Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[CIN]

Here is one argument [among others] demonstrating why philosophical realism is unrealistic.

• 1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.
  
  2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.
  
  3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.
  
  4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].

Therefore, Philosophical Realism which claim reality [things in reality] is mind-independent is absurd.

Views?

4 doesn't follow. What you should have written is this:

• 1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.
  
  2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.
  
  3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.
  
  4. Thus, humans cannot be independent of reality.

Which is true.
In your version, you got the part and the whole the wrong way round in 4.
Next time, read what you wrote before you post it, to see that it makes sense.

Thanks, but that is a bit pedantic; ignorant of the Principle of Charity?
The sequence may not be aligned nicely but 4 is still sound because generally the point is,

reality and things are mind-independent,
thus my counter, reality and things cannot be mind-independent
see;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

• Philosophical realism .. is the view that a certain kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

The Principle of Charity only applies if there is ambiguity in what has been written, and therefore more than one possible interpretation.
There is no ambiguity in your argument, and therefore only one possible interpretation. Your argument is simply invalid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

4 doesn't follow. What you should have written is this:

• 1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.
  
  2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.
  
  3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.
  
  4. Thus, humans cannot be independent of reality.

Which is true.
In your version, you got the part and the whole the wrong way round in 4.
Next time, read what you wrote before you post it, to see that it makes sense.

Thanks, but that is a bit pedantic; ignorant of the Principle of Charity?
The sequence may not be aligned nicely but 4 is still sound because generally the point is,

reality and things are mind-independent,
thus my counter, reality and things cannot be mind-independent
see;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

• Philosophical realism .. is the view that a certain kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

The Principle of Charity only applies if there is ambiguity in what has been written, and therefore more than one possible interpretation.
There is no ambiguity in your argument, and therefore only one possible interpretation. Your argument is simply invalid.

You implied my 4 is invalid,
So you revised 4 to,
4. Thus, humans cannot be independent of reality.

As I had stated,
4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].

My point is, if A is independent of B, then B is independent of A.
I don't see how this is invalid.

[CIN]

Thanks, but that is a bit pedantic; ignorant of the Principle of Charity?
The sequence may not be aligned nicely but 4 is still sound because generally the point is,

reality and things are mind-independent,
thus my counter, reality and things cannot be mind-independent
see;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

• Philosophical realism .. is the view that a certain kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

The Principle of Charity only applies if there is ambiguity in what has been written, and therefore more than one possible interpretation.
There is no ambiguity in your argument, and therefore only one possible interpretation. Your argument is simply invalid.

You implied my 4 is invalid,
So you revised 4 to,
4. Thus, humans cannot be independent of reality.

As I had stated,
4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].

My point is, if A is independent of B, then B is independent of A.
I don't see how this is invalid.

No, that isn't your point — that is, it's not the point you're trying to make. You're not trying to make the point that if A is independent of B, then B is independent of A, you're trying to make the point that if A is dependent on B, then B is dependent on A. That's quite different, and your argument doesn't show that.

Here's what you wrote:
1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.
2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.
3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.
4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].
Implicitly you are dividing reality into two parts: a human part, and a non-human part. Your argument shows that the human part can't be independent of the whole, but what you need to show is that either the whole or the non-human part can't be independent of the human part, and your argument doesn't have the right logical structure to show that.

[Iwannaplato]

but what you need to show is that either the whole or the non-human part can't be independent of the human part, and your argument doesn't have the right logical structure to show that.

Well said. There's also the isn't vs. can't issue.
Humans exist now, so the whole must necessarily include them. This says nothing about whether it could be otherwise, in the future, or wasn't, in the past. I think he's using, here, a very abstract deduction to demonstrate can't from isn't or must be from isn't. Which is a boo boo.

[Darkneos]

The Principle of Charity only applies if there is ambiguity in what has been written, and therefore more than one possible interpretation.
There is no ambiguity in your argument, and therefore only one possible interpretation. Your argument is simply invalid.

You implied my 4 is invalid,
So you revised 4 to,
4. Thus, humans cannot be independent of reality.

As I had stated,
4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].

My point is, if A is independent of B, then B is independent of A.
I don't see how this is invalid.

No, that isn't your point — that is, it's not the point you're trying to make. You're not trying to make the point that if A is independent of B, then B is independent of A, you're trying to make the point that if A is dependent on B, then B is dependent on A. That's quite different, and your argument doesn't show that.

