What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

..........
What Kant accept with noumena as the cause of phenomena is merely a temporary concession of primal logic. But like Hume, Kant did not accept causation as real. As such the noumena as a cause of the phenomena is ultimately illusory. Why Kant went along with the idea of noumena aka thing-in-itself is because it is a useful illusion that is critical for his later projects.

What is real is the phenomena which must be conditioned to a human-based FSRK, e.g. science and/or mathematics as the most credible and objective.

1 Noumena - things-in-themselves - are not a useful illusion.
They're a confusing fiction that is still causing no end of philosophical muddle.
Whatever Kant intended for his fiction, it's been disastrous - just as Plato's forms have been. It's time to unfog ourselves.

To a child [toddler] who received Christmas gifts, there must be someone who delivered the gifts if not to the child's logic, it would be absurd if the gifts came out of thin air.
That parents [with consensus] invented the idea of a Santa Claus to answer the child is generating an illusion, which is a useful illusion to shut the child's questioning and the idea of an illusory Santa Claus also generate economic values.

It is the same with the noumena which is equivalent to the invention of the idea of an illusory 'Santa Claus'.
Kant's invention of the term 'noumena' is to shut up the questioning and to soothe the kindi philosophical explorers cognitive dissonance that there must be something-that-appear [noumena] for every phenomena.

For Kant the noumena is a useful illusion, first to guide science forward toward this illusory and impossible ideal.
Science merely assumes there is the noumena, which an ideal that merely serves as a guide and nothing else.

As stated elsewhere Kant relied on the illusory noumena to extend it to the illusory thing-in-itself which is imperative for his other project post CPR.

2 The shift from mind-independence to human-independence does nothing to revive philosophical antirealism. The claim that no fact - no feature of reality - nothing in the set 'what is real' - is independent from humans is flatly and demonstrably false. (That no human knowledge is independent from humans is trivially true.)

You still have not got my point.
I claimed
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The realistic FSRK sense - in interaction with the subject.
2. Your illusory 'what is fact' independent of the subject.

You have no real grounds to refute my claims at all.
All you have are your own linguistic grounds which are illusory.

There you go again with the term 'knowledge'.
I have reminded you a 'million' times there is a prior process of emergence and realization of reality before a things is perceived, known and described.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

As usual you just brush off the above without justifications.

[Peter Holmes]

..........
What Kant accept with noumena as the cause of phenomena is merely a temporary concession of primal logic. But like Hume, Kant did not accept causation as real. As such the noumena as a cause of the phenomena is ultimately illusory. Why Kant went along with the idea of noumena aka thing-in-itself is because it is a useful illusion that is critical for his later projects.

What is real is the phenomena which must be conditioned to a human-based FSRK, e.g. science and/or mathematics as the most credible and objective.

1 Noumena - things-in-themselves - are not a useful illusion.
They're a confusing fiction that is still causing no end of philosophical muddle.
Whatever Kant intended for his fiction, it's been disastrous - just as Plato's forms have been. It's time to unfog ourselves.

To a child [toddler] who received Christmas gifts, there must be someone who delivered the gifts if not to the child's logic, it would be absurd if the gifts came out of thin air.
That parents [with consensus] invented the idea of a Santa Claus to answer the child is generating an illusion, which is a useful illusion to shut the child's questioning and the idea of an illusory Santa Claus also generate economic values.

It is the same with the noumena which is equivalent to the invention of the idea of an illusory 'Santa Claus'.
Kant's invention of the term 'noumena' is to shut up the questioning and to soothe the kindi philosophical explorers cognitive dissonance that there must be something-that-appear [noumena] for every phenomena.

For Kant the noumena is a useful illusion, first to guide science forward toward this illusory and impossible ideal.
Science merely assumes there is the noumena, which an ideal that merely serves as a guide and nothing else.

As stated elsewhere Kant relied on the illusory noumena to extend it to the illusory thing-in-itself which is imperative for his other project post CPR.

2 The shift from mind-independence to human-independence does nothing to revive philosophical antirealism. The claim that no fact - no feature of reality - nothing in the set 'what is real' - is independent from humans is flatly and demonstrably false. (That no human knowledge is independent from humans is trivially true.)

