What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

The ChatGPT gives the accurate definition

Does indirect realism assume mind to be intermediary between the perceiver and the external world, in the sense that the perceiver isn't a part of the mind?

Indirect realism, also known as representative realism or epistemological dualism, posits that we do not perceive the external world directly. Instead, we perceive it indirectly through mental representations or intermediaries, which stand between the perceiver and the external world. This theory implies that what we are directly aware of are these mental representations (ideas, images, or sense data), and not the external objects themselves.

Regarding the role of the mind and the perceiver in indirect realism, the theory generally treats the mind as the locus where these representations occur. Here are some key points to clarify this relationship:

Mind as an Intermediary: In indirect realism, the mind acts as an intermediary because it processes and represents external objects through mental representations. These representations are the immediate objects of perception.

Perceiver and the Mind: The perceiver is considered to be the conscious agent or the subject who experiences these mental representations. In many philosophical discussions, particularly those following Descartes, the perceiver is identified with the mind itself, implying that the perceiver is not separate from the mind. Rather, the perceiver (or the self) is an integral part of the mind.

External World vs. Mental Representations: Indirect realism maintains a distinction between the external world (which exists independently of the perceiver) and the mental representations (which are dependent on the mind of the perceiver). The external world causes these mental representations, but we only have direct access to the latter.

Causal Relationship: There is a causal relationship posited between the external objects and the mental representations. The external objects affect our sensory organs, which then lead to the formation of mental representations in our minds.

To summarize, indirect realism assumes that the perceiver is part of the mind, or more precisely, that the perceiver is the conscious aspect of the mind that engages with mental representations. The mind, acting as an intermediary, processes external stimuli into these representations, which the perceiver then experiences. Thus, the perceiver and the mind are not distinct entities; rather, the perceiver is a function or aspect of the mind itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whoa. Who says that existence has anything to do with the existence of the mind? I think existence is physical or nothing. And if the mind and perception are physical, then the claim that perception has to be 'indirect' is incoherent. So we can ignore the direct/indirect realism issue.

As an antirealist [Kantian] I do not agree with both direct and indirect realism where both assume an absolutely mind-human-independent reality out there.

You claim to reject the direct/indirect realism dichotomy.

However, you do claim there is an absolutely human independent reality out there which exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

My question is how and what mechanisms & processes do you perceive, cognize, and know that reality or any feature of that reality that supposedly is absolutely human independent?
If you deny there is mind-supervene-on-brain and self, are you merely relying only on your physical brain to perceive, cognize, and know that reality?

Note a person in a certain state of coma still have an active physical brain, but he cannot perceive, cognize, and know that reality or any feature of that reality that supposedly is absolutely human independent?

[Atla]

I think Kant would be an indirect realist too today. Even someone as smug as he wouldn't be able to ignore the mountain of evidence for this view.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no way Kant was or would have been an Indirect Realist.

Kant was the founder and introduced the term 'realism' into philosophy.
To Kant, both direct realism and indirect realism [absolutely mind-independent reality] are taboo to him.

Abstract
Realism takes many forms.
The aim of this paper is to show that the “Critique of pure Reason” is the founding document of realism and that to the present-day Kant’s discussion of realism has shaped the theoretical landscape of the debates over realism.
Kant not only invents the now common philosophical term ‘realism’. He also lays out the theoretical topography of the forms of realism that still frames our understanding of philosophical questions concerning reality.

Kant and the forms of realism
Dietmar Heidemann
file:///C:/Users/LC/Downloads/s11229-019-02502-4.pdf

[FlashDangerpants]

I think Kant would be an indirect realist too today. Even someone as smug as he wouldn't be able to ignore the mountain of evidence for this view.

You have to explicitly tell VA that you are re-using his Hume is/ought argument to mock him. He's too autistic to just pick up on that as subtext.

[Atla]

That's just semantics. Kant came up with empirical realism vs transcendental realism, and both of those views are wrong. Mind-dependent reality is wrong, mind-independent reality is wrong, transcendental idealism is wrong.

Indirect realism isn't really realism, it would be better if it wasn't called "realism" at all imo. It just means epistemological dualism, which is not a fundamental metaphysical dualism.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's VA's Kantian scenario.

A bunch of transcendental egos sit around in illusory bodies, emitting illusory farts from the illusory decomposition in their illusory guts of a remarkably good but sadly illusory dinner, talking to each illusory other using illusory language, and coming to the illusory intersubjective consensus opinion that the illusory oblate spheroid earth orbits the illusory sun.