Here's what you wrote:
1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.
2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.
3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.
4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].
Implicitly you are dividing reality into two parts: a human part, and a non-human part. Your argument shows that the human part can't be independent of the whole, but what you need to show is that either the whole or the non-human part can't be independent of the human part, and your argument doesn't have the right logical structure to show that.

I don’t think VA understands what mind independence means in either way. Just because we are part of something doesn’t mean it depends on us. Independence just means it keeps going even if we die.

Well that and parts can be independent of their whole. My car doesn’t fall apart if I take the hubcap off.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Principle of Charity only applies if there is ambiguity in what has been written, and therefore more than one possible interpretation.
There is no ambiguity in your argument, and therefore only one possible interpretation. Your argument is simply invalid.

You implied my 4 is invalid,
So you revised 4 to,
4. Thus, humans cannot be independent of reality.

As I had stated,
4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].

My point is, if A is independent of B, then B is independent of A.
I don't see how this is invalid.

No, that isn't your point — that is, it's not the point you're trying to make. You're not trying to make the point that if A is independent of B, then B is independent of A, you're trying to make the point that if A is dependent on B, then B is dependent on A. That's quite different, and your argument doesn't show that.

Strawman.
I have not presented that "if A is dependent on B, then B is dependent on A."

My argument is related to Philosophical Realism which claim reality and things are mind-independent, i.e. independent of the human conditions.
The focus is thus 'independence' not 'dependence'.

Here's what you wrote:
1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.
2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.
3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.
4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].

Implicitly you are dividing reality into two parts: a human part, and a non-human part.
Your argument shows that the human part can't be independent of the whole, but what you need to show is that either the whole or the non-human part can't be independent of the human part, and your argument doesn't have the right logical structure to show that.

Ok, I agree there are some missing elements in the above argument which I had implied.

Here is a revised version;

• 1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.
  2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.
  3. Humans [body, brain and mind] and non-human parts are intricately part and parcel of reality.
  4. This [3] means that all parts are interconnected with each other within the whole.
  5. Reality and things cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].
  6. Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Iwannaplato]

• 1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.
  2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.
  3. Humans [body, brain and mind] and non-human parts are intricately part and parcel of reality.
  4. This [3] means that all parts are interconnected with each other within the whole.
  5. Reality and things cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].
  6. Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

Which would be the same for any part of reality.
Cats are not indepedent from marbles.
Black holes are not independent from mice.
Alpha Centauri is not independent from my mother's favorite spoon.

This is not what antirealists are talking about if they take the postion that there is no mind independent reality.
And this is not what realists mean when they say there is a mind independent reality.

The whole argument is an equivocation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This OP is specific to Philosophical Realism, not any realism.

I have quoted this 'what is Philosophical Realism' a 'million' times

• Philosophical realism – usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Philosophical realists will extend the above to the point;
-the moon pre-existed humans and will exists even after humans are extinct.

For philosophical realists,
mind-independent means human minds and human conditions.

[Iwannaplato]

This OP is specific to Philosophical Realism, not any realism.

There are a number of realisms in philosophy as one can see if one reads further in the wikipedia article you are quoting. But this doesn't really matter if this post was responding to mine.

I have quoted this 'what is Philosophical Realism' a 'million' times

• Philosophical realism – usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Philosophical realists will extend the above to the point;
-the moon pre-existed humans and will exists even after humans are extinct.

Exactly, which is a different kind of dependence/indepedence issue than you have in the deductive argument I quoted. For example,at those points in time, there was no mind present - in the physics FSK, in the astronomy FSK, so the kind of parts whole interdependence you are arguing for in the deduction is not relevant. But it's even not relevant in the present.

For philosophical realists,
mind-independent means human minds and human conditions.

It's doesn't mean that, but perhaps you left something out here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• 1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.
  2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.
  3. Humans [body, brain and mind] and non-human parts are intricately part and parcel of reality.
  4. This [3] means that all parts are interconnected with each other within the whole.
  5. Reality and things cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].
  6. Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

If any one disagree the above argument that it is not in line with,

• Philosophical realism – usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  
  Philosophical realists will extend the above to the point;
  -the moon pre-existed humans and will exists even after humans are extinct.

