Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Veritas Aequitas]

All agreed - and that's an interesting angle. Thanks.

You ignorantly agreed to the above without a proper understanding of the real human-based FSK facts???

First anything to do with morality related to right or wrong strictly is a strawman.

Note this neuroscience-FSK-Fact,
The brain has appx. 100 billion neurons, each with up to 10,000 synapse connectors with the potential and actual permutations of neural combinations.
There are load of neural functions [1K, 10K or 100K?] represented by their specific neural combinations.

Although all the functions are interconnected within the whole brain and body, they are dealt separately within specific human-based scientific FSKs, e.g. primal instincts for survival, food, fight, flight, sex, intellect, social, senses, etc. and morality.

As generally practiced in modern times, each neuro-function is primarily studied as a specialist subject independent of other neuro-functions and other functions are only brought where is is critical.
On a secondary basis, various primary functions may be grouped together as a subject, example neuro-this or that.

I had argued, morality-proper is a primary function of the brain independent of all other functions, e.g. food, sex, fight, intellect, etc.
At a secondary level, morality may be combined with other neural-functions.

The oughtness-not-to-kill-humans belong primarily to morality-proper and its specific physical neural referent in the brain. The moral function is innate but recent emergence within humans since 2 million [higher primates] to 200k [homo-sapiens] ago.

That humans killed other humans is not primarily a moral function, but related to the 'fight' or kill or be killed function which is a primal instinct. This innate function is inherited as necessary since billions of years ago.

The to-kill function [>3 billion years old] is still critical for human survival so they can kill animals for food, but to avoid some lack-of-control evil people from driven by the kill function to kill humans, the moral function ought-not-to-kill-humans [200K years old].

In this sense, we cannot conflate [combine] the to-kill instinct with the ought-not-to-kill-humans of morality-proper.
While they are both human-based neural facts, they are distinct neural functions.
The 'to kill' instinct abused to kill humans is a separate neural activity; it is a primary function as primal instincts and the subject of neural evil_ness; it is not a primary function of morality proper per se.

The main function of morality-proper is to modulate the 'to kill' instinct so that it is not directed at humans.
At present, the morality-proper neural modulator [the objective moral fact -physical sets of neurons] in the majority of humans are weak and under-developed; this is reason why so many humans had been killed by humans since the early on to the present.

How can we make moral improvements and progress if we deny [like PH & gang] the existence of morality-proper neural modulator [the objective moral fact -physical sets of neurons] in the human brain.

Philosophical Realism is A Hindrance & Threat to Humanity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40094

None of these facts about human neurology and instincts has any bearing on morality. Factual premises can't entail moral conclusions.

As I had stated your views [based on mind-independence of philosophical realism] are grounded on an illusion.
You have no credibility to rely on grounds that are illusory to make judgment of my views which are based on the human-based scientific and moral FSK.

Your illusory ground is this;
1. What is fact is a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so, that is the case, and states of affairs. But these are merely intelligible thoughts, i.e. noumenon which have not demonstrate to be realistic at all.

2. You insist moral conclusions are related to what is right and wrong which are opinions which are not facts as per your definition in 1 which is grounded on an illusion.

3. "Factual premises can't entail moral conclusions" is your claim, but your actual claim is this;
"Illusory factual premise can't entail moral conclusion"
I can agree to the above, because what is illusory cannot entail objective moral conclusions.
But it has no bite, because the ground is illusory.

On the other hand;
1. Human neurology and instincts are human-based science-neural-FSK-ed facts.
2. The human based science FSK-ed facts are the most credible, reliable and objective.
3. When 2 are inputted into a human-based moral FSK, it enable the emergence of objective moral facts of near equivalence to scientific objectivity.
4. Therefore human-based FSK-ed morality is objective.

Analogy:
1. It is a legal fact X was convicted in 2022 as a serial rapist of 50 females in 1980 within a human-based legal FSK in California.
2. The prosecutor relied on human-based scientific FSK-ed fact of DNA found in all the rape kits of the 50 females.
3 In this case, it is the human-based FSK-ed facts of DNA that support the reliability, credibility and objectivity of the objective legal fact X was that serial rapist of 50 females in 1980.
4. Who deny the above legal fact is not credible, reliable and objective?

