Indirect Realism is Not Realistic

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well that's just hilarious. We spent years trying to make you understand that the word "absolute" isn't in the definition of realism. Then you said that "absolute" just means independent. Okay have it your way, use the word incorrectly then.

And now you come back and say that absolute does mean absolute, a fundamental, total, clear-cut seperation. NO THAT'S NOT WHAT REALISM SAYS BY DEFAULT.

What a fucking joke.

Hey mf.. since you are crazy with 'fucking'.
Suggest you don't start a tit-for-tat with this.

"We"?? don't make stupid arrogant and ignorant claim.

The term 'absolute' was raised by IWP loudly and others.
I have already explained many times why I used the term 'absolute'

Morality: Absolute vs Relative Mind Independence
viewtopic.php?t=40792

[Iwannaplato]

Well that's just hilarious. We spent years trying to make you understand that the word "absolute" isn't in the definition of realism. Then you said that "absolute" just means independent. Okay have it your way, use the word incorrectly then.

And now you come back and say that absolute does mean absolute, a fundamental, total, clear-cut seperation. NO THAT'S NOT WHAT REALISM SAYS BY DEFAULT.

He responds by saying he has explained all this, for example to me. Here was his explanation, then.

As an empirical realist I accept in one perspective reality and things are mind-independent, e.g. the oncoming train on the track I am standing on exists as a mind-independent thing, thus it rational I will jump off the train track ASAP.
If I don't think that way, then it is assume, the existence of the train is in my mind and thus I should be able to think it away, etc.
But this view of mind-independent is relative and conditioned upon my ANTI-Philosophical_Realism view which is cannot be mind-independent.

Since I am claiming my perspective of mind-independence as an empirical-realist is relative, i.e. conditional to my ANTI-Philosophical_Realism view, it is literally relative, thus it is relative mind-independence.

I bolded the key part, since it seems to be expIaining why, despite getting out of the way of trains, they are not absolutely independent of his mind. But it doesn't explain why it is relative, it states that it is.

It seems that often assertions are confused with justifications.

This then gets referred to as having explained something a thousand times, but it is not clear in those thousands of explanations. Nor is this unclear assertion justified.

[Gary Childress]

It is not a matter of not being put off by it.
I don't think anyone would deliberately anticipate an abortion.
I am sure, most if not all would wish they don't end up with an abortion that cost money, surgery, psychological impacts and all the related inconveniences.

Abortion is justified in theory to be immoral as a subset of the 'outghtnotness to kill humans' which include born and unborn.
If killing of humans and abortion is made universal, then that leave a possibility of the extinction of the human species.
This is why a fool-proofing [idiot proofing] restraint is necessary to avoid the slightest possibility. Fallible humans cannot be 100% sure, that will not happen.
But this is an ideal not something enforceable on individuals.

So does that make you a "realist", "indirect realist", "philosophical realist", or "anti-realist" with respect to the phenomenon of abortion?

Based on definition,
re epistemology I am ANTI-philosophical_realism, is an Empirical Realist.
re morality, I am a Moral Realist, i.e. moral facts [FSERC-ed] exist.
re science, I am scientific antirealism.

Am I then correct to interpret your position as being that you believe morals have mind independent existence but the objects of science and philosophy do not?

[Atla]

Well that's just hilarious. We spent years trying to make you understand that the word "absolute" isn't in the definition of realism. Then you said that "absolute" just means independent. Okay have it your way, use the word incorrectly then.

And now you come back and say that absolute does mean absolute, a fundamental, total, clear-cut seperation. NO THAT'S NOT WHAT REALISM SAYS BY DEFAULT.

What a fucking joke.

Hey mf.. since you are crazy with 'fucking'.
Suggest you don't start a tit-for-tat with this.

"We"?? don't make stupid arrogant and ignorant claim.

The term 'absolute' was raised by IWP loudly and others.
I have already explained many times why I used the term 'absolute'

Morality: Absolute vs Relative Mind Independence
viewtopic.php?t=40792

Bla bla bla how can you be so incompetent that after all these years you still have no idea what realism means? This is not normal. Why don't you come out with your learning disorder already.

[Atla]

Well that's just hilarious. We spent years trying to make you understand that the word "absolute" isn't in the definition of realism. Then you said that "absolute" just means independent. Okay have it your way, use the word incorrectly then.

And now you come back and say that absolute does mean absolute, a fundamental, total, clear-cut seperation. NO THAT'S NOT WHAT REALISM SAYS BY DEFAULT.

He responds by saying he has explained all this, for example to me. Here was his explanation, then.