And all this silliness is supposedly justified by the silly distinction, which Kant simultaneously invoked and denied, between noumena and phenomena.

If there are no noumena, but only phenomena, then there's no perspective from which to conclude that there are no noumena, but only phenomena. Unless, of course, there's a transcendental ego which must be - oh dear - a noumenon.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's VA's Kantian scenario.

A bunch of transcendental egos sit around in illusory bodies, emitting illusory farts from the illusory decomposition in their illusory guts of a remarkably good but sadly illusory dinner, talking to each illusory other using illusory language, and coming to the illusory intersubjective consensus opinion that the illusory oblate spheroid earth orbits the illusory sun.

And all this silliness is supposedly justified by the silly distinction, which Kant simultaneously invoked and denied, between noumena and phenomena.

If there are no noumena, but only phenomena, then there's no perspective from which to conclude that there are no noumena, but only phenomena. Unless, of course, there's a transcendental ego which must be - oh dear - a noumenon.

Blabbering and no proper arguments?

btw, Kant is is recognized as one of the Greatest of ALL Time Western philosophers.
To condemn Kant "his is barely disguised mysticism or magical thinking" merely insults your own intelligence and intellectual integrity.

As a very rough indicator
A google search for "Kant" [not a common name] showed
About 152,000,000 results (0.32 seconds)
I don't think you get that many for analytic philosophers,
e.g. "Wittgenstein"
27,000,000 results (0.52 seconds)

[Peter Holmes]

Here's VA's Kantian scenario.

A bunch of transcendental egos sit around in illusory bodies, emitting illusory farts from the illusory decomposition in their illusory guts of a remarkably good but sadly illusory dinner, talking to each illusory other using illusory language, and coming to the illusory intersubjective consensus opinion that the illusory oblate spheroid earth orbits the illusory sun.

And all this silliness is supposedly justified by the silly distinction, which Kant simultaneously invoked and denied, between noumena and phenomena.

If there are no noumena, but only phenomena, then there's no perspective from which to conclude that there are no noumena, but only phenomena. Unless, of course, there's a transcendental ego which must be - oh dear - a noumenon.

Blabbering and no proper arguments?

btw, Kant is is recognized as one of the Greatest of ALL Time Western philosophers.
To condemn Kant "his is barely disguised mysticism or magical thinking" merely insults your own intelligence and intellectual integrity.

As a very rough indicator
A google search for "Kant" [not a common name] showed
About 152,000,000 results (0.32 seconds)
I don't think you get that many for analytic philosophers,
e.g. "Wittgenstein"
27,000,000 results (0.52 seconds)

Well. Plato was a much greater philosopher than Kant. So there. Check out the number of hits for Plato. And Plato was completely and disastrously wrong, just like Kant. Ner, ner, na-ner, ner.

Now, answer this question: If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

Or consider this: If there are no things-in-themselves, then appearances are not appearances of things-in-themselves.

Or try this: What does a transcendental ego transcend?

You haven't begun to think critically about this Kantian nonsense. You've just swallowed the mysticism and magical thinking because, well 'Kant is a great philosopher', so he must have been right.

[Atla]

Try explaining to an anti-realist Muslim that Allah doesn't exist. You can only try to do that in realism by pointing out that you can find rocks and trees and such in the external world, but you can't find Allah.

But once everything is in illusory limbo, and we decide things by intersubjective consensus, Muslims will always agree by intersubjective consensus that Allah is real. VA, second prophet of Islam.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's VA's Kantian scenario.

A bunch of transcendental egos sit around in illusory bodies, emitting illusory farts from the illusory decomposition in their illusory guts of a remarkably good but sadly illusory dinner, talking to each illusory other using illusory language, and coming to the illusory intersubjective consensus opinion that the illusory oblate spheroid earth orbits the illusory sun.

And all this silliness is supposedly justified by the silly distinction, which Kant simultaneously invoked and denied, between noumena and phenomena.

If there are no noumena, but only phenomena, then there's no perspective from which to conclude that there are no noumena, but only phenomena. Unless, of course, there's a transcendental ego which must be - oh dear - a noumenon.

Blabbering and no proper arguments?

btw, Kant is recognized as one of the Greatest of ALL Time Western philosophers.
To condemn Kant "his is barely disguised mysticism or magical thinking" merely insults your own intelligence and intellectual integrity.