The above analogy is the same I am trying to argue how the human-based scientific FSK-ed facts can lend credibility, reliability and objectivity to the human-based moral FSK thus enabling the resulting objective moral facts to be credible and objective.
Who do not agree with this? and Why?

[Atla]

2. The human based science FSK-ed facts are the most credible, reliable and objective.

How do you decide again, which FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective? For example more people subscribe to religion than to science:

Roughly 7 in 10 people around the world say they trust scientists and want to learn more about science and health, an international survey shows.

A comprehensive demographic study of more than 230 countries and territories conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life estimates that there are 5.8 billion religiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing 84% of the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

What Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044

[Peter Holmes]

You ignorantly agreed to the above without a proper understanding of the real human-based FSK facts???

First anything to do with morality related to right or wrong strictly is a strawman.

Note this neuroscience-FSK-Fact,
The brain has appx. 100 billion neurons, each with up to 10,000 synapse connectors with the potential and actual permutations of neural combinations.
There are load of neural functions [1K, 10K or 100K?] represented by their specific neural combinations.

Although all the functions are interconnected within the whole brain and body, they are dealt separately within specific human-based scientific FSKs, e.g. primal instincts for survival, food, fight, flight, sex, intellect, social, senses, etc. and morality.

As generally practiced in modern times, each neuro-function is primarily studied as a specialist subject independent of other neuro-functions and other functions are only brought where is is critical.
On a secondary basis, various primary functions may be grouped together as a subject, example neuro-this or that.

I had argued, morality-proper is a primary function of the brain independent of all other functions, e.g. food, sex, fight, intellect, etc.
At a secondary level, morality may be combined with other neural-functions.

The oughtness-not-to-kill-humans belong primarily to morality-proper and its specific physical neural referent in the brain. The moral function is innate but recent emergence within humans since 2 million [higher primates] to 200k [homo-sapiens] ago.

That humans killed other humans is not primarily a moral function, but related to the 'fight' or kill or be killed function which is a primal instinct. This innate function is inherited as necessary since billions of years ago.

The to-kill function [>3 billion years old] is still critical for human survival so they can kill animals for food, but to avoid some lack-of-control evil people from driven by the kill function to kill humans, the moral function ought-not-to-kill-humans [200K years old].

In this sense, we cannot conflate [combine] the to-kill instinct with the ought-not-to-kill-humans of morality-proper.
While they are both human-based neural facts, they are distinct neural functions.
The 'to kill' instinct abused to kill humans is a separate neural activity; it is a primary function as primal instincts and the subject of neural evil_ness; it is not a primary function of morality proper per se.

The main function of morality-proper is to modulate the 'to kill' instinct so that it is not directed at humans.
At present, the morality-proper neural modulator [the objective moral fact -physical sets of neurons] in the majority of humans are weak and under-developed; this is reason why so many humans had been killed by humans since the early on to the present.

How can we make moral improvements and progress if we deny [like PH & gang] the existence of morality-proper neural modulator [the objective moral fact -physical sets of neurons] in the human brain.

Philosophical Realism is A Hindrance & Threat to Humanity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40094

None of these facts about human neurology and instincts has any bearing on morality. Factual premises can't entail moral conclusions.

As I had stated your views [based on mind-independence of philosophical realism] are grounded on an illusion.
You have no credibility to rely on grounds that are illusory to make judgment of my views which are based on the human-based scientific and moral FSK.

Your illusory ground is this;
1. What is fact is a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so, that is the case, and states of affairs. But these are merely intelligible thoughts, i.e. noumenon which have not demonstrate to be realistic at all.

2. You insist moral conclusions are related to what is right and wrong which are opinions which are not facts as per your definition in 1 which is grounded on an illusion.

3. "Factual premises can't entail moral conclusions" is your claim, but your actual claim is this;
"Illusory factual premise can't entail moral conclusion"
I can agree to the above, because what is illusory cannot entail objective moral conclusions.
But it has no bite, because the ground is illusory.

On the other hand;
1. Human neurology and instincts are human-based science-neural-FSK-ed facts.
2. The human based science FSK-ed facts are the most credible, reliable and objective.
3. When 2 are inputted into a human-based moral FSK, it enable the emergence of objective moral facts of near equivalence to scientific objectivity.
4. Therefore human-based FSK-ed morality is objective.