You still have not got my point.
I claimed
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The realistic FSRK sense - in interaction with the subject.
2. Your illusory 'what is fact' independent of the subject.

So, after a long excursion, we're back to the tired old subject/object myth - explanatory story or epistemological model. And the joke is: this is supposed to support philosophical antirealism. It doesn't, for the following reasons.

1 The subject/object myth is foundationalist and realist. It claims: 'This is how things are'. So it has no need for 'interaction with the subject'. In reality, there are real subjects that perceive or observe real objects. The conclusion that reality exists only - or in some way - 'in interaction with the subject' is not entailed.

2 The 'subject' is a legacy from an out-dated dualism - originally supernaturalist, but since the intellectual collapse of religion, secularised as the mind-body or mind-matter distinction. The attempted get-out - claiming that the subject can now be thought of as just a human being - robs the subject/object myth of any explanatory power, because human beings are objects. And there's no reason to think that reality - the set of 'what is real' - depends in some way on one particular object - so antirealism is doubly incoherent.

You have no real grounds to refute my claims at all.
All you have are your own linguistic grounds which are illusory.

There you go again with the term 'knowledge'.
I have reminded you a 'million' times there is a prior process of emergence and realization of reality before a things is perceived, known and described.

So what? We're talking about human knowledge, not how long it took for the universe and human beings to evolve. And anyway, this 'prior process of emergence and realisation of reality' - whatever that is - must have been something that happened before humans were around to perceive, know and describe things. So this is a realist claim. There was no 'interaction with the subject' - viz, a human being.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

As usual you just brush off the above without justifications.

I can't be bothered to re-read your stupid, invalid and/or unsound arguments. I and others have falsified your claims and refuted your arguments when you produced them, and countless times since.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 Noumena - things-in-themselves - are not a useful illusion.
They're a confusing fiction that is still causing no end of philosophical muddle.
Whatever Kant intended for his fiction, it's been disastrous - just as Plato's forms have been. It's time to unfog ourselves.

To a child [toddler] who received Christmas gifts, there must be someone who delivered the gifts if not to the child's logic, it would be absurd if the gifts came out of thin air.
That parents [with consensus] invented the idea of a Santa Claus to answer the child is generating an illusion, which is a useful illusion to shut the child's questioning and the idea of an illusory Santa Claus also generate economic values.

It is the same with the noumena which is equivalent to the invention of the idea of an illusory 'Santa Claus'.
Kant's invention of the term 'noumena' is to shut up the questioning and to soothe the kindi philosophical explorers cognitive dissonance that there must be something-that-appear [noumena] for every phenomena.

For Kant the noumena is a useful illusion, first to guide science forward toward this illusory and impossible ideal.
Science merely assumes there is the noumena, which an ideal that merely serves as a guide and nothing else.

As stated elsewhere Kant relied on the illusory noumena to extend it to the illusory thing-in-itself which is imperative for his other project post CPR.

2 The shift from mind-independence to human-independence does nothing to revive philosophical antirealism. The claim that no fact - no feature of reality - nothing in the set 'what is real' - is independent from humans is flatly and demonstrably false. (That no human knowledge is independent from humans is trivially true.)

You still have not got my point.
I claimed
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The realistic FSRK sense - in interaction with the subject.
2. Your illusory 'what is fact' independent of the subject.

So, after a long excursion, we're back to the tired old subject/object myth - explanatory story or epistemological model. And the joke is: this is supposed to support philosophical antirealism. It doesn't, for the following reasons.

1 The subject/object myth is foundationalist and realist. It claims: 'This is how things are'. So it has no need for 'interaction with the subject'. In reality, there are real subjects that perceive or observe real objects. The conclusion that reality exists only - or in some way - 'in interaction with the subject' is not entailed.

