Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Darkneos]

Within the human-based scientific FSK, scientists do not cling to mind-independence in the empirical external world as an IDEOLOGY.

P-realists like you and others clung to mind-independence as an ideology dogmatically to the extent some [not all] will kill those who oppose their ideology.

It's kinda clear you're just nuts here.

Also what the hell is FSK?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Within the human-based scientific FSK, scientists do not cling to mind-independence in the empirical external world as an IDEOLOGY.

P-realists like you and others clung to mind-independence as an ideology dogmatically to the extent some [not all] will kill those who oppose their ideology.

It's kinda clear you're just nuts here.

Also what the hell is FSK?

You're on my 'Ignore' list, I won't be able to read what you post from now.

[Darkneos]

Within the human-based scientific FSK, scientists do not cling to mind-independence in the empirical external world as an IDEOLOGY.

P-realists like you and others clung to mind-independence as an ideology dogmatically to the extent some [not all] will kill those who oppose their ideology.

It's kinda clear you're just nuts here.

Also what the hell is FSK?

You're on my 'Ignore' list, I won't be able to read what you post from now.

You never really had anything worth reading.

[Flannel Jesus]

As I had claimed as indicated above re Einstein, p-realists and theists are "of the same feathers".

Yes, it's exceptionally easy to claim something. Much harder to demonstrate it.

It is easy to demonstrate.
One can infer Einstein is a deist and p-realist at the same time from what I had wrote earlier;

Thus the questions raised by Einstein;
"God do not play Dice" [deism]
"Does the Moon Exists if no one is looking at it." [philosophical realism].

Einstein do not believe in a personal God, thus not a theist.

However, it is often quoted re Einstein's view on God, i.e.

• "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

This is cohere with his "God do not play Dice" in countering the anti-p_realists views in QM.

That theists and deists believe in a mind-independent God is the same fundamental belief of mind-independence as philosophical realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Why does Einstein using flowery language involving god mean anything at all about all realists being like theists? This doesn't even make sense.

So if Einstein hadn't said those things about god, you wouldn't be saying realists and theists are of the same feathers?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, it's exceptionally easy to claim something. Much harder to demonstrate it.

It is easy to demonstrate.
One can infer Einstein is a deist and p-realist at the same time from what I had wrote earlier;

Thus the questions raised by Einstein;
"God do not play Dice" [deism]
"Does the Moon Exists if no one is looking at it." [philosophical realism].

Einstein do not believe in a personal God, thus not a theist.

However, it is often quoted re Einstein's view on God, i.e.

• "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

This is cohere with his "God do not play Dice" in countering the anti-p_realists views in QM.

That theists and deists believe in a mind-independent God is the same fundamental belief of mind-independence as philosophical realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Why does Einstein using flowery language involving god mean anything at all about all realists being like theists? This doesn't even make sense.

So if Einstein hadn't said those things about god, you wouldn't be saying realists and theists are of the same feathers?

Einstein was merely an example.
Both theists and p-realists adopt or are driven psychologically by the evolutionary default of the mode of external-ness, i.e. mind-independence as the fundamental ground for their ideology.
As such, a theist is automatically a p-realists but not vice-versa.

[Atla]

Within the human-based scientific FSK, scientists do not cling to mind-independence in the empirical external world as an IDEOLOGY.

P-realists like you and others clung to mind-independence as an ideology dogmatically to the extent some [not all] will kill those who oppose their ideology.

I'm pretty sure I cling less to mind-independence than the average scientist. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm behind on my killing quota

[Atla]

As such, a theist is automatically a p-realists but not vice-versa.

Except for anti-realist theists. The difference imo is that anti-realist theists can almost never become atheists. They don't believe in the external world, so trying to show them that God can't be found in the external world, is useless.

I suspect that an anti-realist humanity could devolve into even more theistic madness within a few generations.

[Darkneos]

Yes, it's exceptionally easy to claim something. Much harder to demonstrate it.

It is easy to demonstrate.
One can infer Einstein is a deist and p-realist at the same time from what I had wrote earlier;

Thus the questions raised by Einstein;
"God do not play Dice" [deism]
"Does the Moon Exists if no one is looking at it." [philosophical realism].

Einstein do not believe in a personal God, thus not a theist.

However, it is often quoted re Einstein's view on God, i.e.

• "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

This is cohere with his "God do not play Dice" in countering the anti-p_realists views in QM.

That theists and deists believe in a mind-independent God is the same fundamental belief of mind-independence as philosophical realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Why does Einstein using flowery language involving god mean anything at all about all realists being like theists? This doesn't even make sense.