As an empirical realist I accept in one perspective reality and things are mind-independent, e.g. the oncoming train on the track I am standing on exists as a mind-independent thing, thus it rational I will jump off the train track ASAP.
If I don't think that way, then it is assume, the existence of the train is in my mind and thus I should be able to think it away, etc.
But this view of mind-independent is relative and conditioned upon my ANTI-Philosophical_Realism view which is cannot be mind-independent.

Since I am claiming my perspective of mind-independence as an empirical-realist is relative, i.e. conditional to my ANTI-Philosophical_Realism view, it is literally relative, thus it is relative mind-independence.

I bolded the key part, since it seems to be expIaining why, despite getting out of the way of trains, they are not absolutely independent of his mind. But it doesn't explain why it is relative, it states that it is.

It seems that often assertions are confused with justifications.

This then gets referred to as having explained something a thousand times, but it is not clear in those thousands of explanations. Nor is this unclear assertion justified.

It doesn't matter if he explains it in 1000 pages that he confuses realism with Kant's transcendental realism, the end result is the same. He never had any idea what he was talking about.

[Atla]

.

Seriously you should print this one out and hang it up on the wall. Read it every day.

What are the problems with confusing philophical realism in general with Kant's transcendental realism?

Confusing philosophical realism in general with Kant's transcendental realism leads to several problems due to the distinct meanings and implications of each term within their respective philosophical contexts. Here are the key issues:

Misunderstanding the Nature of Reality:

Philosophical Realism: Generally, realism in philosophy asserts that there exists a reality independent of our perceptions, beliefs, and knowledge. Realists argue that objects, properties, and events exist irrespective of human thought or experience.
Kant's Transcendental Realism: For Kant, transcendental realism is a position he critiques, which holds that objects in themselves (noumena) are directly knowable and exist independently of our sensory experience and cognition. Kant contrasts this with transcendental idealism, his own view, which posits that while objects conform to our knowledge and perception, we can only know them as they appear to us (phenomena), not as they are in themselves (noumena).

Confusion in Epistemology:

Philosophical Realism: In a general sense, epistemological realism maintains that our knowledge attempts to describe the world as it is, and there is a correspondence between our beliefs and the external world.
Kant's Transcendental Realism: This form of realism is seen by Kant as an epistemological error because it assumes that our knowledge can extend to the noumenal world, which Kant argues is beyond the bounds of human cognition.

Errors in Metaphysical Assumptions:

Philosophical Realism: Metaphysical realism posits that the world and its constituents exist independently of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, or perceptual activities.
Kant's Transcendental Realism: From Kant's perspective, transcendental realism erroneously assumes that the categories and structures of the mind apply to things as they are in themselves, rather than only to phenomena.

Misinterpreting Kant's Critique:

Philosophical Realism: If one conflates general philosophical realism with Kant's transcendental realism, they might mistakenly believe that Kant is criticizing the broader notion of realism (i.e., that an independent reality exists).
Kant's Transcendental Realism: Kant’s critique is more specific; he is addressing the limitations of human cognition and arguing against the view that we can have direct knowledge of things as they are in themselves (noumena).

Impact on Kantian Interpretation:

Philosophical Realism: Misunderstanding the specific target of Kant's critique can lead to a misinterpretation of his entire philosophical project, including his Copernican Revolution, which reorients the relationship between the knower and the known.
Kant's Transcendental Realism: Properly understanding Kant's transcendental idealism and his critique of transcendental realism is crucial for grasping his epistemological and metaphysical arguments, particularly regarding the limits of human knowledge and the conditions of possibility for experience.

In summary, confusing philosophical realism in general with Kant's transcendental realism obscures the nuances of Kant's arguments, misrepresents his critique, and leads to misunderstandings about the nature of reality and our knowledge of it. Recognizing the distinctions between these concepts is essential for a clear and accurate comprehension of both Kantian philosophy and broader philosophical discussions on realism.

[seeds]

....I suggest that the moon is still there in the same way that the vivid dream you may have had last night is "still there" after you woke up this morning.

I suggest that the moon is still there in the same way that the actors, sound, and scenes in a movie on a DVD...

There are nuances to the above.

I have not deny in an absolute sense;
I agree the moon is not there when we do not look at it.

Right (at least according to certain interpretations of QM).

But the point I was making is that there is still "something" there when we're not looking...

(i.e., correlated patterns [fields] of energy and information)

...that most certainly exist independently from us humans (more specifically, independently from our minds).

However, that independence does not apply to our bodies.

The quantum fabric of our body is superpositionally entangled with the quantum fabric of, not only the moon, but the furthest stars in the furthest galaxies of the universe.

