What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Kant: 'Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.'

Those are not the words of a philosophical anti-realist. But Kant's invention of noumena - things-in-themselves - was a disastrous mistake, with catastrophic consequences for philosophy ever since. And VA's intellectual derangement is just one example of the damage done.

You are ignorant with the above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical realism – 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.

Realists [philosophical] tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[10] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.
Today it [philosophical realism] is more often contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.[11][12]

Kant: 'Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.'
The "within me" cannot fit in with philosophical realism's mind independent existence, so it cannot be realist.
So Kant's ".. the moral law within me" has to be antirealist.

I have argued, your fact, i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, state of affairs that is absolutely independent of the human subject's opinion, beliefs and judgment is literally the thing-in-itself that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Your fact is thus a fact-in-itself, i.e. it has no relation to humans whatsoever
How can you deny that?
Show me your argument why it is not so?

PH's (et. al.) Thing [fact] is a Thing-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?t=42433

Show me how the universe - the facts of reality - before humans evolved - had anything whatsoever to do with humans. You know damn well that this is nonsense, but you've been mind-warped by Kant's stupid 'thing-in-itself' fiction.

Please try to understand and address the following:

If there can be no things-in-themselves, then the claim that humans can't know things-in-themselves is fatuous.

[Peter Holmes]

Progress, perhaps. Elsewhere, VA concedes the following:

'The reality is there can be only relative things-as-they-appear-to-rabbits, bats, reptiles, ... and man.'

So, humans are de-centred, correctly. But then, the crunch comes:

'There are no absolutely independent things that is or should be the same for all living things.'

The next question is this - and maybe the penny will drop for VA:

Why conclude that rabbits, bats, reptiles ... and humans are in different realities? What evidence is there that this is the case? Is it not more rational to conclude that there is one reality, which can be perceived, known and (at least by humans) described differently?

VA can't afford to concede this, because it demolishes philosophical anti-realism. And this is VA's psychological problem - mainly to do with the embarrassment of realising that you've been suckered - with which I sympathise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant: 'Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.'

Those are not the words of a philosophical anti-realist. But Kant's invention of noumena - things-in-themselves - was a disastrous mistake, with catastrophic consequences for philosophy ever since. And VA's intellectual derangement is just one example of the damage done.

You are ignorant with the above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical realism – 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.

Realists [philosophical] tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[10] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.
Today it [philosophical realism] is more often contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.[11][12]

Kant: 'Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.'
The "within me" cannot fit in with philosophical realism's mind independent existence, so it cannot be realist.
So Kant's ".. the moral law within me" has to be antirealist.

I have argued, your fact, i.e. a feature of reality that is the case, state of affairs that is absolutely independent of the human subject's opinion, beliefs and judgment is literally the thing-in-itself that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Your fact is thus a fact-in-itself, i.e. it has no relation to humans whatsoever
How can you deny that?
Show me your argument why it is not so?

PH's (et. al.) Thing [fact] is a Thing-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?t=42433

Show me how the universe - the facts of reality - before humans evolved - had anything whatsoever to do with humans. You know damn well that this is nonsense, but you've been mind-warped by Kant's stupid 'thing-in-itself' fiction.

I have already addressed this many times.
see:
VA believes in an Independent External Reality
viewtopic.php?t=42369&sid=f7d3b450f2525 ... 85a39bec07

I stated, within the common sense and conventional sense,
I agree there was a universe before there were humans.

But this immature common sense and conventional sense trigger loads of philosophical dilemma when deliberated at a higher more refined sense.
Note the problem of skepticism.
The antirealists has valid alternative views.

If you have been into philosophy reasonably you should have been aware of the antirealists counter and that you don't have an answer to the antirealist counter because your counter is grounded on an illusion.
see:
PH's Realism[Philosophical] is Circular
viewtopic.php?t=42538&sid=5d173f4fdae50 ... dd586fee88

I have raised many other threads to argue your basis of reality is grounded on an illusion.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

I believe in relative Independent External Reality but only from the common and conventional sense, but not in the ultimate sense.

On the other hand you believe in an absolute unconditional external reality as an ideology without compromise. This is delusional.
You have yet to provide convincing proof your absolute unconditional external reality is tenable?

