Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Atla]

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

If everyone was a solipsistic anti-realist who thinks other humans aren't even real, we probably would have nuked the planet by now because why not.

[Iwannaplato]

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

IOW the fact that you believe in objective moral facts, as, for example theists do, does not entail that you will kill like other members of that group. Because of OTHER qualities/beliefs that make you different: you lack certain other beliefs or you have beliefs they don't have. So, the mere fact that you share one belief with certain subgroups of objective moral fact believers does not entail that you are more likely to be violent. Great. Consider the possibility that it is not realism causing violence, but the fact that nearly everyone in the world is a realist, so obviously, given human nature, some subset of that group is going to be violent. Like a good scientist you need to demonstrate WHAT is leading to the violence. Your current arguments do not pass muster, because they do not address the issue.

When the shoe is on the other foot, when it is pointed out that you are in the same group with violent people, suddenly you are aware that differences within that group can be important.

When you are attacking PH and his gang, the issue is simple. Some realists get violent, therefore realists are more likely to be violent.
When you are defending yourself, you suddenly realize the oversimplification.

And at no point do you offer any evidence that antirealists are less violent.

Separate variables before you insult most people. Consider that after all this time you are very angry at PH. But his being a realist does not entail that he is statistically more likely to be violent than you are.

Unless you can actually show some evidence that antirealists are less prone to violence and that this is not mere correlation.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Believe?



FFS.

[Veritas Aequitas]

ALL humans are programmed with the potential to be violent, e.g. the fight [or flight] response, the kill [or be killed] responses and the anger [rage] emotions to facilitate basic survival.

Non-humans with the above will response spontaneously in according the conditions, situation and 'psychological' states without inhibitions.

However, humans with a neo-cortex and executive functions has the potential to inhibit, modulate and manage the above impulses to avoid being violent. Whether this potential is active or inactive will depend on the person's psychological states.

Philosophical realists [mind-independence] adopt the evolutionary default natural mode of external_ness as an ideology to facilitate their survival. This is a very primal thing. Any opposition to their ideology will trigger a threat to their survival, thus triggering the fight [or flight] response, the kill [or be killed] responses and the anger [rage] emotions.
This is why philosophical realists are likely to be violent to secure their survival at the primal level.

Philosophical realists [mind-independence] as theists are a different breed.
Theists [Abrahamic] are assured of their survival to the ultimate of an eternal life by their God based on threats to such survival provided they comply with the commands of their God.

For Christians [p-realists], the command from "God is to love all, even enemies" or else they will go to Hell. This threat itself is sufficient to inhibit the above primal rage, fight and kill impulses.
For Muslims [as p-realists] the command God is 'kill non-believers upon the slightest threat'. In this case Muslims will comply to this command and has no inhibitions on the primal rage, fight and kill impulses; this is so evident!

For typical non-theistic p-realists, any opposition to their ideology will trigger a threat to their survival, thus triggering the fight [or flight] response, the kill [or be killed] responses and the anger [rage] emotions. This is evident from the intellectual violence [more from the rage emotion] that is prevalent here and elsewhere.

The anti-philosophical_realists [Kantian] who are aware of the above, will take steps to modulate and manage their inherent primal rage, fight and kill impulses.

The above is the general scenario, not committed by ALL and there are exceptions

[Atla]

For typical non-theistic p-realists, any opposition to their ideology will trigger a threat to their survival, thus triggering the fight [or flight] response, the kill [or be killed] responses and the anger [rage] emotions. This is evident from the intellectual violence [more from the rage emotion] that is prevalent here and elsewhere.

Ok so most of us want to kill you blinded by rage now. Excellent philosophical argument in favour of your position.

You know what, your solipsistic anti-realism is evil. You're the one 'mentally killing' people by pretending that they never actually existed.

[Iwannaplato]

Views?

Let's look at the consistancy of reality issue:

Why do they find such similar spaces. You leave the kitchen and I go in. Of course there are anomolies, but generally speaking if I think we own a toaster and the walls have a pattern of kids playing in the wall papers and we have an electric stove, how come others nearly all the time find the same room? Why aren't there more regular inconsistancies?

Even strangers walking into my kitchen, if asked to write down what is there, will find the same objects? Why not other ones and pets I don't own and a gas stove and four chairs instead of three. What leads to the consistancy we face?

We could set up a room on an island with 40 objects. Ask people from all walks of live and ages after 10 years old to walk in the room and write down those objects. They all come back with the same list of objects with minor mistakes.

Why do the same things keep reappearing after not being looked at, despite differences in age, upbringing, culture?

Doesn't it seem like there is something that leads to certain experiences 'there' independent of each mind and really all those minds?

Now one could argue that those objects are all gone when no one is in the room, but that ends up being rather non-parismonious, but further, why is it those objects each time, for people who had no idea what to expect?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no certainty that every human [>8 billion at present] on Earth realized, perceived and know the same physical object-X when presented what is supposed to be object-X.

Since all humans are unique down to their DNA, genes, psychological states, it is likely the there will be >8 billion versions of what is deemed to be object-X.

Because human nature is universal, e.g. similar brain structures and set up, there will be similarities but not 100% similarities [e.g. due to different psychological states] in the realization of object-X.

For example, if there is a piece of rope under the shade, from a distance the majority may realized it as snake.
If the people sampled were of different psychological states and mental states, it is likely there will a wide realizations and perception of object-X.

As such to ensure credibility and objectivity of the variations of realization and perception of object X under various conditions we have to identify and specify the human-based FSK that is grounded upon; the most credible FSK at present is the science-FSK.

