Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Iwannaplato]

Lmao okay. This point of view is clearly inconsistent with how science has worked in the past, so I don't know why you think science is on your side lmao. No amount of people agreeing made astrology true, why would any amount of people agreeing make "the apple doesn't age" true?

Your model of reality (or non reality) in fact does not match what the FSKs you revere actually say.

I had stated,
The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and Objective at present;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

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

So what if you had stated that? I once stated that kfc makes the best chicken. What does stating random things have to do with the post you quoted?

This is part of my problem with the repeatedly starting threads and linking. It is as if those linked to OPs and arguments were not met with strong opposed arguments. They are presented as if they were demonstrated facts or proofs.

Nowhere does he explain why suddenly the physics FSK not longer counts. Apples are the purview of the biological fsk, as if the physics fsk doesn't apply, despite, well, apples being matter - and smaller chunks of matter than the Moon.

And here's the part that horrifies me. I raise the issue of things in boxes. He uses the apple example. When asked how something that does not exist ages, he refers to the biological fsk when he knows I am asking about the physics fsk, which should apply.

Now we are trying to nail down why the physics fsk doesn't apply without him ever admitting there might be a problem, given that according to the physics fsk the apple no longer exists the moment the box is closed and no one can see the apple. He has never admitted that there might be a problem there, but decided to shift to the biological fsk as if there was a problem.

So, now it seems at some point we will be told there is no problem explaining the apple's aging within the physics FSK, after a long detour of trying to find out why suddenly we are dealing with the biological fsk.

And the liquid nitrogen in a jar that evaporates, despite not existing, will also not, for some reason, being under the physics fsk even though it is an inorganic substance (and a very simple one at that).

[Flannel Jesus]

I had stated,
The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and Objective at present;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

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

So what if you had stated that? I once stated that kfc makes the best chicken. What does stating random things have to do with the post you quoted?

This is part of my problem with the repeatedly starting threads and linking. It is as if those linked to OPs and arguments were not met with strong opposed arguments. They are presented as if they were demonstrated facts or proofs.

Not only is his having stated them previously, in some other thread, sufficient for them to be settled and proven, he doesn't even feel the need to describe why he's linking them in the context of this conversation.

"My argument against you is somewhere in here, you figure it out"

[Iwannaplato]

Not only is his having stated them previously, in some other thread, sufficient for them to be settled and proven, he doesn't even feel the need to describe why he's linking them in the context of this conversation.

"My argument against you is somewhere in here, you figure it out"

Given the condescension I've received from him I will say, in addition to agreeing with you, that it's funny he says
I had stated
Not 'I have stated'. 'I had stated' implies he changed his mind or no longer states X.
I've been cutting slack since it's not his mother tongue, but those days are gone.

And never 'oh, that's interesting' or 'I need to think about that' or 'I see what you mean' or 'I'm not sure.'
No any argument, if it gets a comment, it's absurd.

And then if you are a realist, you are being barbaric and primitive and you are more likely to kill people than non-realists.

He gets miffed when I implied he was avoiding dealing with an issue, while he's telling realists their beliefs are barbaric and primitive and they are more likely to murder.

He doesn't seem to have much perspective on what is insulting.

[Flannel Jesus]

Makes me want to murder somebody... but that's probably just my realism talking

[Iwannaplato]

Makes me want to murder somebody... but that's probably just my realism talking

It's your Empricism talking. As a person who includes Rationalism in his epistemological toolkit, I am afraid of you

[Flannel Jesus]

I scare myself at times

[Iwannaplato]

I scare myself at times

Dualism!

[Flannel Jesus]

I scare myself at times

Dualism!

That would be a great name for a two man improv group.

[Iwannaplato]

I scare myself at times

Dualism!

That would be a great name for a two man improv group.

Hm, not bad.

[Darkneos]

I scare myself at times

Dualism!

That would be a great name for a two man improv group.

That sounds like a magic school for DnD.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a repeat of the following critical points I raised;
viewtopic.php?p=654498#p654498
I suggest p-realists to read and understand [not necessary agree with] the points thoroughly.

This is the confusions from the rigid dogmatic hardcore philosophical realists;
There are many types of realists and many types of anti-realists.
Also an anti-realist can also be a realist in certain context.
A Kantian anti-realist is also an empirical realist.
However, ultimately, empirical-realism is subsumed within Kantian-anti-realism.

The Transcendental Idealist [anti-philosophical_realist] is, therefore, an Empirical Realist, and allows to Matter, as Appearance, a Reality which does not permit of being inferred, but is Immediately Perceived.
CPR A371

see also:
A Realist is also an Idealist [anti-realist] in different contexts
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32913

Note also;
Reality as conditioned within a human-based FSK emerged and are realized in various FSKs, perspectives, i.e.
1. Common Sense
2. Conventional Sense -e.g. Newtonian, Einsteinian, biology
3. QM sense.

Thus for a Kantian, the common and conventional sense are realized within empirical-realism
while in the QM sense, it is realized with the anti-philosophical_realism perspective.