Also, there is a serious psychological reason why you are clinging to the ideology of philosophical realism.
In addition I have argued there is no loss if you were to give up this ideological belief of philosophical realism. It is just an evolutionary default.

What's the Loss if P-Realism is Rejected?
viewtopic.php?t=42469

Please try to understand and address the following:

If there can be no things-in-themselves, then the claim that humans can't know things-in-themselves is fatuous.

I have also explained the above before.
Your above statement is a strawman.

I have never claimed "things-in-themselves cannot be known" in the real sense.
Knowing and knowledge is justified true belief within a FSERC.

A thing-in-itself is an impossibility to exists as real.
A thing-in-itself is an illusion and can never be real.
If it can never be real, there is no question of any attempt to justify to know it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Progress, perhaps. Elsewhere, VA concedes the following:

'The reality is there can be only relative things-as-they-appear-to-rabbits, bats, reptiles, ... and man.'

So, humans are de-centred, correctly. But then, the crunch comes:

'There are no absolutely independent things that is or should be the same for all living things.'

The next question is this - and maybe the penny will drop for VA:

Why conclude that rabbits, bats, reptiles ... and humans are in different realities?
What evidence is there that this is the case? Is it not more rational to conclude that there is one reality, which can be perceived, known and (at least by humans) described differently?

VA can't afford to concede this, because it demolishes philosophical anti-realism. And this is VA's psychological problem - mainly to do with the embarrassment of realising that you've been suckered - with which I sympathise.

Why conclude that rabbits, bats, reptiles ... and humans are in different realities?
What evidence is there that this is the case?

This is so evident based on evidences.
There are so many scientific experiments that conclude non-humans do not realize the same reality as humans do.

Is it not more rational to conclude that there is one reality, which can be perceived, known and (at least by humans) described differently?

It is not a matter of logical comfort.
It is matter of proof with evidence.
Where is your proof that there is one absolute independent external reality?
Note the challenge in this thread;

Realism[Philosophical] is Circular
viewtopic.php?t=42538

My claim that an absolute independent reality is not tenable while a relative independent reality is tenable is my claim starts and end with empirical evidence.
Your claim is based on inference [infer from observations] and not on a direct matter of fact, observations and empirical evidences.

You are so ignorant your philosophical realism of human independence is merely based on your thinking only and inferencing from observations.

My alternative approach is based on FSERC i.e. direct emergence and realization of reality and its subsequent perception, cognition and description.

[Peter Holmes]

Progress, perhaps. Elsewhere, VA concedes the following:

'The reality is there can be only relative things-as-they-appear-to-rabbits, bats, reptiles, ... and man.'

So, humans are de-centred, correctly. But then, the crunch comes:

'There are no absolutely independent things that is or should be the same for all living things.'

The next question is this - and maybe the penny will drop for VA:

Why conclude that rabbits, bats, reptiles ... and humans are in different realities?
What evidence is there that this is the case? Is it not more rational to conclude that there is one reality, which can be perceived, known and (at least by humans) described differently?

VA can't afford to concede this, because it demolishes philosophical anti-realism. And this is VA's psychological problem - mainly to do with the embarrassment of realising that you've been suckered - with which I sympathise.

Why conclude that rabbits, bats, reptiles ... and humans are in different realities?
What evidence is there that this is the case?

This is so evident based on evidences.
There are so many scientific experiments that conclude non-humans do not realize the same reality as humans do.

Now. Stop and think. This doesn't mean these creatures are in different realities. And there's no evidence that they are. Think. Look at the following non sequitur.

P Non-humans do not realise [?] the same reality as humans.
C Therefore, different species are in different realities.

This is a patently false and stupid conclusion.

Is it not more rational to conclude that there is one reality, which can be perceived, known and (at least by humans) described differently?

It is not a matter of logical comfort.
It is matter of proof with evidence.
Where is your proof that there is one absolute independent external reality?

Where is your proof that there isn't? The burden is yours.

Note the challenge in this thread;

Realism[Philosophical] is Circular
viewtopic.php?t=42538

My claim that an absolute independent reality is not tenable while a relative independent reality is tenable is my claim starts and end with empirical evidence.
Your claim is based on inference [infer from observations] and not on a direct matter of fact, observations and empirical evidences.