2 The 'subject' is a legacy from an out-dated dualism - originally supernaturalist, but since the intellectual collapse of religion, secularised as the mind-body or mind-matter distinction. The attempted get-out - claiming that the subject can now be thought of as just a human being - robs the subject/object myth of any explanatory power, because human beings are objects. And there's no reason to think that reality - the set of 'what is real' - depends in some way on one particular object - so antirealism is doubly incoherent.

You are merely making noises and not stating anything substantial.
How do you prove your claim,
"In reality, there are real subjects that perceive or observe real objects?"

You have no real grounds to refute my claims at all.
All you have are your own linguistic grounds which are illusory.

There you go again with the term 'knowledge'.
I have reminded you a 'million' times there is a prior process of emergence and realization of reality before a things is perceived, known and described.

So what? We're talking about human knowledge, not how long it took for the universe and human beings to evolve.
And anyway, this 'prior process of emergence and realisation of reality' - whatever that is - must have been something that happened before humans were around to perceive, know and describe things. So this is a realist claim. There was no 'interaction with the subject' - viz, a human being.

How can you prove your above claim that
'prior process of emergence and realisation of reality' - whatever that is - must have been something that happened before humans were around to perceive, know and describe things.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715
As usual you just brush off the above without justifications.

I can't be bothered to re-read your stupid, invalid and/or unsound arguments. I and others have falsified your claims and refuted your arguments when you produced them, and countless times since.

Can you paraphrase my argument and explain why it is stupid, invalid and/or unsound arguments? With premises in syllogism form?
Your claim is stupid if you do not provide a critique based on an understanding [not agreement] of my argument.

[Peter Holmes]

To a child [toddler] who received Christmas gifts, there must be someone who delivered the gifts if not to the child's logic, it would be absurd if the gifts came out of thin air.
That parents [with consensus] invented the idea of a Santa Claus to answer the child is generating an illusion, which is a useful illusion to shut the child's questioning and the idea of an illusory Santa Claus also generate economic values.

It is the same with the noumena which is equivalent to the invention of the idea of an illusory 'Santa Claus'.
Kant's invention of the term 'noumena' is to shut up the questioning and to soothe the kindi philosophical explorers cognitive dissonance that there must be something-that-appear [noumena] for every phenomena.

For Kant the noumena is a useful illusion, first to guide science forward toward this illusory and impossible ideal.
Science merely assumes there is the noumena, which an ideal that merely serves as a guide and nothing else.

As stated elsewhere Kant relied on the illusory noumena to extend it to the illusory thing-in-itself which is imperative for his other project post CPR.


You still have not got my point.
I claimed
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The realistic FSRK sense - in interaction with the subject.
2. Your illusory 'what is fact' independent of the subject.

So, after a long excursion, we're back to the tired old subject/object myth - explanatory story or epistemological model. And the joke is: this is supposed to support philosophical antirealism. It doesn't, for the following reasons.

1 The subject/object myth is foundationalist and realist. It claims: 'This is how things are'. So it has no need for 'interaction with the subject'. In reality, there are real subjects that perceive or observe real objects. The conclusion that reality exists only - or in some way - 'in interaction with the subject' is not entailed.

2 The 'subject' is a legacy from an out-dated dualism - originally supernaturalist, but since the intellectual collapse of religion, secularised as the mind-body or mind-matter distinction. The attempted get-out - claiming that the subject can now be thought of as just a human being - robs the subject/object myth of any explanatory power, because human beings are objects. And there's no reason to think that reality - the set of 'what is real' - depends in some way on one particular object - so antirealism is doubly incoherent.

You are merely making noises and not stating anything substantial.
How do you prove your claim,
"In reality, there are real subjects that perceive or observe real objects?"

You misunderstand. My point is that this claim - real subjects perceive or observe real objects - is what the subject/object myth maintains. In other words, the terms 'subject' and 'object' are supposed to refer to real things - not abstract things or fictions or constructs. Your claim that reality (the 'object') exists only or in some way 'in interaction with the subject' is completely contrary to the subject/object myth - at least in its original form.

You have no real grounds to refute my claims at all.
All you have are your own linguistic grounds which are illusory.

There you go again with the term 'knowledge'.
I have reminded you a 'million' times there is a prior process of emergence and realization of reality before a things is perceived, known and described.