Analogy:
1. It is a legal fact X was convicted in 2022 as a serial rapist of 50 females in 1980 within a human-based legal FSK in California.
2. The prosecutor relied on human-based scientific FSK-ed fact of DNA found in all the rape kits of the 50 females.
3 In this case, it is the human-based FSK-ed facts of DNA that support the reliability, credibility and objectivity of the objective legal fact X was that serial rapist of 50 females in 1980.
4. Who deny the above legal fact is not credible, reliable and objective?

The above analogy is the same I am trying to argue how the human-based scientific FSK-ed facts can lend credibility, reliability and objectivity to the human-based moral FSK thus enabling the resulting objective moral facts to be credible and objective.
Who do not agree with this? and Why?

Such things as gravitational accretion and electrochemical processes are not noumena for the reality of which there's no evidence. The very credibility and reliability of natural sciences - that you so loudly assert - comes from their reliance on evidence, rather than individual - or even collective consensus - opinion.

So you flatly contradict yourself. What we call facts - features of reality that are or were the case - the things that natural sciences discover - are not illusions. Or, to be more cautious, there's no evidence whatsoever - to my knowledge - that they are illusions. That claim is an idle - if childishly exciting - speculation.

You have the burden of proving (demonstrating) that Mount Attaviros behind my house - and all of reality - is an illusion that depends in some unexplained way on my body/human bodies. Pending that proof, we can all dismiss your claims and argument as ridiculous nonsense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Such things as gravitational accretion and electrochemical processes are not noumena for the reality of which there's no evidence. The very credibility and reliability of natural sciences - that you so loudly assert - comes from their reliance on evidence, rather than individual - or even collective consensus - opinion.

The problem is your thinking is very shallow, narrow, crude, lack deep reflective thinking and is dogmatic.

Philosophical Realism [your ideology on reality] insists reality and things exist absolutely independent of humans-body-brain-mind.
This means, if there are no humans, they moon will still exists absolute independently as real.
This is the basis of substance theory i.e. the claim of a thing-in-itself [noumenon] which can never be proven to exists are real.

The ANTI-Philosophical_Realist deny the above.
As such, the primary onus is on the Philosophical Realists to prove their claims.

My Principle of Reality is this;
What exists as real, is true, factual, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK of which the human-based scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.
Since it is human-based, it follows, whatever the resultant reality from the scientific-FSK, it deductively be human-based, thus cannot be absolutely independent of humans-body-brain-mind.

As such, whatever are real [true, factual, knowledge and objective] things as gravitational accretion, electrochemical processes and other scientific FSK-ed things, they cannot be absolutely independent of humans-body-brain-mind as claimed by Philosophical Realists.

You just cannot claim, scientific facts exist because I, my father, mother or many people said so.

What is claimed as scientific reality must be qualified to the human-based scientific FSK, which cannot be absolutely independent of the humans-body-brain-mind.

So you flatly contradict yourself. What we call facts - features of reality that are or were the case - the things that natural sciences discover - are not illusions. Or, to be more cautious, there's no evidence whatsoever - to my knowledge - that they are illusions. That claim is an idle - if childishly exciting - speculation.

If you ground facts - features of reality that are or were the case on the human-based scientific FSK, then it cannot be the mind-independent things philosophical realists claim. Thus philosophical realism is false.

You have the burden of proving (demonstrating) that Mount Attaviros behind my house - and all of reality - is an illusion that depends in some unexplained way on my body/human bodies. Pending that proof, we can all dismiss your claims and argument as ridiculous nonsense.

If you insist on the ideology of philosophical realism, i.e. things in reality exist absolutely independent of the humans-body-brain-mind, then you are reifying an illusion, because such independent things cannot exist as real.

What is real is this;
What exists as real, is true, factual, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK of which the human-based scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.
Since it is human-based, it follows, whatever the resultant reality from the scientific-FSK, it deductively be human-based, thus cannot be absolutely independent of humans-body-brain-mind.