What? Empirical evidence comes from observation. And all the empirical evidence we have indicates that there is indeed one reality which can be experienced differently. That's where the credibility and reliability of natural science conclusions come from.

You are so ignorant your philosophical realism of human independence is merely based on your thinking only and inferencing from observations.

My alternative approach is based on FSERC i.e. direct emergence and realization of reality and its subsequent perception, cognition and description.

And wtf is the reality that 'emerges' and 'realises'? It's the reality that humans perceive, know and describe in human ways.

Your main premise is false.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Progress, perhaps. Elsewhere, VA concedes the following:
'The reality is there can be only relative things-as-they-appear-to-rabbits, bats, reptiles, ... and man.'
So, humans are de-centred, correctly. But then, the crunch comes:
'There are no absolutely independent things that is or should be the same for all living things.'
The next question is this - and maybe the penny will drop for VA:
Why conclude that rabbits, bats, reptiles ... and humans are in different realities?
What evidence is there that this is the case? Is it not more rational to conclude that there is one reality, which can be perceived, known and (at least by humans) described differently?

VA can't afford to concede this, because it demolishes philosophical anti-realism. And this is VA's psychological problem - mainly to do with the embarrassment of realising that you've been suckered - with which I sympathise.

This is so evident based on evidences.
There are so many scientific experiments that conclude non-humans do not realize the same reality as humans do.

Now. Stop and think. This doesn't mean these creatures are in different realities. And there's no evidence that they are. Think. Look at the following non sequitur.

P Non-humans do not realise [?] the same reality as humans.
C Therefore, different species are in different realities.

This is a patently false and stupid conclusion.

Yours is stupid in falsely accusing others are stupid.

Stop and THINK!

This doesn't mean these creatures are in different realities.
You are ignorant to have used "in" different realities.
Here you are presuming based on faith that is a reality that is the same for all without first proving there is such a reality.
You are just speculating and ASSUMING based on your personal experiences and faith as declared by others.

P Non-humans do not realise [?] the same reality as humans.
Obvious you do not understand what 'realize' means here.
Whatever is 'reality' to any living entity is based on whatever is realized from an emergence in relation to the inherent nature of the specific living entity.
So the reality realized is relative not absolute.

What is "water" is relative to the living entity's inherent nature in realizing that 'which humans realized, cognize and realized as water or H20'.
There is no 'water-in-itself' which exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

If you insist, demonstrate what is 'water-in-itself' precisely which exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Your basis is you are merely assuming that is a reality-in-itself, thus things-in-themselves and so, water-in-itself.

PH's Thing, Fact, Object is a Thing-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?t=42534

Is it not more rational to conclude that there is one reality, which can be perceived, known and (at least by humans) described differently?

It is not a matter of logical comfort.
It is matter of proof with evidence.
Where is your proof that there is one absolute independent external reality?

Where is your proof that there isn't? The burden is yours.

Note the challenge in this thread;

Realism[Philosophical] is Circular
viewtopic.php?t=42538

My claim that an absolute independent reality is not tenable while a relative independent reality is tenable is my claim starts and end with empirical evidence.
Your claim is based on inference [infer from observations] and not on a direct matter of fact, observations and empirical evidences.

What? Empirical evidence comes from observation. And all the empirical evidence we have indicates that there is indeed one reality which can be experienced differently. That's where the credibility and reliability of natural science conclusions come from.

There are two perspective to natural science, i.e.
1. Scientific antirealism -empirical FSERC human based
2. Scientific realism - absolute human & mind independent - delusional

You are relying [ideologically] on scientific realism which do not have an ultimate respect for empirical evidence but rather insist there is something very real beyond the empirical world, i.e. things-in-themselves which are absolutely independent of the empirical evidences.
As I had argued [with Kantian], things-in-themselves, noumena are at best illusory things.
As such your credibility and reliability of natural scientific conclusions are grounded on an illusion, i.e. delusional.

On the other hand, I am relying on,
1. Scientific antirealism -empirical FSERC human based,
where reality-as-it-is is realized and cognized as far as the empirical evidences can support which is reinforced with critical thinking and rationality.
I have any psychological insecurities to speculate and assume there is some thing [thing-by-itself] more real beyond the realized empirical world.

You are so ignorant your philosophical realism of human independence is merely based on your thinking only and inferencing from observations.
My alternative approach is based on FSERC i.e. direct emergence and realization of reality and its subsequent perception, cognition and description.