As a very rough indicator
A google search for "Kant" [not a common name] showed
About 152,000,000 results (0.32 seconds)
I don't think you get that many for analytic philosophers,
e.g. "Wittgenstein"
27,000,000 results (0.52 seconds)

Well. Plato was a much greater philosopher than Kant. So there. Check out the number of hits for Plato. And Plato was completely and disastrously wrong, just like Kant. Ner, ner, na-ner, ner.

Now, answer this question: If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

Or consider this: If there are no things-in-themselves, then appearances are not appearances of things-in-themselves.

Or try this: What does a transcendental ego transcend?

You haven't begun to think critically about this Kantian nonsense. You've just swallowed the mysticism and magical thinking because, well 'Kant is a great philosopher', so he must have been right.

I did not claim Kant is the absolute and ONLY but rather one of [among a few] the Greatest of ALL times.

I have stated many times [necessary for cases like this], I studied Kant for 3 years full sometime ago with continual research, reading, discuss and debates of Kant's philosophy.

If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

There are no real noumena that exist to be known.
What is phenomena is the reality or fact that is contingent upon a human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.
If you want to know the real phenomena of 'raining' refer to the science-FSERC.

Because of an evolutionary default, the majority will speculate there is something beyond the phenomena. Because it such a natural propensity to speculate the beyond, Kant agreed one can think of it but cannot take it as a real existence.
If the noumena is used, it can only be used in the negative sense but not as something real positively.

If there are no things-in-themselves, then appearances are not appearances of things-in-themselves.

Kant has a unique definition for 'appearance' which is different from the typical definition.
Whatever are appearances, they can be verified and justified by a human-based FSERC [science most credible]. There is no need for things-in-themselves when considering what is real and possible to be experience.

What does a transcendental ego transcend?

"By transcendental (a term that deserves special clarification) Kant means that his philosophical approach to knowledge transcends mere consideration of sensory evidence and requires an understanding of the mind's innate modes of processing that sensory evidence."

So the transcendental ego is merely an emerged state that is realized as real.
There where you realized you are real both physically and consciously.
There is nothing to transcend.
It is only the theists who believe their transcendental ego transcends to a soul that survives physical death.

Your ignorance above is due to your philosophical realism grounded on all illusion, i.e. believing in an absolutely human-independent reality out there existing regardless of whether there are humans or not.

As Kant warned, this is the illusion that will haunt you eternally.
This is why you will raise the above sort of questions despite me repeating them >a '1000' times.
You are like a kindi kid arguing with an adult that it is the Sun that moves from one side to another everyday.

[Atla]

By intersubjective consensus, the Quran will always be more credible than science. Thank you, second prophet, for your immortal contributions to Islamic world dominion.

[Peter Holmes]

Now, answer this question: If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

Or consider this: If there are no things-in-themselves, then appearances are not appearances of things-in-themselves.

Or try this: What does a transcendental ego transcend?

You haven't begun to think critically about this Kantian nonsense. You've just swallowed the mysticism and magical thinking because, well 'Kant is a great philosopher', so he must have been right.

I did not claim Kant is the absolute and ONLY but rather one of [among a few] the Greatest of ALL times.

Who cares? All that matters is the truth of premises and the validity of conclusions. And Kant premises are false, so his argument is unsound.

I have stated many times [necessary for cases like this], I studied Kant for 3 years full sometime ago with continual research, reading, discuss and debates of Kant's philosophy.

So what? You can't have thought critically about his ideas, because to do so is to dismiss them.

If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

There are no real noumena that exist to be known.
What is phenomena is the reality or fact that is contingent upon a human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.

Ah-ha! So here's the point of noumena: without them, there's no reason to say that things can only be things-as-they-appear-to-us - ie, phenomena. Think about it. If we abolish one pole of a dichotomy, it's no longer a dichotomy. The distinction vanishes - and Kant's argument collapses.

Because of an evolutionary default, the majority will speculate there is something beyond the phenomena. Because it such a natural propensity to speculate the beyond, Kant agreed one can think of it but cannot take it as a real existence.
If the noumena is used, it can only be used in the negative sense but not as something real positively.

This is nonsense. The majority do not 'speculate [that] there is something beyond the phenomena'. We don't need to, because we don't think of reality as phenomenal. Only philosophers lumbered by Platonic and Kantian (repackaged) delusions do that.