So, in that sense, we (again, our bodies) are indeed not separate from the moon.

At the quantum ("non-local") level of reality, our bodies exist in a state of "interpenetrating oneness" with all matter throughout the universe, and are inextricably tied to its inner being in the exact same way that our own thoughts and dreams are inextricably tied to our own inner being...



As is stated in the illustration above, our bodies literally have no reality on the other side of the all-encompassing outer barrier (or "film") of the closed bubble of our universe...



And, again, that does not apply to our minds, for they are not composed of the same substance that forms our bodies and the galaxies.

In other words, our minds are not composed of "measurable" physical matter.

And if you refuse to accept that, then I challenge you to provide me with a "measurement" (a mathematical representation) of the "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts that sits at the throne of your consciousness.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

So does that make you a "realist", "indirect realist", "philosophical realist", or "anti-realist" with respect to the phenomenon of abortion?

Based on definition,
re epistemology I am ANTI-philosophical_realism, is an Empirical Realist.
re morality, I am a Moral Realist, i.e. moral facts [FSERC-ed] exist.
re science, I am scientific antirealism.

Am I then correct to interpret your position as being that you believe morals have mind independent existence but the objects of science and philosophy do not?

Fundamentally, I am ANTI-philosophical_realism, i.e. I am against the claims by philosophical realists who claim the mind-independence is ABSOLUTE and totally unconditional.

However, I am realist in the RELATIVE sense, e.g. I stated I am an empirical realist which is in the relative sense. This mean that this relative empirical realism is subsumed within my ANTI-philosophical realism.
So, I am a moral realist in the RELATIVE sense.

The above Absolute versus Relative mind-independence are very critical nuances which must be taken into account in my discussions.

PH & Gang as philosophical realists mistakenly or ignorantly assume that my 'moral realism' is taken in the ABSOLUTE sense like what they do with their philosophical realism.
That is why they argued from that mistaken view, that morality cannot be objective, because realism deals only with Absolute facts.
So I am a moral realist who is an ANTI-philosophical realist.

There are moral realists who are philosophical realists.
Because I am anti-philosophical_realist I do not agree with such 'moral realists'. However, I do agree with their secondary arguments without the philosophical realism basis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

....I suggest that the moon is still there in the same way that the vivid dream you may have had last night is "still there" after you woke up this morning.

I suggest that the moon is still there in the same way that the actors, sound, and scenes in a movie on a DVD...

There are nuances to the above.

I have not deny in an absolute sense;
I agree the moon is not there when we do not look at it.

Right (at least according to certain interpretations of QM).

But the point I was making is that there is still "something" there when we're not looking...

(i.e., correlated patterns [fields] of energy and information)

...that most certainly exist independently from us humans (more specifically, independently from our minds).

However, that independence does not apply to our bodies.

The quantum fabric of our body is superpositionally entangled with the quantum fabric of, not only the moon, but the furthest stars in the furthest galaxies of the universe.

So, in that sense, we (again, our bodies) are indeed not separate from the moon.

At the quantum ("non-local") level of reality, our bodies exist in a state of "interpenetrating oneness" with all matter throughout the universe, and are inextricably tied to its inner being in the exact same way that our own thoughts and dreams are inextricably tied to our own inner being... [point A]

As is stated in the illustration above, our bodies literally have no reality on the other side of the all-encompassing outer barrier (or "film") of the closed bubble of our universe...

And, again, that does not apply to our minds, for they are not composed of the same substance that forms our bodies and the galaxies.

In other words, our minds are not composed of "measurable" physical matter.

And if you refuse to accept that, then I challenge you to provide me with a "measurement" (a mathematical representation) of the "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts that sits at the throne of your consciousness.
_______

Your,
And, again, that does not apply to our minds, for they are not composed of the same substance that forms our bodies and the galaxies.
is false. My counter argument is;

1. Humans infer,
2. Reality is all-there-is [all things].
3. All things within reality are interdependent with each other [re your point-A above].
4. All things includes humans which are entangled with everything within reality.
5. The human body and mind are also part & parcel of each human.
6. The human body and mind are are interdependent with every thing else in the reality [point-A]
7. Therefore, there is no independent mind that is independent of the human [4] and all of reality.


If the human body and mind are part & parcel of reality which is all-there-is, how can the human body be absolutely independent of the mind regardless of the different 'substance' they are made of?

[Veritas Aequitas]

.

Seriously you should print this one out and hang it up on the wall. Read it every day.

What are the problems with confusing philophical realism in general with Kant's transcendental realism?