And wtf is the reality that 'emerges' and 'realises'? It's the reality that humans perceive, know and describe in human ways.
Your main premise is false.

I have already explained 'emergence' and realization of reality a 'million' times.

Note this and the related threads:
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

You have to suspend judgment and think very deep & wide on it.
BUT I don't expect you to understand [not agree] the above because you have a hardwired cognitive deficit in apprehending the reality of the above.
You need to give consideration to this psychological deficiency.

Btw, your cognitive limit and restraint is due to an evolutionary default [sense of external_ness] which is universal to all humans, so I am also infected with it and was actively grasping at in in the past as an ideology.
However, like many others, I have learned to modulate this evolution default impulse of absolute human independence and sense of external-ness/

[Peter Holmes]

VA has moved from anthropocentrism to biocentrism: reality can only be reality-as-it-appears-to-life-forms.

Questions. What was there before life evolved? From what did life evolve? Was it from reality-in-itself, which is an illusion? Or did life evolve from reality-as-it-appears-to-life-forms? Erm.

VA will keep twisting and turning in the fog of this silly Kantian anti-realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA has moved from anthropocentrism to biocentrism: reality can only be reality-as-it-appears-to-life-forms.

Questions. What was there before life evolved? From what did life evolve? Was it from reality-in-itself, which is an illusion? Or did life evolve from reality-as-it-appears-to-life-forms? Erm.

VA will keep twisting and turning in the fog of this silly Kantian anti-realism.

1. The furthest back with life is we can go is abiogenesis 3+ billion years ago.
2. Other than that it is the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.

There is no absolute reality & truths to 1 & 2.
The reality and truths of 1 & 2 are based on hindsight and speculations from the present as contingent upon specific human-based FSERC.
The reality & truths of 1 are contingent upon the collective-of-subjects within the science-biological FSERC.
The reality & truths of 2 is contingent upon the science-cosmological FSERC.

There is no way the reality & truth of 1&2 can be asserted without being contingent upon their respected human-based FSERC.
Therefore to insist the reality & truths of 1&2 is absolutely independent of the human condition is deductively invalid.

You think you can rely on natural science?
But natural science is merely a conjecture-polishing-mechanism not a 100% reality and truth determining thing.
Science as a conjecture-polishing-mechanism is contingent upon a collective-of-subjects in intersubjective consensus.

You act as if but you are not an omnipotent nor omniscient God to insist what you (& other humans) assert is absolute.
Thus it is only with humility and reservations that whatever is realized as real and asserted must inevitably be relative to the human conditions and not absolutely human independent.

As I had stated, I had been there long ago in thinking like you do now; such an evolutionary impulse is hardwired in me; but I have managed to cultivate modulators to manage such sense of maniac absolutism.

[Peter Holmes]

VA has moved from anthropocentrism to biocentrism: reality can only be reality-as-it-appears-to-life-forms.

Questions. What was there before life evolved? From what did life evolve? Was it from reality-in-itself, which is an illusion? Or did life evolve from reality-as-it-appears-to-life-forms? Erm.

VA will keep twisting and turning in the fog of this silly Kantian anti-realism.

1. The furthest back with life is we can go is abiogenesis 3+ billion years ago.
2. Other than that it is the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.

There is no absolute reality & truths to 1 & 2.
The reality and truths of 1 & 2 are based on hindsight and speculations from the present as contingent upon specific human-based FSERC.
The reality & truths of 1 are contingent upon the collective-of-subjects within the science-biological FSERC.
The reality & truths of 2 is contingent upon the science-cosmological FSERC.

There is no way the reality & truth of 1&2 can be asserted without being contingent upon their respected human-based FSERC.
Therefore to insist the reality & truths of 1&2 is absolutely independent of the human condition is deductively invalid.

You think you can rely on natural science?
But natural science is merely a conjecture-polishing-mechanism not a 100% reality and truth determining thing.
Science as a conjecture-polishing-mechanism is contingent upon a collective-of-subjects in intersubjective consensus.

You act as if but you are not an omnipotent nor omniscient God to insist what you (& other humans) assert is absolute.
Thus it is only with humility and reservations that whatever is realized as real and asserted must inevitably be relative to the human conditions and not absolutely human independent.