So what? We're talking about human knowledge, not how long it took for the universe and human beings to evolve.
And anyway, this 'prior process of emergence and realisation of reality' - whatever that is - must have been something that happened before humans were around to perceive, know and describe things. So this is a realist claim. There was no 'interaction with the subject' - viz, a human being.

How can you prove your above claim that
'prior process of emergence and realisation of reality' - whatever that is - must have been something that happened before humans were around to perceive, know and describe things.

The evidence for the existence of reality - the universe - BEFORE HUMANS EVOLVED is absolutely overwhelming. So, whatever this mysterious blather about a 'prior process of emergence and realisation of reality' means - and I think it's utter bollocks - it CANNOT have been 'in interaction with the subject', because there were no subjects before humans evolved.

...unless you claim that either 1 any life form can be called a subject, and there were life forms at the beginning of the universe; or 2 a 'subject' (god) created the universe, so that Berkeley's silly 'esse est percipi' is justifiable.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715
As usual you just brush off the above without justifications.

I can't be bothered to re-read your stupid, invalid and/or unsound arguments. I and others have falsified your claims and refuted your arguments when you produced them, and countless times since.

Can you paraphrase my argument and explain why it is stupid, invalid and/or unsound arguments? With premises in syllogism form?
Your claim is stupid if you do not provide a critique based on an understanding [not agreement] of my argument.

I and others have been trying to clarify and explain the stupidity of your argument(s) to you for years. It makes absolutely no difference. You are impervious to reason and logic.

[FlashDangerpants]

I and others have been trying to clarify and explain the stupidity of your argument(s) to you for years. It makes absolutely no difference. You are impervious to reason and logic.

He hasn't been reading what we write, not in any meaningful sense. He never reads anything without thinking exclusively about his own point and largely ignoring that of the person he is reading.

Almost nothing he's written in response to me this year has had anything to do with what I actually wrote. I think he might be getting worse.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, after a long excursion, we're back to the tired old subject/object myth - explanatory story or epistemological model. And the joke is: this is supposed to support philosophical antirealism. It doesn't, for the following reasons.

1 The subject/object myth is foundationalist and realist. It claims: 'This is how things are'. So it has no need for 'interaction with the subject'. In reality, there are real subjects that perceive or observe real objects. The conclusion that reality exists only - or in some way - 'in interaction with the subject' is not entailed.

2 The 'subject' is a legacy from an out-dated dualism - originally supernaturalist, but since the intellectual collapse of religion, secularised as the mind-body or mind-matter distinction. The attempted get-out - claiming that the subject can now be thought of as just a human being - robs the subject/object myth of any explanatory power, because human beings are objects. And there's no reason to think that reality - the set of 'what is real' - depends in some way on one particular object - so antirealism is doubly incoherent.

You are merely making noises and not stating anything substantial.
How do you prove your claim,
"In reality, there are real subjects that perceive or observe real objects?"

You misunderstand. My point is that this claim - real subjects perceive or observe real objects - is what the subject/object myth maintains. In other words, the terms 'subject' and 'object' are supposed to refer to real things - not abstract things or fictions or constructs. Your claim that reality (the 'object') exists only or in some way 'in interaction with the subject' is completely contrary to the subject/object myth - at least in its original form.

Your point is not easy to understand and not sure what is 'myth' thing.
I agree 'subject' and 'object' refer to real things.

Yes, I claim reality [object] exists only relation to the subject[s] where the 'subject' is also an object.

I ask you to prove, how can an object exists without any relation to the subject[s].
Show me the proof?

You have no real grounds to refute my claims at all.
All you have are your own linguistic grounds which are illusory.

There you go again with the term 'knowledge'.
I have reminded you a 'million' times there is a prior process of emergence and realization of reality before a things is perceived, known and described.

So what? We're talking about human knowledge, not how long it took for the universe and human beings to evolve.
And anyway, this 'prior process of emergence and realisation of reality' - whatever that is - must have been something that happened before humans were around to perceive, know and describe things. So this is a realist claim. There was no 'interaction with the subject' - viz, a human being.