Confusing philosophical realism in general with Kant's transcendental realism leads to several problems due to the distinct meanings and implications of each term within their respective philosophical contexts. Here are the key issues:

Misunderstanding the Nature of Reality:

Philosophical Realism: Generally, realism in philosophy asserts that there exists a reality independent of our perceptions, beliefs, and knowledge. Realists argue that objects, properties, and events exist irrespective of human thought or experience.

Kant's Transcendental Realism: For Kant, transcendental realism is a position he critiques, which holds that objects in themselves (noumena) are directly knowable and exist independently of our sensory experience and cognition. Kant contrasts this with transcendental idealism, his own view, which posits that while objects conform to our knowledge and perception, we can only know them as they appear to us (phenomena), not as they are in themselves (noumena).

Confusion in Epistemology:

Philosophical Realism: In a general sense, epistemological realism maintains that our knowledge attempts to describe the world as it is, and there is a correspondence between our beliefs and the external world.
Kant's Transcendental Realism: This form of realism is seen by Kant as an epistemological error because it assumes that our knowledge can extend to the noumenal world, which Kant argues is beyond the bounds of human cognition.

Errors in Metaphysical Assumptions:

Philosophical Realism: Metaphysical realism posits that the world and its constituents exist independently of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, or perceptual activities.
Kant's Transcendental Realism: From Kant's perspective, transcendental realism erroneously assumes that the categories and structures of the mind apply to things as they are in themselves, rather than only to phenomena.

Misinterpreting Kant's Critique:

Philosophical Realism: If one conflates general philosophical realism with Kant's transcendental realism, they might mistakenly believe that Kant is criticizing the broader notion of realism (i.e., that an independent reality exists).
Kant's Transcendental Realism: Kant’s critique is more specific; he is addressing the limitations of human cognition and arguing against the view that we can have direct knowledge of things as they are in themselves (noumena).

Impact on Kantian Interpretation:

Philosophical Realism: Misunderstanding the specific target of Kant's critique can lead to a misinterpretation of his entire philosophical project, including his Copernican Revolution, which reorients the relationship between the knower and the known.
Kant's Transcendental Realism: Properly understanding Kant's transcendental idealism and his critique of transcendental realism is crucial for grasping his epistemological and metaphysical arguments, particularly regarding the limits of human knowledge and the conditions of possibility for experience.

In summary, confusing philosophical realism in general with Kant's transcendental realism obscures the nuances of Kant's arguments, misrepresents his critique, and leads to misunderstandings about the nature of reality and our knowledge of it. Recognizing the distinctions between these concepts is essential for a clear and accurate comprehension of both Kantian philosophy and broader philosophical discussions on realism.

Don't be that arrogant when you are such a gnat and so ignorant of realism and Kant's philosophy.

You deceptively directed ChatGpt to your bias judgment, i.e.

Atla to ChatGpt: "What are the problems with confusing philosophical realism in general with Kant's transcendental realism?"


You start of with the claim a person is confusing philosophical realism in general with Kant's transcendental realism, i.e. there is a confusion.
So, if confusion, ChatGpt will explain what is the likely confusion.

Analogy:
This is like someone 'confusing' a piece diamond with charcoal in claiming they are both the same.
If we refer merely to the features and characteristics, there would be a confusion if one were to claim they are the same kind of thing.
But from the atomic level onward, both a piece of diamond and the charcoal are made of exactly the same thing in term of their fundamental elements.

It is the same with philosophical-realism-in-general and Kant's transcendental-realism.
Their forms may differ, but their essence is the same, i.e. absolute mind-independence.
Note the common term 'independent' within ChatGpt definition of philosophical-realism and transcendental-realism.

I have discussed this short-sighted with ChatGpt before where I provided all the relevant passages from the CPR and ChatGpt agreed with me on that nuanced perspective.

There is not one time where you have used ChatGpt to show I am wrong. I have corrected ChatGpt's answers to you by giving it the proper perspective.
It is the same with your cheating game above.

You can hang up ChatGpt's answers to your wall to remind yourself of your ignorance and the need for psychological counselling this philosophical issue.

[Atla]

.

Seriously you should print this one out and hang it up on the wall. Read it every day.

What are the problems with confusing philophical realism in general with Kant's transcendental realism?

Confusing philosophical realism in general with Kant's transcendental realism leads to several problems due to the distinct meanings and implications of each term within their respective philosophical contexts. Here are the key issues:

Misunderstanding the Nature of Reality:

Philosophical Realism: Generally, realism in philosophy asserts that there exists a reality independent of our perceptions, beliefs, and knowledge. Realists argue that objects, properties, and events exist irrespective of human thought or experience.