In the case of the 100 non-mentally ill Westerns listing things in a room, that is done within the common and conventional sense not QM.
In this case, what is relevant to the Kantian would be empirical realism.
Thus what is listed can be empirically verified and justified as real within the science-FSK.

The p-realists will list the same things in the room, but the difference is the p-realist adopt their listing within the hardcore ideology of philosophical realism with absolute mind-independence.

On the other hand, the Kantians empirical realists will list those things and recognize them as merely relatively mind-independent subject and subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [anti-PhilosophicalRealism].

Re "quantum soup" of particles and quarks, the p-realists will insist on the absolute mind-independent ideology while the anti-p-realist do not.

And nowhere do you address the main issue I raised as to why for an 'anti-philosophical realist' those objects sustain their presence over time. Since the objects do not exist when they are not looked at, why do the same objects (same type of object) return to the boxes?

Nothing you say above is a response to this main issue.

And nowhere do you explain why the objects, after not existing, arise again for the next person who looks.

The answer is already there, but because you are rigid, dogmatic and blinded by philosophical realism, your brain is refusing to cognize and grasp it.

Note again [3rd time];
Reality as conditioned within a human-based FSK emerged and are realized in various FSKs, in various perspectives, i.e.
1. Common Sense
2. Conventional Sense -e.g. Physics [Newtonian, Einsteinian], biology, chemistry
3. Physics-QM sense.

The ANTI-philosophical_realists [Kantian] as humans has the capacity for all the above FSKs.

For ANTI-philosophical_realists [Kantian], objects sustain their presence over time when
1. Common Sense
2. Conventional Sense -e.g. Physics [Newtonian, Einsteinian], biology, chemistry
are invoked spontaneously.

Within the above common and conventional senses, for ANTI-philosophical_realists [Kantian], objects are realized as expected within the conditions of their respective FSK.
This is the ordinary common sense experiences of all normal humans.
It is also justified within the conventional sense FSKs, Physics [Newtonian, Einsteinian], biology, chemistry, that objects sustain their presence over time.
There is no question of mixing in the QM-FSK [things do not exists when not observed] sense with these senses [common & conventional].

Since the objects do not exist when they are not looked at, why do the same objects (same type of object) return to the boxes?
This is a strawman.
I have already explained why the above strawman is based on a conflation of 1&2 with 3-QM.

1. Common and conventional FSKs = the same objects (same type of object) return to the boxes.
2. Science-Physics-QM = objects do not exist when they are not looked at.

DO NOT CONFLATE,
-Common sense with Conventional Sense [e.g. Physics [Newtonian, Einsteinian], biology, chemistry].
-Common sense perspective with QM perspective
- Convention perspective with QM perspective

This is why the concepts of Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK] is so critical.
The conditions imperative within the Conventional Sense [e.g. Physics [Newtonian, Einsteinian], biology, chemistry, FSKs, do not include the conditions of the science-physics-QM-FSK.

Don't be arrogant grounded on ignorance and dogmatism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Lmao okay. This point of view is clearly inconsistent with how science has worked in the past, so I don't know why you think science is on your side lmao. No amount of people agreeing made astrology true, why would any amount of people agreeing make "the apple doesn't age" true?

Your model of reality (or non reality) in fact does not match what the FSKs you revere actually say.

I had stated,
The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and Objective at present;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

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

So what if you had stated that? I once stated that kfc makes the best chicken. What does stating random things have to do with the post you quoted?

What I posted in reference to what you posted is linked to the OP.
The point of the OP is
Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd, i.e. grounded on an illusion.

On the other hand the ANTI-PhilosophicalRealism point is, reality is realistic, i.e. really real;

• 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.

The following support the above claim of what is most real;

The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and Objective at present;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

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

[Flannel Jesus]

I had stated,
The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and Objective at present;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

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

So what if you had stated that? I once stated that kfc makes the best chicken. What does stating random things have to do with the post you quoted?

What I posted in reference to what you posted is linked to the OP.
The point of the OP is
Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd, i.e. grounded on an illusion.

On the other hand the ANTI-PhilosophicalRealism point is, reality is realistic, i.e. really real;

• 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.

The following support the above claim of what is most real;

The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and Objective at present;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

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

I have no idea how any of this relates to what I said.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So what if you had stated that? I once stated that kfc makes the best chicken. What does stating random things have to do with the post you quoted?

What I posted in reference to what you posted is linked to the OP.
The point of the OP is
Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd, i.e. grounded on an illusion.

On the other hand the ANTI-PhilosophicalRealism point is, reality is realistic, i.e. really real;

• 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.

The following support the above claim of what is most real;

The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and Objective at present;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

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

I have no idea how any of this relates to what I said.

I also do not have any idea what you are talking about.
However whatever you proposed if on topic must relate to the OP which you are trying to counter.
My above is a response within topic to your counter.

[Flannel Jesus]

If you don't know what I'm talking about, how do you know if what you wrote is a response to it?