How can you prove your above claim that
'prior process of emergence and realisation of reality' - whatever that is - must have been something that happened before humans were around to perceive, know and describe things.

The evidence for the existence of reality - the universe - BEFORE HUMANS EVOLVED is absolutely overwhelming. So, whatever this mysterious blather about a 'prior process of emergence and realisation of reality' means - and I think it's utter bollocks - it CANNOT have been 'in interaction with the subject', because there were no subjects before humans evolved.

...unless you claim that either 1 any life form can be called a subject, and there were life forms at the beginning of the universe; or 2 a 'subject' (god) created the universe, so that Berkeley's silly 'esse est percipi' is justifiable.

Who said,
"The evidence for the existence of reality - the universe - BEFORE HUMANS EVOLVED is absolutely overwhelming?"
You? your mother, father, wife, kin, ???
You are not being intellectually honest with the above?

Rationally,
you should have said,
science-cosmology-evolution has provided evidence "the existence of reality - the universe - BEFORE HUMANS EVOLVED"
But you cannot be that ignorant the claim of evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

The reality is the claim "the existence of reality - the universe - BEFORE HUMANS EVOLVED" by the science-cosmology-evolution community is merely an inference from speculation agreed upon via intersubjective consensus of a group of scientists.
More so, the intersubjective consensus is grounded upon an embodied human-based science-cosmology-evolution.
Because it is human-based, it follows the inference and speculation must be somehow influenced by human conditions, thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

For science to perceive, infer and knows its evidence and conclusion, there has be prior processes of emergence and realization of reality within the scientists as conditioned within the FSRK and a 13.7 billion years of history.
Don't just brush it off, explain rationally how this is an impossibility?

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023
Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715
As usual you just brush off the above without justifications.

I can't be bothered to re-read your stupid, invalid and/or unsound arguments. I and others have falsified your claims and refuted your arguments when you produced them, and countless times since.

Can you paraphrase my argument and explain why it is stupid, invalid and/or unsound arguments? With premises in syllogism form?
Your claim is stupid if you do not provide a critique based on an understanding [not agreement] of my argument.

I and others have been trying to clarify and explain the stupidity of your argument(s) to you for years. It makes absolutely no difference. You are impervious to reason and logic.

Don't give me the "I and other" excuses.
For years, I have not sensed any rational counters from you and others, all I read are merely handwaving and brushing off my arguments without supporting justifications.
Just me a clue [short and brief to save your time].

Btw, so far what you have posted is merely from your personal views without justifications and references to some reasonable philosophers. How can any one justify the credibility of your views?

[Peter Holmes]

You are merely making noises and not stating anything substantial.
How do you prove your claim,
"In reality, there are real subjects that perceive or observe real objects?"

You misunderstand. My point is that this claim - real subjects perceive or observe real objects - is what the subject/object myth maintains. In other words, the terms 'subject' and 'object' are supposed to refer to real things - not abstract things or fictions or constructs. Your claim that reality (the 'object') exists only or in some way 'in interaction with the subject' is completely contrary to the subject/object myth - at least in its original form.

Your point is not easy to understand and not sure what is 'myth' thing.

This kind of myth is an explanatory story. In epistemology, the story goes that knowledge of reality occurs when a subject perceives or observes an object. It's the basis of empiricism - knowledge comes from experience - and so also empiricist skepticism, the 'scandal' that Kant tried to settle by arguing that the object exists only or in some way in interaction with the subject.

I agree 'subject' and 'object' refer to real things.

So you agree this is an ontologically realist model. It's not antirealist.

Yes, I claim reality [object] exists only relation to the subject[s] where the 'subject' is also an object.

Why does that tree (an object) in my garden exist only in relation to 'the subject'? Why would it not exist if there were no subject(s) to perceive or observe it? Why did trees not exist before there were any subjects? What evidence do you have to support such ridiculous, unscientific claims? (And don't invoke quantum mechanics, because that involves a realist explanation of reality, not an antirealist one.)

I ask you to prove, how can an object exists without any relation to the subject[s].
Show me the proof?