Kant's Transcendental Realism: For Kant, transcendental realism is a position he critiques, which holds that objects in themselves (noumena) are directly knowable and exist independently of our sensory experience and cognition. Kant contrasts this with transcendental idealism, his own view, which posits that while objects conform to our knowledge and perception, we can only know them as they appear to us (phenomena), not as they are in themselves (noumena).

Confusion in Epistemology:

Philosophical Realism: In a general sense, epistemological realism maintains that our knowledge attempts to describe the world as it is, and there is a correspondence between our beliefs and the external world.
Kant's Transcendental Realism: This form of realism is seen by Kant as an epistemological error because it assumes that our knowledge can extend to the noumenal world, which Kant argues is beyond the bounds of human cognition.

Errors in Metaphysical Assumptions:

Philosophical Realism: Metaphysical realism posits that the world and its constituents exist independently of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, or perceptual activities.
Kant's Transcendental Realism: From Kant's perspective, transcendental realism erroneously assumes that the categories and structures of the mind apply to things as they are in themselves, rather than only to phenomena.

Misinterpreting Kant's Critique:

Philosophical Realism: If one conflates general philosophical realism with Kant's transcendental realism, they might mistakenly believe that Kant is criticizing the broader notion of realism (i.e., that an independent reality exists).
Kant's Transcendental Realism: Kant’s critique is more specific; he is addressing the limitations of human cognition and arguing against the view that we can have direct knowledge of things as they are in themselves (noumena).

Impact on Kantian Interpretation:

Philosophical Realism: Misunderstanding the specific target of Kant's critique can lead to a misinterpretation of his entire philosophical project, including his Copernican Revolution, which reorients the relationship between the knower and the known.
Kant's Transcendental Realism: Properly understanding Kant's transcendental idealism and his critique of transcendental realism is crucial for grasping his epistemological and metaphysical arguments, particularly regarding the limits of human knowledge and the conditions of possibility for experience.

In summary, confusing philosophical realism in general with Kant's transcendental realism obscures the nuances of Kant's arguments, misrepresents his critique, and leads to misunderstandings about the nature of reality and our knowledge of it. Recognizing the distinctions between these concepts is essential for a clear and accurate comprehension of both Kantian philosophy and broader philosophical discussions on realism.

Don't be that arrogant when you are such a gnat and so ignorant of realism and Kant's philosophy.

You deceptively directed ChatGpt to your bias judgment, i.e.

Atla to ChatGpt: "What are the problems with confusing philosophical realism in general with Kant's transcendental realism?"


You start of with the claim a person is confusing philosophical realism in general with Kant's transcendental realism, i.e. there is a confusion.
So, if confusion, ChatGpt will explain what is the likely confusion.

Analogy:
This is like someone 'confusing' a piece diamond with charcoal in claiming they are both the same.
If we refer merely to the features and characteristics, there would be a confusion if one were to claim they are the same kind of thing.
But from the atomic level onward, both a piece of diamond and the charcoal are made of exactly the same thing in term of their fundamental elements.

It is the same with philosophical-realism-in-general and Kant's transcendental-realism.
Their forms may differ, but their essence is the same, i.e. absolute mind-independence.
Note the common term 'independent' within ChatGpt definition of philosophical-realism and transcendental-realism.

I have discussed this short-sighted with ChatGpt before where I provided all the relevant passages from the CPR and ChatGpt agreed with me on that nuanced perspective.

There is not one time where you have used ChatGpt to show I am wrong. I have corrected ChatGpt's answers to you by giving it the proper perspective.
It is the same with your cheating game above.

You can hang up ChatGpt's answers to your wall to remind yourself of your ignorance and the need for psychological counselling this philosophical issue.

Realism has nothing to do with absolute mind-independence unless we insist on it, so independence from the senses in a continuous world is also realism. I have corrected you using ChatGPT dozens of times, and countless times without ChatGPT. As usual the word 'absolute' doesn't show up anywhere yet you insist it's the essence of realism. Stop confusing realism with transcendenteal realism, read the above every day. You are intellectually bankrupt.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Realism has nothing to do with absolute mind-independence unless we insist on it, so independence from the senses in a continuous world is also realism. I have corrected you using ChatGPT dozens of times, and countless times without ChatGPT. As usual the word 'absolute' doesn't show up anywhere yet you insist it's the essence of realism. Stop confusing realism with transcendenteal realism, read the above every day. You are intellectually bankrupt.