As I had stated, I had been there long ago in thinking like you do now; such an evolutionary impulse is hardwired in me; but I have managed to cultivate modulators to manage such sense of maniac absolutism.

There's no point repeating that life forms have to perceive, know and (in the case of humans) describe reality in differently limited ways. This is trivially true. Nobody disagrees. But we're not talking about the assertion or description of reality.

Please answer these questions, without deflection.

1 What was there before life evolved?
2 From what did life evolve?
3 Did life evolve from reality-in-itself, which is an illusion?
4 Did life evolve from reality-as-it-appears-to-life-forms?

[Veritas Aequitas]

........

There's no point repeating that life forms have to perceive, know and (in the case of humans) describe reality in differently limited ways. This is trivially true. Nobody disagrees. But we're not talking about the assertion or description of reality.

Please answer these questions, without deflection.

1 What was there before life evolved?
2 From what did life evolve?
3 Did life evolve from reality-in-itself, which is an illusion?
4 Did life evolve from reality-as-it-appears-to-life-forms?

I stated we have to deal the above from various perspectives, mainly;

P1. The common sense and conventional sense perspective,
P2. The more rigorous higher perspectives of reality,

For example in Physics,
P1. Classical Physics - Newtonian, Einsteinian
P2. QM perspective.

From the Common and Conventional Sense perspectives, the answers would be;

• 1 What was there before life evolved?
  No life, just the physical universe.
  
  2 From what did life evolve?
  Note I mentioned abiogenesis from the then existing physical universe.
  
  3 Did life evolve from reality-in-itself, which is an illusion?
  Reality-in-itself not applicable to this perspective
  
  4 Did life evolve from reality-as-it-appears-to-life-forms?
  Yes, via abiogenesis

From the higher more refined perspectives, the answers would be;

• 1 What was there before life evolved?
  There was no life, just the physical universe but this cannot be an absolute conclusion.
  In addition, there was no absolutely human independent physical life or non-human life before there were humans.
  
  2 From what did life evolve?
  Note I mentioned abiogenesis from the then existing physical universe.
  But this statement is not absolutely human independent.
  
  3 Did life evolve from reality-in-itself, which is an illusion?
  This is a non-starter because reality-in-itself when claimed as real is an illusion.
  
  4 Did life evolve from reality-as-it-appears-to-life-forms?
  Yes, via abiogenesis
  But this statement is not absolutely human independent.

The main contention is,
There are two senses of reality:
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The antirealists FSERC sense of reality
2. The philosophical realists' human independent reality - delusional sense.

Like all humans, I adopt and believe in the common sense and convention sense perspective, but I do not grasp onto to it ideologically and dogmatically as YOU & the philosophical realists are doing without compromise.

As I had argued, you are psychologically stuck with the Philosophical Realism perspective ideologically and dogmatically, thus unable to think critically of the more realistic antirealist [Kantian & like] perspective.

You are stuck and unable to free yourself from the prejudices of the 'practical' [or vulgar*] men to do philosophy-proper as Russell stated below; * archive.,

But further, if we are not to fail in our endeavour to determine the value of philosophy, we must first free our minds from the prejudices of what are wrongly called 'practical' men.
The 'practical' man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind.
If all men were well off, if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society; and even in the existing world the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body. It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.

[Peter Holmes]

........

There's no point repeating that life forms have to perceive, know and (in the case of humans) describe reality in differently limited ways. This is trivially true. Nobody disagrees. But we're not talking about the assertion or description of reality.

Please answer these questions, without deflection.

1 What was there before life evolved?
2 From what did life evolve?
3 Did life evolve from reality-in-itself, which is an illusion?
4 Did life evolve from reality-as-it-appears-to-life-forms?

I stated we have to deal the above from various perspectives, mainly;

P1. The common sense and conventional sense perspective,
P2. The more rigorous higher perspectives of reality,

For example in Physics,
P1. Classical Physics - Newtonian, Einsteinian
P2. QM perspective.

From the Common and Conventional Sense perspectives, the answers would be;

• 1 What was there before life evolved?
  No life, just the physical universe.
  
