Space & Time are Not Mind-Independent

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe repetition is critical in philosophical especially with very contentious and refined issues.

Goebbels would have agreed. I don't.

The onus is on you to prove human-based clocks exist as real when there are no humans.

You made the claim that clocks ( and a number of other things ) are mind-dependent. Did you prove that? No. You presented what you think is a proof. Other critiqued it, and instead od addressing their critiques, you're now trying to shift the burden of proof by demanding that those who critique you prove that you are wrong.

Such a belief is useless if there are no humans.

No belief is useful in the absence of minds ( human or not. ) Noone disputes that. But you're trying to say that that implies that clocks are mind-dependent. You haven't shown how. Where's the logical connection?

You missed my main point.

Philosophical Realists claim reality and things are mind-independent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
There is an natural evolutionary default of external-ness which is critical for basic survival, but philosophical realists cling to it as an ideology [ism] dogmatically.

I do not agree with and is against philosophical realism [the ideology], thus anti-philosophical_realism.
I have NEVER claim things are mind-dependent because this can be very misleading.

Rather I have been claiming,
whatever is reality and are things CANNOT be mind-independent.
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK, of which, the scientific FSK is the most reliable, credible and objective.

My Proof:
As such, clocks [or things] exist as real as conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
Because it is human-based, logically it follows, the existence of the clock as real CANNOT be mind-independent, i.e. independent of body, brain and mind of humans.

Don't use the 'OTHERS' had critiqued it excuses, those are merely noises and what count are the rational arguments if any. If unclear, I will always try to understand what they mean and refute them.

The catch is;
You claim reality and things are mind-independent, but that is merely a thought.
To justify your beliefs, you have to use a FSR-FSK of which the science-FSK is the most reliable, credible and objective, which other FSK is better?
But all FSR-FSK are human-based.
So, logically and deductively, ultimately it CANNOT be mind-independent as claimed by philosophical realists like you.

Philosophical realism, the ideology is merely a psychological tool to soothe the cognitive dissonances related to the issue of 'what is reality'.
Philosophical realism is within the same set as theism [more extreme] which claim God is mind-independent but cannot prove God exists as real.

[Atla]

I believe repetition is critical in philosophical especially with very contentious and refined issues.

Goebbels would have agreed. I don't.

The onus is on you to prove human-based clocks exist as real when there are no humans.

You made the claim that clocks ( and a number of other things ) are mind-dependent. Did you prove that? No. You presented what you think is a proof. Other critiqued it, and instead od addressing their critiques, you're now trying to shift the burden of proof by demanding that those who critique you prove that you are wrong.

Such a belief is useless if there are no humans.

No belief is useful in the absence of minds ( human or not. ) Noone disputes that. But you're trying to say that that implies that clocks are mind-dependent. You haven't shown how. Where's the logical connection?

You missed my main point.

Philosophical Realists claim reality and things are mind-independent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
There is an natural evolutionary default of external-ness which is critical for basic survival, but philosophical realists cling to it as an ideology [ism] dogmatically.

I do not agree with and is against philosophical realism [the ideology], thus anti-philosophical_realism.
I have NEVER claim things are mind-dependent because this can be very misleading.

Rather I have been claiming,
whatever is reality and are things CANNOT be mind-independent.
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK, of which, the scientific FSK is the most reliable, credible and objective.

My Proof:
As such, clocks [or things] exist as real as conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
Because it is human-based, logically it follows, the existence of the clock as real CANNOT be mind-independent, i.e. independent of body, brain and mind of humans.

Don't use the 'OTHERS' had critiqued it excuses, those are merely noises and what count are the rational arguments if any. If unclear, I will always try to understand what they mean and refute them.

The catch is;
You claim reality and things are mind-independent, but that is merely a thought.
To justify your beliefs, you have to use a FSR-FSK of which the science-FSK is the most reliable, credible and objective, which other FSK is better?
But all FSR-FSK are human-based.
So, logically and deductively, ultimately it CANNOT be mind-independent as claimed by philosophical realists like you.

Philosophical realism, the ideology is merely a psychological tool to soothe the cognitive dissonances related to the issue of 'what is reality'.
Philosophical realism is within the same set as theism [more extreme] which claim God is mind-independent but cannot prove God exists as real.

Solipsistic lie - in, the dual-object noumenon, reality "out there" can be mind-independent.

Solipsism is merely a psychological tool to soothe the cognitive dissonances related to the issue of 'what is reality'.
Solipsism can be within the same set as "chosen one syndrome" where God specifically creates the world for us, or we are God. We can maintain a closer bond with God inside our mind, than philosophical realists.

[Magnus Anderson]

I have NEVER claim things are mind-dependent because this can be very misleading.

The title of this thread, which is your own thread, is "Space & Time are Not Mind-Independent". "Not mind-independent" and "mind-dependent" are two different expressions that have one and the same meaning. Saying one is implying the other.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have NEVER claim things are mind-dependent because this can be very misleading.