Show me an example where you have used ChatGpt to correct me without me able to counter it with ChatGpt itself but within a wider perspective?

I explained to ChatGpt earlier and it replied;

Yes, when considering the basic principle of mind-independent existence alone, it is reasonable to claim that philosophical realism, Kant's transcendental realism, scientific realism, and naive realism share this foundational idea. This principle asserts that external things exist independently of human perception or cognition.

Here is a concise breakdown of this shared principle across the various forms of realism:

Philosophical Realism:
Asserts that certain kinds of things (physical objects, abstract objects, etc.) exist independently of the mind.

Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant):
Posits that objects of experience (phenomena) exist independently of our perception and cognition, and are identical to things-in-themselves (noumena). Even though Kant critiques this position, it still maintains the principle of mind-independent existence.

Scientific Realism:
Claims that the world described by scientific theories exists independently of our observations and that scientific theories aim to describe this objective reality.

Naive (Direct) Realism:
Believes that the world is exactly as we perceive it to be, existing independently of our thoughts or perceptions.

By focusing solely on the principle of mind-independent existence, it is clear that all these forms of realism share the view that external things exist regardless of human presence or perception. This commonality highlights their agreement on the fundamental nature of reality being independent of the human mind, despite their differences in other philosophical aspects.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Realism has nothing to do with absolute mind-independence unless we insist on it, so independence from the senses in a continuous world is also realism.
I have corrected you using ChatGPT dozens of times, and countless times without ChatGPT.
As usual the word 'absolute' doesn't show up anywhere yet you insist it's the essence of realism.
Stop confusing realism with transcendenteal realism, read the above every day. You are intellectually bankrupt.

Here again, I am using ChatGpt from a wider perspective to squash you narrow minded view;
You must hang this up on your wall.

As stated in the above, Philosophical Realism and Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant) share the same common concept of mind-independence.

But Kant also claimed;
[CPR A370] "The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist or, as he is called, a dualist."

In this sense, Kant also believe in a concept of mind-independence in the empirical world but not in metaphysical terms.

In this case, in order to differentiate the different contexts of mind-independence, I have terms philosophical realism [Kant's transcendental realism] as absolute mind-independence, i.e. things exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

To differentiate empirical realism, I have termed its related mind-independent as relative, i.e. it is contingent upon the human conditions as per Kant's Copernican Revolution.

Is the above use and differentiation of 'absolute' and 'relative' reasonable?

Here's ChatGpt's Response;

Yes, your differentiation between "absolute" and "relative" mind-independence is a reasonable way to distinguish between different contexts of mind-independence, particularly in the context of Kant's philosophy.

1. Absolute Mind-Independence
Philosophical Realism (including Kant's Transcendental Realism as critiqued by Kant):

Definition: Absolute mind-independence refers to the idea that things exist in and of themselves, completely independently of human perception, cognition, or conditions. This implies that the existence and nature of things are entirely detached from any observer or mind.
Examples:
Philosophical Realism: Abstract objects, moral values, or the physical world exist independently of any mind perceiving them.
Kant's Transcendental Realism: As critiqued by Kant, it posits that phenomena (the objects of our experience) are identical to noumena (things-in-themselves) and exist independently of our perception and cognition.

2. Relative Mind-Independence
Empirical Realism (within Kant's Transcendental Idealism):

Definition: Relative mind-independence acknowledges that while empirical objects exist independently of an individual's particular perception, their existence and nature are contingent upon the human conditions of experience, including the structure of our mind and sensory apparatus. This is consistent with Kant's Copernican Revolution, which asserts that our knowledge is shaped by the way our mind structures experience.
Examples:
Kant's Empirical Realism: Asserts that empirical objects (phenomena) exist independently of our individual perceptions but are nonetheless structured by the a priori conditions of human sensibility and understanding. They are "mind-independent" in the sense that they are not merely subjective appearances but still depend on the human framework of perception.

3.Summary of Differentiation
Absolute Mind-Independence:

Scope: Philosophical realism, Kant's transcendental realism (as critiqued by Kant).
Concept: Things exist in an absolute sense, independent of any human perception or cognition.

Relative Mind-Independence:

Scope: Kant's empirical realism within transcendental idealism.
Concept: Things exist independently of individual perceptions but are still contingent upon the human conditions of experience (i.e., the structures imposed by our mind).

Using these terms allows for a clear differentiation between the varying contexts of mind-independence and aligns with Kantian philosophy's distinctions. This differentiation helps clarify how different forms of realism handle the relationship between the mind and the external world.

[seeds]

There are nuances to the above.