Prove that it doesn't. Yours is the burden. To say it isn't is to stand everything on its head.

How can you prove your above claim that
'prior process of emergence and realisation of reality' - whatever that is - must have been something that happened before humans were around to perceive, know and describe things.

The evidence for the existence of reality - the universe - BEFORE HUMANS EVOLVED is absolutely overwhelming. So, whatever this mysterious blather about a 'prior process of emergence and realisation of reality' means - and I think it's utter bollocks - it CANNOT have been 'in interaction with the subject', because there were no subjects before humans evolved.

...unless you claim that either 1 any life form can be called a subject, and there were life forms at the beginning of the universe; or 2 a 'subject' (god) created the universe, so that Berkeley's silly 'esse est percipi' is justifiable.

Who said,
"The evidence for the existence of reality - the universe - BEFORE HUMANS EVOLVED is absolutely overwhelming?"
You? your mother, father, wife, kin, ???

Any rational person says it, including the natural scientists who produce the knowledge that you agree is the most credible and reliable that we have or can have. Stop blathering. It's boring.

You are not being intellectually honest with the above?

Rationally,
you should have said,
science-cosmology-evolution has provided evidence "the existence of reality - the universe - BEFORE HUMANS EVOLVED"
But you cannot be that ignorant the claim of evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

The reality is the claim "the existence of reality - the universe - BEFORE HUMANS EVOLVED" by the science-cosmology-evolution community is merely an inference from speculation agreed upon via intersubjective consensus of a group of scientists.
More so, the intersubjective consensus is grounded upon an embodied human-based science-cosmology-evolution.
Because it is human-based, it follows the inference and speculation must be somehow influenced by human conditions, thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Offs. You're back on autopilot. THINK. Of course the human conclusion that the universe existed long before humans evolved is not independent from humans. It's a human conclusion. But that doesn't mean that the universe's existence before humans evolved - the FACT that it did - only exists 'in interaction with the subject'.

For science to perceive, infer and knows its evidence and conclusion, there has be prior processes of emergence and realization of reality within the scientists as conditioned within the FSRK and a 13.7 billion years of history.

This is meaningless gibberish. Mystical blather.

Don't just brush it off, explain rationally how this is an impossibility?

Can you paraphrase my argument and explain why it is stupid, invalid and/or unsound arguments? With premises in syllogism form?
Your claim is stupid if you do not provide a critique based on an understanding [not agreement] of my argument.

I and others have been trying to clarify and explain the stupidity of your argument(s) to you for years. It makes absolutely no difference. You are impervious to reason and logic.

Don't give me the "I and other" excuses.
For years, I have not sensed any rational counters from you and others, all I read are merely handwaving and brushing off my arguments without supporting justifications.
Just me a clue [short and brief to save your time].

Btw, so far what you have posted is merely from your personal views without justifications and references to some reasonable philosophers. How can any one justify the credibility of your views?

Stough, I know. It requires genuinely critical thinking. Aint gonna happen.

[Skepdick]

Almost nothing he's written in response to me this year has had anything to do with what I actually wrote. I think he might be getting worse.

In spirit of the OP: what could make your judgment of "worseness" objective?

[Skepdick]

Offs. You're back on autopilot. THINK. Of course the human conclusion that the universe existed long before humans evolved is not independent from humans. It's a fucking human conclusion. But that doesn't mean that the universe's existence before humans evolved - the FACT that it did - only exists 'in interaction with the subject'.

It's exactly what it means. Facts only exist in the context of entities capable of asserting factuality.

What or where is "the universe"? Show it to me without leveraging a social construction such as language.

[Peter Holmes]

The Concise Oxford definition of the word fact demonstrates a deep conceptual confusion:

'Noun. A thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.'

Obviously, only a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression - can be true or false. (We can leave aside other uses for true and false, such as 'her aim is true' and 'a false knave'.)

Things that exist or have occurred - features of reality outside language - just are or were the case, neither true nor false. So the definition of fact demonstrates two radically different uses for the word.