  2 From what did life evolve?
  Note I mentioned abiogenesis from the then existing physical universe.
  
  3 Did life evolve from reality-in-itself, which is an illusion?
  Reality-in-itself not applicable to this perspective
  
  4 Did life evolve from reality-as-it-appears-to-life-forms?
  Yes, via abiogenesis

From the higher more refined perspectives, the answers would be;

• 1 What was there before life evolved?
  There was no life, just the physical universe but this cannot be an absolute conclusion.
  In addition, there was no absolutely human independent physical life or non-human life before there were humans.
  
  2 From what did life evolve?
  Note I mentioned abiogenesis from the then existing physical universe.
  But this statement is not absolutely human independent.
  
  3 Did life evolve from reality-in-itself, which is an illusion?
  This is a non-starter because reality-in-itself when claimed as real is an illusion.
  
  4 Did life evolve from reality-as-it-appears-to-life-forms?
  Yes, via abiogenesis
  But this statement is not absolutely human independent.

The main contention is,
There are two senses of reality:
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The antirealists FSERC sense of reality
2. The philosophical realists' human independent reality - delusional sense.

Like all humans, I adopt and believe in the common sense and convention sense perspective, but I do not grasp onto to it ideologically and dogmatically as YOU & the philosophical realists are doing without compromise.

As I had argued, you are psychologically stuck with the Philosophical Realism perspective ideologically and dogmatically, thus unable to think critically of the more realistic antirealist [Kantian & like] perspective.

You are stuck and unable to free yourself from the prejudices of the 'practical' [or vulgar*] men to do philosophy-proper as Russell stated below; * archive.,

But further, if we are not to fail in our endeavour to determine the value of philosophy, we must first free our minds from the prejudices of what are wrongly called 'practical' men.
The 'practical' man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind.
If all men were well off, if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society; and even in the existing world the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body. It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.

Here's your argument.

Premise: The perception, knowledge and (in the case of humans) description of reality cannot be absolutely independent from the the life form that perceives, knows and (in the case of humans) describes reality.

Conclusion: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from the life forms that perceive, know and (in the case of humans) describe reality.

This conclusion is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from the premise. And your 'higher, more refined perspective' merely muddles things up. For example:

'...there was no absolutely human independent physical life or non-human life before there were humans.'

This is simply false. Physical - including biological - things before humans evolved were absolutely independent from humans. By definition.

You keep saying this: 'But this statement is not absolutely human independent.' 'But this statement is not absolutely human independent.' But of course it isn't. It's a human statement. And we're talking about the features of reality or facts that some humans statements are about.

You mistake the description for the described, then say that, because descriptions are human, the described can't be absolutely independent from humans. It's mind-bogglingly stupid.

Oh, and Russell was a well-meaning twat, in my opinion, whose old-fashioned classical empiricism was demolished by the turn to language - particularly by the later Wittgenstein.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's your argument.

Premise: The perception, knowledge and (in the case of humans) description of reality cannot be absolutely independent from the the life form that perceives, knows and (in the case of humans) describes reality.

Conclusion: Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from the life forms that perceive, know and (in the case of humans) describe reality.

This conclusion is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from the premise.

I have been arguing with the concept of emergence and realization of reality prior to perception, cognition [knowing] and describing of reality a 'million' times.
I know you disagree with it, but your deliberate ignoring of it and argued with that omission [critical to me] tantamount to strawmanning.

I have already raised a few threads to explain my position re emergence and realization of reality.
What else can I do to ensure you do not ignore or omit my points when you are countering my arguments?

This conclusion is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from the premise. And your 'higher, more refined perspective' merely muddles things up. For example:

'...there was no absolutely human independent physical life or non-human life before there were humans.'

This is simply false. Physical - including biological - things before humans evolved were absolutely independent from humans. By definition.

You keep saying this: 'But this statement is not absolutely human independent.' 'But this statement is not absolutely human independent.' But of course it isn't. It's a human statement. And we're talking about the features of reality or facts that some humans statements are about.

You mistake the description for the described, then say that, because descriptions are human, the described can't be absolutely independent from humans. It's mind-bogglingly stupid.

You have very low intelligence [stupidity] in relation to philosophy, thus whatever that do not meet your expectations is regarded a stupid.
It is like an arrogant grade school pupil condemning Einstein as stupid in relation to the theory of relativity.