1 "Mount Attaviros" is real as conditioned within a human based common sense FSK.
Since it is human-based, deductively, Mount Attaviros in this sense, cannot be absolutely independent of humans-body-brain-mind.

2. Within the human-based geological FSK, "Mount Attaviros" is a geological fact with its specific geological features.

3. Within the human-based scientific FSK, that "Mount Attaviros" is merely a name given to a certain load of rocks, earth, plants and other things.
There is no way you can produce a discrete "Mount Attaviros" out of the whole load of certain load of rocks, earth, plants and other things from the other lands in Greece.

4. Within the human-based-science-chemistry FSK, that "Mount Attaviros" is a bundle of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, etc. of certain chemical composition.
In any case, there is no way to identify which are the exact and specific molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, etc. that belong that specific "Mount Attaviros".

5. Within the human-based-science-QM-FSK, that "Mount Attaviros" is a bundle of particles or waves depending on the conditions of the Wave-Collapse-Function.

From the above, what is the real "Mount Attaviros" is always conditioned to some human-based FSR-FSK.

To insist as philosophical realists that a discrete "Mount Attaviros" exists absolutely independent of any human-based FSK, thus independent of humans-body-brain-mind, is delusion in reifying an illusion.

I have already explained why philosophical realists insist on their absolutely mind independent reality and things is due to a primitive and barbaric drive due to cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.
Your problem is purely a psychological issue, not a epistemological nor linguistic one.

[Iwannaplato]

I have already explained why philosophical realists insist on their absolutely mind independent reality and things is due to a primitive and barbaric drive due to cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.
Your problem is purely a psychological issue, not a epistemological nor linguistic one.

Primitive and barbaric drive!!!!!
Actually it would be a neuronal pattern of some kind, n'est pas?

So, when neuronal patterns correspond to something you approve of they are objective moral facts.
If, they lead to philosophical position PH has they are primitive and barbaric drives.

You use brain patterns as objective authorities when it suits you
and
as some built in offensive beast-like position of humans when it doesn't.

What is this division exactly like?

Christianity's view of the self, with this underlying beast in the self that needs to be rooted out.

God is gone, but the Christian ontology of the self continues.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This neural program of the default sense of external-ness to facilitate survival was adapted via evolution by living organism appx. 3.0 billion years ago.
We humans [emerged 200K years] has inherited this program from our 3 billion years ancestors.
That we humans with self-awareness cling to this sense of external-ness as an ideology, i.e. philosophical realism is controlled and clinging to the primal, primitive and barbaric impulse.

The more-aware-humans will merely acknowledge the existence of this essential default sense of external-ness and refrain from clinging to it as an ideology [an -ism].
That was what the Buddha taught >2500 years ago via the practice of mindfulness together with the other of the Noble-8-Fold Paths.

[Iwannaplato]

This neural program of the default sense of external-ness to facilitate survival was adapted via evolution by living organism appx. 3.0 billion years ago.
We humans [emerged 200K years] has inherited this program from our 3 billion years ancestors.

How can we possibly know how other non-verbal species prior to our existence experienced the world, that they had this default sense of external-ness. Especially if antirealism is a better 'sense' of what is going on.

That we humans with self-awareness cling to this sense of external-ness as an ideology, i.e. philosophical realism is controlled and clinging to the primal, primitive and barbaric impulse.

So, the neuronal patterns in the brain leading to realism are primitive and barbaric, but other neuronal patterns are taken as objective truths.

By what criteria do we decide that neuronal pattern X is an objective authority for us
and
neuronal pattern Y is barbaric and primitive.

You cannot on the one hand appeal to the authority of neuronal patterns then dismiss other neuronal patterns as bad and prmitive.

There are many life forms, for example, that do not kill their own species, in general, just like we tend not to but do on occasion. And this was present in life forms before humans arrived.

But for some reason the oughtness-not-to-kill BECAUSE it is present in brains is cited as evidence of objectivity.
But other patterns in our brains are not objective.

The more-aware-humans will merely acknowledge the existence of this essential default sense of external-ness and refrain from clinging to it as an ideology [an -ism].
That was what the Buddha taught >2500 years ago via the practice of mindfulness together with the other of the Noble-8-Fold Paths.