The title of this thread, which is your own thread, is "Space & Time are Not Mind-Independent". "Not mind-independent" and "mind-dependent" are two different expressions that have one and the same meaning. Saying one is implying the other.

I have stated many times,
when the philosophical issues are refined, complex, deep and wide as in this case, we have to rely on the detailed contexts.

Surely you understand OP and titles cannot be presented in details.

[Magnus Anderson]

If you don't think that clocks are mind-independent, you neccessarily think that clocks are mind-dependent. There is no other option.

You literally think that if we all committed collective suicide ( e.g. by taking poison ) that clocks would cease to exist.

Have you ever proved that?

I don't think so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you don't think that clocks are mind-independent, you neccessarily think that clocks are mind-dependent. There is no other option.

You literally think that if we all committed collective suicide ( e.g. by taking poison ) that clocks would cease to exist.

Have you ever proved that?

I don't think so.

The point is your claim 'clocks are absolutely mind-independent' is grounded on an illusion.
Thus I am not doing a counter-claim based on an illusion.

Rather I am refuting your claim 'clocks are absolutely mind-independent' which in reality is a non-starter.

Thus I presented my argument;
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK, of which, the scientific FSK is the most reliable, credible and objective.

[Magnus Anderson]

I guess we'll never see that proof.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I guess we'll never see that proof.

Yes, I am aware of that because philosophical realism as an ideology is a non-starter for consideration of reality and proofs.
You need to put in more reflective thinking on why not.

[Skepdick]

If there is only one event, then there is only one point in time

The point is that there is no point IN time. There is just time.

Reducing it all to a point is an idiotic level of reductionism.

and consequently, there is no change. Change is a difference between two points in time, and as such, in order for it to exist, there must be more than one point in time.

No, that's a stupid conception of change. Not only are you inventing points you are now placing them in arbitrary locations.

If I turn the TV on and off did anything change? Is a positive change + negative change = no change?

But you say there is only one

No, I am not. You are saying it and you are pretending that I said it.

so change, it follows, does not really exist.

There's the arrow of time coming from the past and going to the future.

Everything in between the past and the future is change.

Yet, you proceed to contradict yourself by claiming that humans "chop.up" ever-changing "stream".

It's impossible for me to contradict myself. Contradictions don't exist.

If you are detecting any "contradictions" that's a certain sign that you are misunderstanding my words.

Your concept of continuous time is an oxymoron -- a nonsense.

I can only explain it to you - I can't understand it for you.

[Magnus Anderson]

Yes, I am aware of that because philosophical realism as an ideology is a non-starter for consideration of reality and proofs.
You need to put in more reflective thinking on why not.

You are claiming that clocks and other things ( such as space and time ) are mind-dependent. Aren't you supposed to prove that?

[Magnus Anderson]

It's impossible for me to contradict myself. Contradictions don't exist.

That explains a lot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, I am aware of that because philosophical realism as an ideology is a non-starter for consideration of reality and proofs.
You need to put in more reflective thinking on why not.

You are claiming that clocks and other things ( such as space and time ) are mind-dependent. Aren't you supposed to prove that?

Just in case you missed what I wrote above;

I have NEVER claim things are "mind-dependent"* because this can be very misleading.
I do not agree with and is against philosophical realism [the ideology], thus anti-philosophical_realism.
viewtopic.php?p=648548#p648548

* This can lead to silly misinterpretations like,
mind-dependent means, you wave a wand and the moon appeared or things comes into existence?

I have already given you my points, i.e. human-based FSK-ed reality, why is that you cannot accept this but rather force your words onto me?

[Skepdick]

It's impossible for me to contradict myself. Contradictions don't exist.

That explains a lot.

It sure does. It explains the utter incoherence of Philosophy.

If non-contradiction is a law (like gravity) how could I possibly violate it?

[Magnus Anderson]

Just in case you missed what I wrote above;

I have NEVER claim things are "mind-dependent"*

I didn't miss it, I addressed it. "Not mind-independent" means "mind-dependent". So when you say "Space, time and clocks are not mind-independent", you are saying they are mind-dependent, i.e. if minds ceased to exist, they would cease to exist too. In fact, in another thread, you went so far to say that trees do not exist when noone is looking at them ( which means that we create them by observation. )

I have already given you my points, i.e. human-based FSK-ed reality, why is that you cannot accept this but rather force your words onto me?

You are the one forcing your beliefs onto everyone else. How many threads have you started on this same exact subject? Too many to count. How many proofs of mind-dependence have you provided? Zero. You merely reassert your beliefs and repeat your weak arguments over and over again.

[Flannel Jesus]

Just in case you missed what I wrote above;

I have NEVER claim things are "mind-dependent"*

I didn't miss it, I addressed it. "Not mind-independent" means "mind-dependent".

Yeah, for some reason this thing which makes perfect sense to everyone else is something he doesn't seem to be able to even fathom. He's scratching his head wondering, "Why, when I say reality is not mind independent, are people consistently thinking I'm saying reality is mind dependent?" He doesn't seem to intuit the relationship between those things for some reason.