So if Einstein hadn't said those things about god, you wouldn't be saying realists and theists are of the same feathers?

Short answer, it doesn’t. Then again they blocked me so what do I know.

[Atla]

p-realists adopt or are driven psychologically by the evolutionary default of the mode of external-ness, i.e. mind-independence as the fundamental ground for their ideology.

Except the ones who are also realists on the mind. What you said is like saying that all anti-realists are driven by the ideology of absolutely nothing existing, ever.

[Iwannaplato]

P-realists like you and others clung to mind-independence as an ideology dogmatically to the extent some [not all] will kill those who oppose their ideology.

People who believe in objective moral facts have killed a lot of people.
Veritas Aequitas believes there are objective moral facts.
Veritas Aequitas and other people who have believed in objective moral facts are birds of a feather.
Therefore some people like Veritas Aequitas will kill some moral antirealists.
And because Veritas Aequitas believes in objective moral facts, he is more likely to kill people that Peter Holmes who is a moral antirealist.
Peter, be careful what you say to VA.

This is the kind of logic you have been using to smear realists.

[Iwannaplato]

Within the human-based scientific FSK, scientists do not cling to mind-independence in the empirical external world as an IDEOLOGY.

P-realists like you and others clung to mind-independence as an ideology dogmatically to the extent some [not all] will kill those who oppose their ideology.

People who believe in objective moral facts have killed a lot of people.
Veritas Aequitas believes there are objective moral facts.
Veritas Aequitas and other people who have believed in objective moral facts are birds of a feather.
Therefore some people like Veritas Aequitas will kill some moral antirealists.
And because Veritas Aequitas believes in objective moral facts, he is more likely to kill people that Peter Holmes who is a moral antirealist.
Peter, be careful what you say to VA.

This is the kind of logic you have been using to smear realists.

[Skepdick]

People who believe in objective moral facts have killed a lot of people.

And? What's your point here? Are you implying that killing lots of people is immoral?

Does this presupposition of imorality put you in the in-group or out-group of "People who believe in objective moral facts" e.g the immorality of killing lots of people ?

People who believe in objective moral facts have killed a lot of people.
Veritas Aequitas believes there are objective moral facts.
Veritas Aequitas and other people who have believed in objective moral facts are birds of a feather.
Therefore some people like Veritas Aequitas will kill some moral antirealists.
And because Veritas Aequitas believes in objective moral facts, he is more likely to kill people that Peter Holmes who is a moral antirealist.
Peter, be careful what you say to VA.

This is the kind of logic you have been using to smear realists.

Yes. This is how probability theory works. Why does this surprise you? Perhaps you need some reading material?

In other news (using the exact same reasoning) if you have an X and a Y chromosome you are more likely to murder another person than if you had two X chromosomes. It's just a basic statistical fact.

[Iwannaplato]

No change. Your ability to understand context is still near noll.
If, for example, as a gun owner, you can go along with VA's argument about realists and murder, enjoy where his 'logic' places you. My post was not against objective morality, nor am I, you dunce.

I haven't been missing, nor does it seem like I'll miss, anything by ignoring your posts.

[Skepdick]

Your ability to understand context is still near noll.

Maybe.

Or maybe you are just lying about me. Given your implicit agenda.

My abilty to understand/identify context is so laser-sharp I'll simply keep drawing attention to the moral context/content you refuse to make explicit even though practically all of your assertions, evaluations and judgments depends upon it.

If, for example, as a gun owner, you can go along with VA's argument about realists and murder, enjoy where his 'logic' places you. My post was not against objective morality, you dunce.

Appraising the moral qualities of conclusions produced by different logics, philosophies and ideologies is always about morality, you dunce.

And you are doing moral appraisal of VA"s reasoning, while insisting your post is not about morality.

You are actively moralizing yet you fail to recognize or acknowledge that. Guess where your inability to understand that places you?

I haven't been missing, nor does it seem like I'll miss, anything by ignoring your posts.

Carry on as before. I am unlikely to gain anything from interacting with you either - I am talking about you not to you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The difference:

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

As such, there are two types of objective moral facts;
1. FSK-ed objective moral facts
2. P-realism objective moral facts

Those who believe in FSK-ed objective moral facts are likely to recognize the FSK-ed 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' as an objective moral facts that need to be maintained and sustained.

With no FSK-ed moral objective of 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' p-realists will likely kill humans driven by cognitive dissonances; with the easy access to WMDs in the future, there is the very likelihood* of the extermination of the human species by philosophical realists [1].
viewtopic.php?p=643388#p643388