If there are no things-in-themselves, then appearances are not appearances of things-in-themselves.

Kant has a unique definition for 'appearance' which is different from the typical definition.
Whatever are appearances, they can be verified and justified by a human-based FSERC [science most credible]. There is no need for things-in-themselves when considering what is real and possible to be experience.

So an appearance is not an appearance. It's the thing-itself. But, oops. There are no things-themselves. (What a silly conceptual mess!)

What does a transcendental ego transcend?

"By transcendental (a term that deserves special clarification) Kant means that his philosophical approach to knowledge transcends mere consideration of sensory evidence and requires an understanding of the mind's innate modes of processing that sensory evidence."

Quite. Kant was a man of his time, philosophical training and religious upbringing. He didn't question the myth of the mind as a separate, non-physical substance, containing mental things and events. He just repackaged the mysticism and magical thinking, in an attempt to reconcile empiricism and rationalism.

So the transcendental ego is merely an emerged state that is realized as real.
There where you realized you are real both physically and consciously.
There is nothing to transcend.
It is only the theists who believe their transcendental ego transcends to a soul that survives physical death.

Nonsense. The fictional mind supposedly can and does 'transcend' 'mere sensory evidence'. You just said that. You're trying to get Kant off the hook that he very deliberately hung himself on.

Your ignorance above is due to your philosophical realism grounded on all illusion, i.e. believing in an absolutely human-independent reality out there existing regardless of whether there are humans or not.

As Kant warned, this is the illusion that will haunt you eternally.
This is why you will raise the above sort of questions despite me repeating them >a '1000' times.
You are like a kindi kid arguing with an adult that it is the Sun that moves from one side to another everyday.

What's strange and perplexing is how you've been turned inside out by Kant's silly argument. It's like talking to a devout religious believer. Nothing can be allowed to disturb the faith. Certainly not reasoned argument.

[Atla]

Now, answer this question: If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

Or consider this: If there are no things-in-themselves, then appearances are not appearances of things-in-themselves.

Or try this: What does a transcendental ego transcend?

You haven't begun to think critically about this Kantian nonsense. You've just swallowed the mysticism and magical thinking because, well 'Kant is a great philosopher', so he must have been right.

I did not claim Kant is the absolute and ONLY but rather one of [among a few] the Greatest of ALL times.

Who cares? All that matters is the truth of premises and the validity of conclusions. And Kant premises are false, so his argument is unsound.

I have stated many times [necessary for cases like this], I studied Kant for 3 years full sometime ago with continual research, reading, discuss and debates of Kant's philosophy.

So what? You can't have thought critically about his ideas, because to do so is to dismiss them.

If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

There are no real noumena that exist to be known.
What is phenomena is the reality or fact that is contingent upon a human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.

Ah-ha! So here's the point of noumena: without them, there's no reason to say that things can only be things-as-they-appear-to-us - ie, phenomena. Think about it. If we abolish one pole of a dichotomy, it's no longer a dichotomy. The distinction vanishes - and Kant's argument collapses.

Because of an evolutionary default, the majority will speculate there is something beyond the phenomena. Because it such a natural propensity to speculate the beyond, Kant agreed one can think of it but cannot take it as a real existence.
If the noumena is used, it can only be used in the negative sense but not as something real positively.

This is nonsense. The majority do not 'speculate [that] there is something beyond the phenomena'. We don't need to, because we don't think of reality as phenomenal. Only philosophers lumbered by Platonic and Kantian (repackaged) delusions do that.

If there are no things-in-themselves, then appearances are not appearances of things-in-themselves.

Kant has a unique definition for 'appearance' which is different from the typical definition.
Whatever are appearances, they can be verified and justified by a human-based FSERC [science most credible]. There is no need for things-in-themselves when considering what is real and possible to be experience.

So an appearance is not an appearance. It's the thing-itself. But, oops. There are no things-themselves. (What a silly conceptual mess!)

What does a transcendental ego transcend?

"By transcendental (a term that deserves special clarification) Kant means that his philosophical approach to knowledge transcends mere consideration of sensory evidence and requires an understanding of the mind's innate modes of processing that sensory evidence."

Quite. Kant was a man of his time, philosophical training and religious upbringing. He didn't question the myth of the mind as a separate, non-physical substance, containing mental things and events. He just repackaged the mysticism and magical thinking, in an attempt to reconcile empiricism and rationalism.