But then, to add more confusion, in the definition, there's the 'is known' condition for being a fact. And that requires a knower.

So the definition states that the fact that the earth (a feature of reality) exists must be known for it to be a fact. But then, if nobody knew the earth exists, that would mean it doesn't exist. Which is a strangely twisted conclusion. And here's one expression of this absurdity:

'Facts only exist in the context of entities capable of asserting factuality.'

So I think that being known is not a necessary condition for being a fact - and the dictionary definition is confused and confusing. For example, we perfectly coherently say that we don't know all the facts. And when we do know them, we'd never say those facts didn't exist before we knew them.

And here, a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. Or the expression 'state-of-affairs' has often been used instead.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This kind of myth is an explanatory story. In epistemology, the story goes that knowledge of reality occurs when a subject perceives or observes an object. It's the basis of empiricism - knowledge comes from experience - and so also empiricist skepticism, the 'scandal' that Kant tried to settle by arguing that the object exists only or in some way in interaction with the subject.

Actually there are two myths.
1. Empiricism - there is ONLY knowledge of reality when a subject perceives or observes an object.
2. Rationalism - knowledge of reality is when a subject perceives or observes an human independent object. This is your version of reality.

Holding either of the above view dogmatically had been very problematic with full of dilemmas, antinomies, paradoxes, etc.

Kant resolved [with solid arguments] all the above problems with his Copernican Revolution, i.e. the object exists in some in some way in interaction with the subject.
What arguments do you have to counter Kant?

I agree 'subject' and 'object' refer to real things.

So you agree this is an ontologically realist model. It's not antirealist.

Real things in this case are not absolutely independent of humans so it is an antirealist stance.

[quote-"VA"]Yes, I claim reality [object] exists only relation to the subject[s] where the 'subject' is also an object.

Why does that tree (an object) in my garden exist only in relation to 'the subject'? Why would it not exist if there were no subject(s) to perceive or observe it? Why did trees not exist before there were any subjects? What evidence do you have to support such ridiculous, unscientific claims? (And don't invoke quantum mechanics, because that involves a realist explanation of reality, not an antirealist one.)

You are ignorant.
The major influence on the discovery of QM is antirealist, i.e. the Copenhagen Interpretation. Einstein's 'God did not place dice' was rejected.

From the common sense and conventional sense, yes, the tree exists independent of the subject.
From a deeper reflection of reality, that is not the case.
Because every element that is the tree, i.e. its primary properties [Locke] and secondary properties [Berkeley] are all influenced by humans.
There is no tree-in-itself without humans.

I ask you to prove, how can an object exists without any relation to the subject[s].
Show me the proof?

Prove that it doesn't. Yours is the burden. To say it isn't is to stand everything on its head.

Asking me to prove a negative? Where is your intellectual integrity.
You are the one who is making the positive claim, so show me your proof.

Who said,
"The evidence for the existence of reality - the universe - BEFORE HUMANS EVOLVED is absolutely overwhelming?"
You? your mother, father, wife, kin, ???

Any rational person says it, including the natural scientists who produce the knowledge that you agree is the most credible and reliable that we have or can have. Stop blathering. It's boring.

Any rational person?? without any authority?
Yes, natural scientists are credible but their credibility and objectivity is based on their embodied human-based scientific FSRK.

PH: Stop blathering. It's boring.
That is only because you are ignorant, even ignorant of your own ignorance.
Your thinking is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic.
Suggest you read this
APPEARANCE AND REALITY - Russel
https://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html
to enable you to dive below your ignorance.

You are not being intellectually honest with the above?
Rationally,
you should have said,
science-cosmology-evolution has provided evidence "the existence of reality - the universe - BEFORE HUMANS EVOLVED"
But you cannot be that ignorant the claim of evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

The reality is the claim "the existence of reality - the universe - BEFORE HUMANS EVOLVED" by the science-cosmology-evolution community is merely an inference from speculation agreed upon via intersubjective consensus of a group of scientists.
More so, the intersubjective consensus is grounded upon an embodied human-based science-cosmology-evolution.
Because it is human-based, it follows the inference and speculation must be somehow influenced by human conditions, thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Offs. You're back on autopilot. THINK. Of course the human conclusion that the universe existed long before humans evolved is not independent from humans. It's a human conclusion. But that doesn't mean that the universe's existence before humans evolved - the FACT that it did - only exists 'in interaction with the subject'.

