the human conditions, i.e.
1. the Empirical "I" - capable of being aware
2. the "I" independent of one's awareness, the unconscious self which is the permanent self.

As such, as a Philosophical Realist, you believe there are two selves, i.e.
1. one empirical "I" capable of being aware and
2. another "I" that exists independent of the 'awareness" I.

The second self is the independent soul that exists even if there are no human conditions, but exists as a permanent soul that survives physical death [human conditions].

Thus, as a Philosophical Realist, i.e. things and humans exist independent of reality, you are caught with a belief in an independent self or "I" that is independent of your conscious "I".

On the other hand, all things and humans do not exist independent of reality, thus if the human is unconscious or dead there are no human-based FSK things.

I believe the above explanation is still grey, but if we continue to grind at it, you will get to understand [not necessary agree with] my point.

[Flannel Jesus]

I do understand your point. Your point is to manipulate words to make it seem as though realists believe in souls, even though you know that not all realists do believe in souls, and that not believing in souls is perfectly compatible with realism.

As a side note, when I'm Swype texting my phone types "racists" when I try to type "realists" more than half the time, and it's a little bit frustrating

[Veritas Aequitas]

I do understand your point. Your point is to manipulate words to make it seem as though realists believe in souls, even though you know that not all realists do believe in souls, and that not believing in souls is perfectly compatible with realism.

As a side note, when I'm Swype texting my phone types "racists" when I try to type "realists" more than half the time, and it's a little bit frustrating

My point is,
when realists insist on their Philosophical Realism ideology,
they are in principle [not in exact beliefs] subliminally on the same band wagon as theists with their independent souls and independent God, i.e. independent of the human conditions.

[Flannel Jesus]

I do understand your point. Your point is to manipulate words to make it seem as though realists believe in souls, even though you know that not all realists do believe in souls, and that not believing in souls is perfectly compatible with realism.

As a side note, when I'm Swype texting my phone types "racists" when I try to type "realists" more than half the time, and it's a little bit frustrating

My point is,
when realists insist on their Philosophical Realism ideology,
they are in principle [not in exact beliefs] subliminally on the same band wagon as theists with their independent souls and independent God, i.e. independent of the human conditions.

Yes, and you arrive at that point only through imprecise language and not with a real attention to the actual model of the world that realists have. If you were to break away from the cloudy abstractions like "human conditions" and focus instead on more tangible specifics, all this "soul" stuff would evaporate.

I'm like 90% sure you know this as well.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't commit to "humans exist independent of the human conditions" for the same reason I don't commit to "hotdogs exist independent of hotdog conditions". There's nothing particularly special about "humans" when it comes to this sentence structure. It's bizarre, from any perspective, realist or anti realist, to suggest that something exists independently from itself. You're focusing on humans, but... why not hotdogs? Why aren't you suggesting that realists believe hotdogs have souls? You can use your same little word play to imply the same thing about hotdogs, right?

Realists are stupid because they all think hotdogs have souls.

[Flannel Jesus]

Here, I'll take a paragraph from you op and make it about hot dogs

On the other hand, your ideology is things [including you & I] exist independent of the human conditions, i.e. things [including you & I] exist regards whether humans exist or not.
Logically, by the above principle, 'you' still exists if there are no humans [which include you as human].

On the other hand, your ideology is things [including this hotdog and that hotdog] exist independent of the hotdog conditions, i.e. things exist regards whether hotdogs exist or not.
Logically, by the above principle, 'this hotdog' still exists if there are no hotdogs [which include this hotdog as hotdog].

So realists must believe hotdogs have souls. Realists really do say the darnedest things, don't they?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here, I'll take a paragraph from you op and make it about hot dogs

On the other hand, your ideology is things [including you & I] exist independent of the human conditions, i.e. things [including you & I] exist regards whether humans exist or not.
Logically, by the above principle, 'you' still exists if there are no humans [which include you as human].

On the other hand, your ideology is things [including this hotdog and that hotdog] exist independent of the hotdog conditions, i.e. things exist regards whether hotdogs exist or not.
Logically, by the above principle, 'this hotdog' still exists if there are no hotdogs [which include this hotdog as hotdog].

So realists must believe hotdogs have souls. Realists really do say the darnedest things, don't they?

The above is a strawman.

If you refer to hotdogs then it should be;

On the other hand, your ideology [Philosophical Realism] is things [including this hotdog and that hotdog] exist independent of the human conditions, i.e. things [including this hotdog and that hotdog] exist regardless of whether humans exist or not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I do understand your point. Your point is to manipulate words to make it seem as though realists believe in souls, even though you know that not all realists do believe in souls, and that not believing in souls is perfectly compatible with realism.

As a side note, when I'm Swype texting my phone types "racists" when I try to type "realists" more than half the time, and it's a little bit frustrating

My point is,
when realists insist on their Philosophical Realism ideology,
they are in principle [not in exact beliefs] subliminally on the same band wagon as theists with their independent souls and independent God, i.e. independent of the human conditions.

Yes, and you arrive at that point only through imprecise language and not with a real attention to the actual model of the world that realists have. If you were to break away from the cloudy abstractions like "human conditions" and focus instead on more tangible specifics, all this "soul" stuff would evaporate.

I'm like 90% sure you know this as well.

As I had stated I had often used the term 'mind-independent' which is equivalent to human conditions or human nature.