This presumes that the Buddha was antirealist and that is not clear at all.
You can see just enough of one scholar here saying that it is likely not true....
https://www.academia.edu/19291978/Was_t ... ti-Realist
But in general it depends on the school of Buddhism, local interpretations, and varies whether the B was considered antirealist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A sense [instinct or intuition] of external_ness is not a cognition and knowing external_ness.
This sense of external-ness was present during the emergence of bacteria around 3 billion years ago.
The basic and fundamental skeletal neural algorithm is the same one that was adapted from 3 billion years ago but with topped-up improvements and refinements over 3 billion years to the present 2023.

re ChatGPT re related;

• The basic neural algorithms that govern these behaviors are indeed believed to have originated early in evolution and have been conserved to some degree across species.
  This is known as evolutionary conservation, where certain fundamental traits or mechanisms remain relatively unchanged over long periods of evolutionary time.
  While there have been refinements and elaborations on these neural algorithms in more complex organisms like humans, the underlying principles and mechanisms can still be traced back to their origins.
  ChatGPT

The point is humans with self-awareness will continue to evolve improve and imbue more refinements to top up the basic and existing algorithm.

The issue with Philosophical Realists is they adopt the primary sense of external-ness as an ideology and stick to it dogmatically, to the extent some will kill those who 'blasphemy' their ideology of external-ness. This is primal, primitive and barbaric.

On the other hand,
The more-aware-humans will merely acknowledge the existence of this essential default sense of external-ness and refrain from clinging to it as an ideology [an -ism].
That was what the Buddha taught >2500 years ago via the practice of mindfulness together with the other of the Noble-8-Fold Paths; this was followed up by Kant in the 1700s and others.

[Iwannaplato]

A sense [instinct or intuition] of external_ness is not a cognition and knowing external_ness.
This sense of external-ness was present during the emergence of bacteria around 3 billion years ago.

How would anyone know what the experiencing of things was like for bacteria 3 billion years ago. To call them either proto-realists (or pro-pretty much anything) is wild speculation.

The basic and fundamental skeletal neural algorithm is the same one that was adapted from 3 billion years ago but with topped-up improvements and refinements over 3 billion years to the present 2023.

Not relevent. Nor do bacteria have skeletons or nervous systems. I assume you mean what later species had, but still it's all speculation. Remember realism entails the belief that objects remain when not perceived. Why would any bacteria need anything remotely like that assumption. Nor can we know that animals, even advanced ones, make this assumption. That they have some kind of position on the ontological nature of things is wild speculation.

re ChatGPT re related;

• The basic neural algorithms that govern these behaviors are indeed believed to have originated early in evolution and have been conserved to some degree across species.
  This is known as evolutionary conservation, where certain fundamental traits or mechanisms remain relatively unchanged over long periods of evolutionary time.
  While there have been refinements and elaborations on these neural algorithms in more complex organisms like humans, the underlying principles and mechanisms can still be traced back to their origins.
  ChatGPT

That's talking about behaviors, then later algorithms. It's not evidence that bacteria were realists, or even protorealists. And why would they need realism? Why wouldn't antirealist algorithms work for them?

The point is humans with self-awareness will continue to evolve improve and imbue more refinements to top up the basic and existing algorithm.

Changes over time need not be improvements. Bacteria, for example, are doing just fine.

The issue with Philosophical Realists is they adopt the primary sense of external-ness as an ideology and stick to it dogmatically, to the extent some will kill those who 'blasphemy' their ideology of external-ness. This is primal, primitive and barbaric.

Since the vast majority of humans are realists, you have no way to draw this conclusion, unless you could somehow demonstrate that anti-realism leads to less violence. Good luck demonstrating that.

On the other hand,
The more-aware-humans will merely acknowledge the existence of this essential default sense of external-ness and refrain from clinging to it as an ideology [an -ism].
That was what the Buddha taught >2500 years ago via the practice of mindfulness together with the other of the Noble-8-Fold Paths; this was followed up by Kant in the 1700s and others.

And again, some neuronal patterns in the brain you treat as objective evidence.
Other patterns you consider primitive and bad.

In the first case, you point to it being common to all cultures and so one can base objective claims on it. Oughtness not to kill is one example.
But neuronal patterns that lead to realism, that's not objective. That's bad and primitive.
Despite your use of patterns in the brain being objective evidence when it fits with your general schema.