See the above Skepdick's response to this point.

For science to perceive, infer and knows its evidence and conclusion, there has be prior processes of emergence and realization of reality within the scientists as conditioned within the FSRK and a 13.7 billion years of history.

This is meaningless gibberish. Mystical blather.

Don't just brush it off, explain rationally how this is an impossibility?


Btw, so far what you have posted is merely from your personal views without justifications and references to some reasonable philosophers. How can any one justify the credibility of your views?
You have not answered the above question.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Concise Oxford definition of the word fact demonstrates a deep conceptual confusion:

'Noun. A thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.'

Obviously, only a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression - can be true or false. (We can leave aside other uses for true and false, such as 'her aim is true' and 'a false knave'.)

Things that exist or have occurred - features of reality outside language - just are or were the case, neither true nor false. So the definition of fact demonstrates two radically different uses for the word.

But then, to add more confusion, in the definition, there's the 'is known' condition for being a fact. And that requires a knower.

So the definition states that the fact that the earth (a feature of reality) exists must be known for it to be a fact. But then, if nobody knew the earth exists, that would mean it doesn't exist. Which is a strangely twisted conclusion. And here's one expression of this absurdity:

'Facts only exist in the context of entities capable of asserting factuality.'

So I think that being known is not a necessary condition for being a fact - and the dictionary definition is confused and confusing. For example, we perfectly coherently say that we don't know all the facts. And when we do know them, we'd never say those facts didn't exist before we knew them.

And here, a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. Or the expression 'state-of-affairs' has often been used instead.

We have gone through this a 'million' times.

I argued,
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
1. The FSRK-ed sense - realistic
2. The independent of human senses -illusory [yours]

There is no fact without it being grounded upon an embodied human-based FSRK.

A dictionary meaning of 'what is fact' is too limited.

A better one should be a philosophical one, say from WIKI.
I have also quoted this a 'million' times.

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance.[1] Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic [FSRK] fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical [FSRK] fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical [FSRK] facts. Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion

The above facts do not have any credibility or objectivity without being grounded in their respective FSRK [with its constitution and all necessary conditions].

Your 'what is fact' is merely a linguistic [FSRK] fact.

[Peter Holmes]

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance.[1] Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means...

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion

Agreed. VA's go-to quotation above is correct. So the FSRK theory is incorrect.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance.[1] Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means...

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion

Agreed. VA's go-to quotation above is correct. So the FSRK theory is incorrect.

Why do you ignore the other points?
If you are intellectually honest, you would have justified why you omit those points therein.

FSK-ed facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion of subject[s] but conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects. Thus what is factual and objective is intersubjective at the meta-level.
The is no way what is fact and objectivity can be absolutely independent of the human factor, unless you claim to be a God.

[Peter Holmes]

Agreed. VA's go-to quotation above is correct. So the FSRK theory is incorrect.

Why do you ignore the other points?
If you are intellectually honest, you would have justified why you omit those points therein.

I can't be bothered to keep showing you why you're wrong. You just ignore the explanations and repeat the falsehoods.

FSK-ed facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion of subject[s] but conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects.

1 Now, let this sink in: 'FSK-ed facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion of subject[s]...'
From now on, you must never claim that the object (reality/fact) exists only in interaction with the subject. If you do, your intellectual dishonesty will be glaringly evident.

2 There is no substantial difference between the beliefs, knowledge and opinions of one subject - and those of many or even all subjects - which is why you write 'subject[s]' in your admission above. And introducing conditioning 'upon [sic] a collective-of-subjects' makes no difference, because you've DEFINED FSK-ed facts as independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion of subject[s].

This explanation will make absolutely no difference to you, because you aren't in the business of finding the truth. You just want to peddle your wretched theory.