My argument is this:

1. Reality emerged and is realized as contingent within human conditions.
(As proven by Kant in the CPR, there is no such things and things-by-themselves and pre-existing before there were humans. In addition, there are and I have presented loads of counter arguments to support this thesis)*.
2. Upon emergence and realization of reality within human conditions, reality is cognized, known and described by humans.
3. Therefore, that which is cognized, known and described by humans cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

* here is a later one,
QM: Objective Reality May Not Exists At ALL
viewtopic.php?t=42550

This is simply false. Physical - including biological - things before humans evolved were absolutely independent from humans. By definition.

Defining is not proof.
Your above is simply as assertion based on faith and intuition but it is without rational proof.
Note 'before' and 'after' are time-based concepts and time is not something that is not absolutely human-mind independent.
As such, your claim of absolute human-mind independent reality is something that is impossible to speak of, thereof you must remain silent, re Wittgenstein.

On the other hand, the antirealist [Kantian] human-based framework and system [FS] based on empirical evidence [& critical thinking] is something one can speak-of as qualified to the specific human-based FS. Thus there is no prohibition to prevent one from 'speaking' about it.

You mistake the description for the described, then say that, because descriptions are human, the described can't be absolutely independent from humans. It's mind-bogglingly stupid.

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715
You are stupid in ignoring and misrepresenting my views.
This is the > 'million' times.

Oh, and Russell was a well-meaning twat, in my opinion, whose old-fashioned classical empiricism was demolished by the turn to language - particularly by the later Wittgenstein.

Wittgenstein did not agree with Russell with his atomistic language theory, but W would have agreed with Russell on the issue of those who do not philosophize effectively, i.e. they are like flies stuck in a fly bottle and other worst criticisms of the like.

Btw, I have argued, the later Wittgenstein did not agree with your philosophical realism view that there are facts, features of reality that exists regardless whether there are human or not.
The later W asserted whatever is reality is contingent upon the specific human based language-games, i.e. linguistic framework and systems.
There is NOTHING beyond it, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.
On the contrary, you cannot remain silent with regards to "facts, features of reality that exists regardless whether there are human or not."

Your "fact that exists regardless whether there are human or not" implied there is something beyond humans.
But whatever is beyond humans is something one cannot speak of, thus one must be silent about it.
But you choose not to remain silent against W's advice.

[Peter Holmes]

My argument is this:

1. Reality emerged and is realized as contingent within human conditions.

This is false.

1 The universe evolved for billions of years before life - and only very recently human life - appeared.
2 You've immediately forgotten that it's not humans but life forms. Reality emerged and is realised as contingent within bacterial/canine/human (etc) conditions.
3 You have fixed on a mystical mantra that begs the question.

P Reality emerged and is realised as contingent within the life form (eg human) conditions.
C Therefore, [the emergence and realisation of] reality depends on life forms (eg humans).

This is not an argument. It's the re-statement of a premise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My argument is this:

1. Reality emerged and is realized as contingent within human conditions.

This is false.

1 The universe evolved for billions of years before life - and only very recently human life - appeared.
2 You've immediately forgotten that it's not humans but life forms. Reality emerged and is realised as contingent within bacterial/canine/human (etc) conditions.

I had stated I can agree with you on 1 based on the common and conventional sense.
While I accept it only relatively, you insist upon it as an ideological absolute without compromise.
The above are confirmed by the HUMAN-BASED science cosmological FSERC on the Big Bang and science biology FSERC on abiogenesis and emergence of human life not too long ago.

But there is a problem:
Science is not about confirming any ontological.
Science is merely a conjecture-polishing-machine.
Science produces polished-conjectures for human to convert to whatever pragmatic utilities based on its predictive power.

So science produce,
"The universe evolved for billions of years before life - and only very recently human life - appeared" but this at best a polished conjecture, it cannot confirm with 100% certainty that the above claim is absolutely real.
As such whatever science polishes, it cannot confirm that things verified and justified by a human-based scientific FSERC represent an absolutely human-mind independent thing that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Seriously, no matter how much you insist on your 'what is fact' it just does not jive with reality at all in the absolute sense or with certainty. There cannot be any thing that exists absolutely independent of the human conditions and exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Your claim just do not make rational sense.
You insisting upon your human independent reality based on faith to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances.