[Iwannaplato]

And using Chatgpt as evidence is sketchy at best. For irony here's what Chatgpt says about it's own objectivity...

ChatGPT, like other AI language models, does not have personal opinions or subjective experiences. It is designed to generate responses based on patterns it has learned from the data it was trained on. However, the training data itself can contain biases, and these biases can sometimes be reflected in the model's responses. OpenAI, the organization behind ChatGPT, has made efforts to mitigate biases during the training process, but some degree of bias may still be present. It's important to remember that ChatGPT's responses should be evaluated critically and not taken as absolute truth or an expression of objective reality.

[Atla]

Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

1. Objectivity
2. Verifiability
3. Ethical Neutrality
4. Systematic Exploration
5. Reliability
6. Precision
7. Accuracy
8. Abstractness

Most to all of these only seem to make sense with an objective reality in mind.

If there's no objective reality, then there's nothing to be objective about.
If there's no objective reality, then there's nothing to explore.
If there's no objective reality, then there are no regularities or facts that could be verified.
If there's no objective reality, then there are no regularities or facts to be precise about.
If there's no objective reality, then there are no regularities or facts to be accurate about.
Since the above do not exist, there's nothing to rely on, reliability makes no sense.
If there's no objective reality, then there aren't actually other people, so there can't be any ethics we could be neutral about.

Looks like a pretty sad FSK overall, maybe we could give it a score of 20-30%. I liked the Abstractness though.

-----------------------------------

I would like to propose a much better FSK (82.7% score FSK-proper):

I-am-God-and-the-world-is-the-figment-of-my-imagination-FSK!

Unlike your sad little "scientific FSK", my FSK doesn't flirt with the idea of an objective reality in any way. You guys are of course just something I make up to entertain myself. God was bored, but now God is having fun. I will play this game for a few more decades, and then I'll make up some another planet with lizard people on it. It will also have philosophy forums with dogmatic anti-realists who are deep down still realists, because that's some funny shit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To label bacteria of 3 billion years ago as proto-realists is very unintelligent.
If these bacteria are proto-realists, that would imply they believe in the ideology of philosophical realism then. This is absurd thinking.

Humans are the only living things that believe and adopt various ideologies such as philosophical realism, communism, scientism and various 'ism_s' about 5000 years ago.

The point is all living things down to LUCA [3.5 to 2.5 billion years] is embedded with a sense of external_ness in their nervous system to facilitate basic survival.
Every living organism [including humans] at present is embedded with this sense of externalness represented by the same neural algorithm from the beginning.

While this basic 'skeletal'* form of the sense of external-ness is retained in all living organisms, it is topped-up with improvements over the 3.5 to 2.5 billions years of evolution.

• *Note the two meanings of skeletal - [2.] applicable to this discussion.
  1. relating to or functioning as a skeleton.
  2. existing only in outline or as a framework of something.

In the last 3000 years with the emergence of 'philosophy,' philosophical realists had adopted this primal sense of externalness as an IDEOLOGY as Philosophical Realism sunk in with dogmatism.

It is this ideology of Philosophical Realism grounded and fixated on that primal sense of external-ness that is primal, primitive, proto and barbaric.

On the other hand, anti-philosophical_realists [e.g. Kantian, Buddhism] whilst they have that primal sense of external-ness, they do not ground and fix that as an ideology [-ism].

[Veritas Aequitas]

For those who are ignorant of what is Philosophical Objectivity, note this;

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

To be objective need Objective-Reality is begging the question.
Rather we need objectivity to ground a reality that would be objective [objective-reality].

[Atla]

For those who are ignorant of what is Philosophical Objectivity, note this;

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

To be objective need Objective-Reality is begging the question.
Rather we need objectivity to ground a reality that would be objective [objective-reality].

Ah I remember that, it's where you couldn't make sense of the word "a", which was funny and horrifying at the same time.

A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

In the above, it stated there is no objectivity if the views are from "a" i.e. ONE sentient SUBJECT.
Therefore it implies there is objectivity only if the views are agreed by two or more sentient beings.

"a" here means "any", not "one", VA.