So the transcendental ego is merely an emerged state that is realized as real.
There where you realized you are real both physically and consciously.
There is nothing to transcend.
It is only the theists who believe their transcendental ego transcends to a soul that survives physical death.

Nonsense. The fictional mind supposedly can and does 'transcend' 'mere sensory evidence'. You just said that. You're trying to get Kant off the hook that he very deliberately hung himself on.

Your ignorance above is due to your philosophical realism grounded on all illusion, i.e. believing in an absolutely human-independent reality out there existing regardless of whether there are humans or not.

As Kant warned, this is the illusion that will haunt you eternally.
This is why you will raise the above sort of questions despite me repeating them >a '1000' times.
You are like a kindi kid arguing with an adult that it is the Sun that moves from one side to another everyday.

What's strange and perplexing is how you've been turned inside out by Kant's silly argument. It's like talking to a devout religious believer. Nothing can be allowed to disturb the faith. Certainly not reasoned argument.

Kant didn't view the mind as a separate, non-physical substance. Nor does indirect realism. Where do you have this random obsession from?

[Gary Childress]

I did not claim Kant is the absolute and ONLY but rather one of [among a few] the Greatest of ALL times.

Who cares? All that matters is the truth of premises and the validity of conclusions. And Kant premises are false, so his argument is unsound.

I have stated many times [necessary for cases like this], I studied Kant for 3 years full sometime ago with continual research, reading, discuss and debates of Kant's philosophy.

So what? You can't have thought critically about his ideas, because to do so is to dismiss them.

There are no real noumena that exist to be known.
What is phenomena is the reality or fact that is contingent upon a human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.

Ah-ha! So here's the point of noumena: without them, there's no reason to say that things can only be things-as-they-appear-to-us - ie, phenomena. Think about it. If we abolish one pole of a dichotomy, it's no longer a dichotomy. The distinction vanishes - and Kant's argument collapses.

Because of an evolutionary default, the majority will speculate there is something beyond the phenomena. Because it such a natural propensity to speculate the beyond, Kant agreed one can think of it but cannot take it as a real existence.
If the noumena is used, it can only be used in the negative sense but not as something real positively.

This is nonsense. The majority do not 'speculate [that] there is something beyond the phenomena'. We don't need to, because we don't think of reality as phenomenal. Only philosophers lumbered by Platonic and Kantian (repackaged) delusions do that.

Kant has a unique definition for 'appearance' which is different from the typical definition.
Whatever are appearances, they can be verified and justified by a human-based FSERC [science most credible]. There is no need for things-in-themselves when considering what is real and possible to be experience.

So an appearance is not an appearance. It's the thing-itself. But, oops. There are no things-themselves. (What a silly conceptual mess!)

"By transcendental (a term that deserves special clarification) Kant means that his philosophical approach to knowledge transcends mere consideration of sensory evidence and requires an understanding of the mind's innate modes of processing that sensory evidence."

Quite. Kant was a man of his time, philosophical training and religious upbringing. He didn't question the myth of the mind as a separate, non-physical substance, containing mental things and events. He just repackaged the mysticism and magical thinking, in an attempt to reconcile empiricism and rationalism.

So the transcendental ego is merely an emerged state that is realized as real.
There where you realized you are real both physically and consciously.
There is nothing to transcend.
It is only the theists who believe their transcendental ego transcends to a soul that survives physical death.

Nonsense. The fictional mind supposedly can and does 'transcend' 'mere sensory evidence'. You just said that. You're trying to get Kant off the hook that he very deliberately hung himself on.

Your ignorance above is due to your philosophical realism grounded on all illusion, i.e. believing in an absolutely human-independent reality out there existing regardless of whether there are humans or not.

As Kant warned, this is the illusion that will haunt you eternally.
This is why you will raise the above sort of questions despite me repeating them >a '1000' times.
You are like a kindi kid arguing with an adult that it is the Sun that moves from one side to another everyday.

What's strange and perplexing is how you've been turned inside out by Kant's silly argument. It's like talking to a devout religious believer. Nothing can be allowed to disturb the faith. Certainly not reasoned argument.

Kant didn't view the mind as a separate, non-physical substance. Nor does indirect realism. Where do you have this random obsession from?

As far as I'm aware it was Descartes who posited the idea of the mind being a separate non-physical "substance" distinct from the body. And, again, as far as I'm aware, the jury is still in deliberation as to whether that is the case or not.