I have not deny in an absolute sense;
I agree the moon is not there when we do not look at it.

Right (at least according to certain interpretations of QM).

But the point I was making is that there is still "something" there when we're not looking...

(i.e., correlated patterns [fields] of energy and information)

...that most certainly exist independently from us humans (more specifically, independently from our minds).

However, that independence does not apply to our bodies.

The quantum fabric of our body is superpositionally entangled with the quantum fabric of, not only the moon, but the furthest stars in the furthest galaxies of the universe.

So, in that sense, we (again, our bodies) are indeed not separate from the moon.

At the quantum ("non-local") level of reality, our bodies exist in a state of "interpenetrating oneness" with all matter throughout the universe, and are inextricably tied to its inner being in the exact same way that our own thoughts and dreams are inextricably tied to our own inner being... [point A]

As is stated in the illustration above, our bodies literally have no reality on the other side of the all-encompassing outer barrier (or "film") of the closed bubble of our universe...

And, again, that does not apply to our minds, for they are not composed of the same substance that forms our bodies and the galaxies.

In other words, our minds are not composed of "measurable" physical matter.

And if you refuse to accept that, then I challenge you to provide me with a "measurement" (a mathematical representation) of the "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts that sits at the throne of your consciousness.
_______

Your,
And, again, that does not apply to our minds, for they are not composed of the same substance that forms our bodies and the galaxies.
is false.

Prove it.

Show me where any branch of science or physics has made a quantum-like (or whatever) measurement of the "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts I asked for earlier.

My counter argument is;

1. Humans infer,
2. Reality is all-there-is [all things].
3. All things within reality are interdependent with each other [re your point-A above].
4. All things includes humans which are entangled with everything within reality.
5. The human body and mind are also part & parcel of each human.
6. The human body and mind are are interdependent with every thing else in the reality [point-A]
7. Therefore, there is no independent mind that is independent of the human [4] and all of reality.

From the website - BIG THINK (bolding and underling mine)...

One of the toughest and most discussed problems in philosophy concerns how the mind and body interact. The mind-body problem has been a staple of modern philosophy since Descartes. Although the problem has yet to be solved, we currently have a better idea of how difficult it is.

Since Descartes, all the way up to the present day, no human - philosopher or otherwise - has been able to solve the "mind-body problem"...

...until now!!!

Seriously V, you need to contact the BIG THINK website, and Wiki, and the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc., etc., and give them the good news that you have done it, as is clearly laid out in your 7-point counter argument.

I suggest you start with our very own site-host Rick Lewis, because I'm sure he would love to be the first to publish your findings in Philosophy Now Magazine.

Anyway, getting back to reality,...

If the human body and mind are part & parcel of reality which is all-there-is, how can the human body be absolutely independent of the mind regardless of the different 'substance' they are made of?

First of all, if you actually believe that this...



...is a representation of "all there is to reality," then you (like most humans) are simply not conscious enough to understand what I am trying to convey to you.

Nevertheless, to answer your question, the body is independent of the mind in the same way that my mind is independent of your mind.

It's as simple as that.

Sure, the mind and body are not fully independent of each other right now, for your body and brain functioned as the means by which your mind was awakened into existence, and continues to operate as a multi-sensory "interface" that momentarily connects your mind to the inner dimension of God's mind (the universe),...

...which, in turn, allows you to see, feel, hear, taste, and smell God's very own (super advanced) mental holography.

However, a full separation will take place at the moment of death, as depicted in yet another of my fanciful illustrations...



(Yeah, yeah, I know, "...it's impossible for God to exists [sic] as real..." )
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Prove it.
Show me where any branch of science or physics has made a quantum-like (or whatever) measurement of the "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts I asked for earlier.

You assumed it must be there to be discovered and measured.
This assumption is circular.
How can you believe it is there before it is justified to be true.
Whatever is justified to be true by science is merely a polished conjecture.

There is no way science can confirm ontologically, there is "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts, because these are non-starters for science.

From the website - BIG THINK (bolding and underling mine)...

One of the toughest and most discussed problems in philosophy concerns how the mind and body interact. The mind-body problem has been a staple of modern philosophy since Descartes. Although the problem has yet to be solved, we currently have a better idea of how difficult it is.

Since Descartes, all the way up to the present day, no human - philosopher or otherwise - has been able to solve the "mind-body problem"...

...until now!!!

Same as the above, you are engaging in circularity.
You assumed there is 'mind' independent of the body must be there to be discovered and measured.
This assumption is circular.
How can you believe it is there before it is justified to be true.
Whatever is justified to be true by science is merely a polished conjecture.