On the other hand, my FSERC based reality is realistic, it claim whatever is reality as far as the empirical evidences can support it and do not speculate nor assume there is something real beyond the empirical reality.

3 You have fixed on a mystical mantra that begs the question.

Your argument is circular i.e. you presume based on faith there is a reality out there awaiting discovery. There is a Reality-GAP and veil of perception.
Re Meno -Paradox, how can you be absolutely sure what you discovered and described is exactly what is supposed to be that absolutely independent fact.
You deny correspondence but there is subliminal correspondence and mirroring in your claim, i.e. you have to match what is discovered [known and described] with the-described.
You are the one who is chasing the mystical mantra beyond the empirical world, the Mystical-Described that supposed fit with your description [rickety polishing machine] of it.

P1 Reality emerged and is realised as contingent within the life form (eg human) conditions.
C Therefore, [the emergence and realisation of] reality depends on life forms (eg humans).
This is not an argument. It's the re-statement of a premise.

As I had stated I had already explained and justified P1 in detail. You just do not have the intellectual & cognitive competence to grasp [not necessary agree with] it.

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

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

Can you paraphrase your understanding of what I wrote above so I can guide you to understand [not agree with] my point to avoid strawmanning.

[Peter Holmes]

My argument is this:

1. Reality emerged and is realized as contingent within human conditions.

This is false.

1 The universe evolved for billions of years before life - and only very recently human life - appeared.
2 You've immediately forgotten that it's not humans but life forms. Reality emerged and is realised as contingent within bacterial/canine/human (etc) conditions.

I had stated I can agree with you on 1 based on the common and conventional sense.
While I accept it only relatively, you insist upon it as an ideological absolute without compromise.
The above are confirmed by the HUMAN-BASED science cosmological FSERC on the Big Bang and science biology FSERC on abiogenesis and emergence of human life not too long ago.

But there is a problem:
Science is not about confirming any ontological.
Science is merely a conjecture-polishing-machine.
Science produces polished-conjectures for human to convert to whatever pragmatic utilities based on its predictive power.

So science produce,
"The universe evolved for billions of years before life - and only very recently human life - appeared" but this at best a polished conjecture, it cannot confirm with 100% certainty that the above claim is absolutely real.
As such whatever science polishes, it cannot confirm that things verified and justified by a human-based scientific FSERC represent an absolutely human-mind independent thing that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

You keep making the same mistake. You correctly assert the provisional nature of scientific conclusions about reality. And you correctly conclude that this means we can never be certain about those conclusions.

But then you conclude that there can be no reality beyond our provisional conclusions. And that doesn't follow. Philosophical realism is not the claim of absolute certainty that you insist it must be. This is your straw man - which you must have, to sustain your silly anti-realism.

Seriously, no matter how much you insist on your 'what is fact' it just does not jive with reality at all in the absolute sense or with certainty. There cannot be any thing that exists absolutely independent of the human conditions and exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Your claim just do not make rational sense.
You insisting upon your human independent reality based on faith to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances.

On the other hand, my FSERC based reality is realistic, it claim whatever is reality as far as the empirical evidences can support it and do not speculate nor assume there is something real beyond the empirical reality.

3 You have fixed on a mystical mantra that begs the question.

Your argument is circular i.e. you presume based on faith there is a reality out there awaiting discovery. There is a Reality-GAP and veil of perception.
Re Meno -Paradox, how can you be absolutely sure what you discovered and described is exactly what is supposed to be that absolutely independent fact.
You deny correspondence but there is subliminal correspondence and mirroring in your claim, i.e. you have to match what is discovered [known and described] with the-described.
You are the one who is chasing the mystical mantra beyond the empirical world, the Mystical-Described that supposed fit with your description [rickety polishing machine] of it.

P1 Reality emerged and is realised as contingent within the life form (eg human) conditions.
C Therefore, [the emergence and realisation of] reality depends on life forms (eg humans).
This is not an argument. It's the re-statement of a premise.

As I had stated I had already explained and justified P1 in detail. You just do not have the intellectual & cognitive competence to grasp [not necessary agree with] it.

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

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

Can you paraphrase your understanding of what I wrote above so I can guide you to understand [not agree with] my point to avoid strawmanning.

I've been doing little but explain the silliness of your argument to you for ages. There's no point.