Explain in detail how?

Note the OP to counter Philosophical realists in the following context;
Philosophical Realists deny the existence of independent moral facts, thus morality cannot be objective.

[Iwannaplato]

If any one disagree the above argument that it is not in line with,

Explain in detail how?

I've already done that in a number of posts.

Note the OP to counter Philosophical realists in the following context;
Philosophical Realists deny the existence of independent moral facts, thus morality cannot be objective.

This is completely incorrect. A realist can be a moral realist and think that morality can be objective.

A moral antirealist believes that morals cannot be objective

Moral anti-realism
In the philosophy of ethics, moral anti-realism (or moral irrealism) is a meta-ethical doctrine that there are no objective moral values or normative facts. It is usually defined in opposition to moral realism, which holds that there are objective moral values, such that a moral claim may be either true or false. Specifically the moral anti-realist is committed to denying one of the following three statements: [22][23]

The Semantic Thesis: Moral statements have meaning, they express propositions, or are the kind of things that can be true or false.
The Alethic Thesis: Some moral propositions are true.
The Metaphysical Thesis: The metaphysical status of moral facts is robust and ordinary, not importantly different from other facts about the world.

You would be considered a moral realist and an ontological anti-realist.

And there are plenty of ontological realists out there who are also moral realists. In fact most people are both those things.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are many types of realists and anti-realist.

How many times have I to repeat, a philosophical realist [also a Transcendent idealist] as defined will never be a moral realist [i.e. there are objective mind-independent moral facts].
In this sense a philosophical realist will a moral anti-realist.

An realist [not a philosophical realist], i.e. an empirical realist can be a moral realist as conditioned within a human based moral FSK.
A theist can be a moral realist as conditioned upon a human-based theistic moral FSK, but such a moral realism has very low degree of objectivity.

[Iwannaplato]

There are many types of realists and anti-realist.

Yup.

How many times have I to repeat, a philosophical realist [also a Transcendent idealist] as defined will never be a moral realist [i.e. there are objective mind-independent moral facts].

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat a falsehood. Further, 'philosophical realist' is a term that covers many types of realists. Look at you own link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Scroll down.
You will see that by philosophical realist they mean all different kinds of realists.

The adjective 'philosophical' is there to distinguish this from people who are realists in everyday speech: iow people who face harsh reality, understand the unpleasant aspects of things, and so on.

In this sense a philosophical realist will a moral anti-realist.

No, this is simply false.

An realist [not a philosophical realist],

False distinction, follow you own link as mentioned above.

i.e. an empirical realist can be a moral realist as conditioned within a human based moral FSK.

Sure, of course they can. Realist empiricists can be that. So, can other types of realists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are many types of realists and anti-realist.

Yup.

How many times have I to repeat, a philosophical realist [also a Transcendent idealist] as defined will never be a moral realist [i.e. there are objective mind-independent moral facts].

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat a falsehood. Further, 'philosophical realist' is a term that covers many types of realists. Look at you own link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Scroll down.
You will see that by philosophical realist they mean all different kinds of realists.

The adjective 'philosophical' is there to distinguish this from people who are realists in everyday speech: iow people who face harsh reality, understand the unpleasant aspects of things, and so on.

In this sense a philosophical realist will a moral anti-realist.

No, this is simply false.

An realist [not a philosophical realist],

False distinction, follow you own link as mentioned above.

i.e. an empirical realist can be a moral realist as conditioned within a human based moral FSK.

Sure, of course they can. Realist empiricists can be that. So, can other types of realists.

All the realists included in this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
believe in its central tenet;

• Philosophical Realism – ... is the view that a certain kind of thing ( has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

As such, they are all philosophical realists.

There is nothing 'philosophical' with philosophical realism because philosophical realism is an IDEOLOGY grounded on an illusion driven from an evolutionary default arising from cognitive dissonances at the related existential crisis.

[Iwannaplato]

All the realists included in this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
believe in its central tenet;

• Philosophical Realism – ... is the view that a certain kind of thing ( has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

As such, they are all philosophical realists.

There is nothing 'philosophical' with philosophical realism because philosophical realism is an IDEOLOGY grounded on an illusion driven from an evolutionary default arising from cognitive dissonances at the related existential crisis.

None of which explains why philosophical realists can't be a moral realists.