There is no way science can confirm ontologically, there is a mind independent of the empirical body because these is a non-starter for science.

It is only out of psychological desperation your assumed based on faith, there is a mind that is absolutely independent of the body.

Seriously V, you need to contact the BIG THINK website, and Wiki, and the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc., etc., and give them the good news that you have done it, as is clearly laid out in your 7-point counter argument.

I suggest you start with our very own site-host Rick Lewis, because I'm sure he would love to be the first to publish your findings in Philosophy Now Magazine.

Note this:

Case Two: The Mind-Body Problem
The mind-body problem is the problem of understanding what the relation between the mind and body is, or more precisely, whether mental phenomena are a subset of physical phenomena or not. There are many philosophical positions associated with this problem—substance dualism (“mind and body are two different substances”), property dualism (“there is only one, physical substance, but mental properties of subjects cannot be reduced to their physical properties”), and physicalist reductionism (“mental properties can be identified with, or can be spelled out in terms of, physical properties”), among other positions.

Some philosophers in recent decades have argued that modern neuroscience has already given us an answer to this question:
Mental states are nothing other than neural states, and we can talk of mental phenomena through physical vocabulary without any loss of meaning or reference.

The founders of what is called “neurophilosophy,” Patricia and Paul Churchland, have been among the most famous advocates of this position, even though their views oscillated between reductionism and eliminativism, the latter view being that mentality (or certain aspects of it) is a prescientific construct that will have no place in the scientific understanding of the world once we have a fully developed neuroscience (see, e.g., Churchland, 1988).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ne ... dy-problem#:

The Mind-Body Problem is driven by philosophical realism's mind-independent reality which is grounded on an illusion.

My counter argument is;

1. Humans infer,
2. Reality is all-there-is [all things].
3. All things within reality are interdependent with each other [re your point-A above].
4. All things includes humans which are entangled with everything within reality.
5. The human body and mind are also part & parcel of each human.
6. The human body and mind are are interdependent with every thing else in the reality [point-A]
7. Therefore, there is no independent mind that is independent of the human [4] and all of reality.

Anyway, getting back to reality,...

If the human body and mind are part & parcel of reality which is all-there-is, how can the human body be absolutely independent of the mind regardless of the different 'substance' they are made of?

First of all, if you actually believe that this...

...is a representation of "all there is to reality," then you (like most humans) are simply not conscious enough to understand what I am trying to convey to you.

Nevertheless, to answer your question, the body is independent of the mind in the same way that my mind is independent of your mind.

It's as simple as that.

Sure, the mind and body are not fully independent of each other right now, for your body and brain functioned as the means by which your mind was awakened into existence, and continues to operate as a multi-sensory "interface" that momentarily connects your mind to the inner dimension of God's mind (the universe),...

...which, in turn, allows you to see, feel, hear, taste, and smell God's very own (super advanced) mental holography.

However, a full separation will take place at the moment of death, as depicted in yet another of my fanciful illustrations...

(Yeah, yeah, I know, "...it's impossible for God to exists [sic] as real..." )
_______

Seed: Nevertheless, to answer your question, the body is independent of the mind in the same way that my mind is independent of your mind.
My mind is only relatively independent of your mind which is empirically obvious, but your mind is not absolutely independent of my mind, given that we are all part and parcel of same reality - all-there-is -[same jacuzzi].
Personally, I wish we are absolutely independent and I would not want to share the same 'jacuzzi' reality with you, but I have no choice because that is the real reality.

Note the fact, at present my mind is invoking terror in your mind with my arguments. So my mind is only relatively independent from your mind but not in any absolute sense within the same reality soup we are all in.

Analogy:
It is like two different ice blocks are independent of each other in a pool of water.
But taken as a whole the two seemingly independent block are not absolutely independent of each other, but are interdependent with each other as influencing the temperature, waves, etc. within that environment.

Everything is within an all-there-is reality as a whole system and they are fully interdependent with each other. Note Chaos Theory. Your fart could cause a typhoon in China because everything within a system is interdependent.

Your belief of mind-independent thingy, i.e. God, minds and whatever is due to an evolutionary default driven by an existential crisis that drive you into desperation.
Note, all you do is to focus externally but not 'know thyself' and how your internal psychology is pushing you to cling to illusions as real things.

As a test, what have you got to lose if you were to give up your desperate belief in God and absolutely mind-independent things?? What is your answer to this?
The answer is nothing other than a threat of a cold turkey within your psyche.
If you can bear with this temporary cold turkey you will surely get a peace of mind.

In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace. WIKI