Because we inevitably ground our reality to the human-based FSK, it follows deductively, whatever the resultant reality that is realized and perceived subsequently is conditioned to the human-body-brain-mind [human-based].
What is reality as realized via the human-based FSKS CANNOT be absolute independent of the human-body-brain-mind

As such, Philosophical Realism which claim reality and things are absolutely mind-independent is absurd, illusory and nonsensical.

So far, no one has shown proof Philosophical Realism which claim reality and things are absolutely mind-independent is true and real.
Anyone?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have argued
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

Any philosophical realist who keep harping on condemning others as solipsistic is delusional.

[Darkneos]

I have argued
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

Any philosophical realist who keep harping on condemning others as solipsistic is delusional.

Jeez, and I thought I was batshit crazy.

[Iwannaplato]

There is no certainty that every human [>8 billion at present] on Earth realized, perceived and know the same physical object-X when presented what is supposed to be object-X.

That's not a response.

You're using a very common online tactic: you don't quote from the response, and so this makes it easier to not respond to the specific points raised. You write something that supposedly supports your position with actually responding to the post you are responding to.

Again: why do we keep finding the same things in rooms we enter.

Sure, we can't prove that those are the exact same things. But that's not the point. Why could we get everyone on PN to walk into a room with a pad and pen, and make a list of what's in there and there would be time and again, if common objects were put in that room, would all these different minds find the same list of objects.

It's peachy if there are not actually the same toaster and spoon and bed (with the same color sheets and same size). Why would they all come out with so much consistancy of objects?

You have the undfferentiated quantum foam when no one is in the room. You have different minds with different pasts and psychologies and expectations of what they mind find....

but lo...'

They all come out with nearly the same lists.

Why don't some of them find a horse or severed human head or rocking chair with human-sized clown doll in it when the other people do not?

And if you have a human-sized clown doll in a rocking chair or a horse in the room, it's be on all the lists.

Why?

And VA it is so tiring to have to point out again and again how evasive you are.

[Iwannaplato]

I have argued
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

Any philosophical realist who keep harping on condemning others as solipsistic is delusional.

It has been asked why your version of antirealism does not entail solipsism.
Is this how you take questions and arguments criticial of your position? To jump to calling everyone who does this delusional.

This comes off as very defensive.

And the constant starting new threads not only creates more noise here, but makes it easier to not directly respond to what people write. There does not need to be, for example, several threads about why God must be absolutely perfect and so cannot exist. Let alone all the Realism is nuts threads of yours. It's cluttered. These discussions can be handled in one thread.

[Darkneos]

I have argued
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

Any philosophical realist who keep harping on condemning others as solipsistic is delusional.

It has been asked why your version of antirealism does not entail solipsism.
Is this how you take questions and arguments criticial of your position? To jump to calling everyone who does this delusional.

This comes off as very defensive.

And the constant starting new threads not only creates more noise here, but makes it easier to not directly respond to what people write. There does not need to be, for example, several threads about why God must be absolutely perfect and so cannot exist. Let alone all the Realism is nuts threads of yours. It's cluttered. These discussions can be handled in one thread.

Nevermind that the quoted thread literally doesn’t show how realism is solipsistic (by definition it also LITERALLY isn’t).

Also pretty sure anti-realists haven’t proven that mind independence is illusory. I mean also who would they prove it to? But it’s worth noting that if they did then by his own logic EVERYONE is a solipsist. In which case who is he talking to?

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Ignored" and ignoring is not evasive.
It was ugly in the other Forum, I prefer to avoid the same path.
In 'ignored' cases, I only respond where the point is significant.

It is generally advised as applicable to ALL complex problem;

• An important step in tackling a complex problem is to decompose the problem into smaller subproblems that can be solved individually.
  In this way, the problem is divided into parts that are manageable to solve, test, and maintain.
  https://isaaccomputerscience.org/concep ... &stage=all

"Whether Morality is Objective or not" is one of the most complex issues within philosophy. Therefore to tackle this main issue efficiently we need to break it into the relevant sub-issues.

Note this OP;
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?t=24601
It is 552 pages of a tangled-mess in a sewage tank where posts after posts are dumped in like rotting shit.
How many posts had been quoted from this OP?

To suggest to lump up all sub-issues of a main topic into one thread is bordering on inefficiency of the insane [or stupid] level.
Don't be condescending and suggest the path of inefficiency.

I have raised >250 perhaps nearly 300 threads in the Ethical Section and every thread is raised to support my main argument;
Why Morality is Objective.
Where there are repetitions [apparently] they refer to the same issue from a different perspective.

In addition, in recent threads I have open a few empty 'post' with "Notes: KIV" so that I can add new information wherever I come upon them later and don't have to do tedious search among the various off topic shit-posts dumped therein.

I have inputted all these threads in a table where I can sort them into various sub-topics so that I can easily quote the point where relevant, which I had done so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have argued
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

Any philosophical realist who keep harping on condemning others as solipsistic is delusional.

An anti-philosophical approach [Kantian] is not solipsistic because its approach is based on the verification and justification of empirical evidences conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.
How can the existence of apples, humans and human minds verified and justified via human-based scientific FSK as real be solipsistic.

Elsewhere I have quoted,
Solipsism is incoherent.

The Incoherence of Solipsism
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

The argument used by philosophical realists to argue on solipsism and accuse other of solipsism can be turned back on the p-realists as solipsists. In this case p-realists are kicking their own ass.
Any philosophical realist who keep harping on condemning others as solipsistic is delusional.

[Flannel Jesus]

Interesting that you call your approach anti philosophical.