'Water is H2O' and the Zygote

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. My principle of reality is;
whatever is fact, reality, truth, knowledge is contingent upon a specific human-based collective of subjects framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality.

2. When an adult learned that 'water is H20' only via the science-chemistry FSERC, that adult as a zygote then had already interacted "that" which emerged and is realized as real then subsequently realized and cognized as 'water is H20'.
This a priori experience is even traceable when his ancestors were one-celled organisms.

3. That which is 'water is H20' also emerged from the forces of the Big Bang when particles interact to form the molecules of H and O and subsequently H2O.
Is 13.7b of physical & 3.5b years of organic history Relevant?
viewtopic.php?t=42836

4. But 1, 2 and 3 are only possible with the existing self-awareness, consciousness and intelligence of humans.

5. As such, 'that' which is 'water as H20' did not exists absolutely independent of humans. So, whatever is fact, reality, truth, knowledge is contingent upon a specific human-based collective of subjects framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality.

The above [1-5] is the philosophical antirealists [Kantian] view who reject and oppose the philosophical realists' view that,
"a fact is a feature of reality that is the case, state of affairs, just is which is absolutely independent of the human conditions, opinions, beliefs and judgments, i.e. that fact exists regardless of whether there are humans or not."
Point 1-5 demonstrate the philosophical realists' claim is not tenable and not realistic.

Can any philosophical realist prove their claim with valid arguments?

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Atla]

2. When an adult learned that 'water is H20' only via the science-chemistry FSERC, that adult as a zygote then had already interacted "that" which emerged and is realized as real then subsequently realized and cognized as 'water is H20'.
This a priori experience is even traceable when his ancestors were one-celled organisms.

How did they interact with "that", when there is nothing outside of them to interact with?

[Impenitent]

even a zygote knows that knowledge outside a "specific human-based collective" is anti zygote...

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

2. When an adult learned that 'water is H20' only via the science-chemistry FSERC, that adult as a zygote then had already interacted "that" which emerged and is realized as real then subsequently realized and cognized as 'water is H20'.
This a priori experience is even traceable when his ancestors were one-celled organisms.

How did they interact with "that", when there is nothing outside of them to interact with?

Wait, you understood this sentence????:

2. When an adult learned that 'water is H20' only via the science-chemistry FSERC, that adult as a zygote then had already interacted "that" which emerged and is realized as real then subsequently realized and cognized as 'water is H20'.

[Atla]

2. When an adult learned that 'water is H20' only via the science-chemistry FSERC, that adult as a zygote then had already interacted "that" which emerged and is realized as real then subsequently realized and cognized as 'water is H20'.
This a priori experience is even traceable when his ancestors were one-celled organisms.

How did they interact with "that", when there is nothing outside of them to interact with?

Wait, you understood this sentence????:

2. When an adult learned that 'water is H20' only via the science-chemistry FSERC, that adult as a zygote then had already interacted "that" which emerged and is realized as real then subsequently realized and cognized as 'water is H20'.

Yeah I guess so. Except imo it's completely insane to pack the universe and its evolution into VA or a zygote or a single-celled organism, just to evade p-realism. How does the universe fit into VA?

[Iwannaplato]

2. When an adult learned that 'water is H20' only via the science-chemistry FSERC, that adult as a zygote then had already interacted "that" which emerged and is realized as real then subsequently realized and cognized as 'water is H20'.
This a priori experience is even traceable when his ancestors were one-celled organisms.

How did they interact with "that", when there is nothing outside of them to interact with?

I think the entire idea of external/outside and identity in general needs to be looked at regarding his position. He continues to use language that may or may not at all fit the ontology that never quite gets explained. Realism has made it's ontology pretty clear and we have ideas about what is inside/internal, outside/external. We have things in existence simultaneously separated by space and persistant through time.

We have no idea what his ontology and what assumptions it may have. And it is convenient to not explain any of that, because suddenly many assumptions may well just be a priori. Since much of his potshotting is based on realism, supposedly, have an extra assumption that antirealism does not have. But, then antirealism, at least his version, is quiet on so much, while implying things about ontology.

[Atla]

2. When an adult learned that 'water is H20' only via the science-chemistry FSERC, that adult as a zygote then had already interacted "that" which emerged and is realized as real then subsequently realized and cognized as 'water is H20'.
This a priori experience is even traceable when his ancestors were one-celled organisms.

How did they interact with "that", when there is nothing outside of them to interact with?

I think the entire idea of external/outside and identity in general needs to be looked at regarding his position. He continues to use language that may or may not at all fit the ontology that never quite gets explained. Realism has made it's ontology pretty clear and we have ideas about what is inside/internal, outside/external. We have things in existence simultaneously separated by space and persistant through time.

We have no idea what his ontology and what assumptions it may have. And it is convenient to not explain any of that, because suddenly many assumptions may well just be a priori. Since much of his potshotting is based on realism, supposedly, have an extra assumption that antirealism does not have. But, then antirealism, at least his version, is quiet on so much, while implying things about ontology.

He doesn't know what to say. He thinks that what we experience is manufactured using a priori Kantian-type mental faculties, and these were shaped via 13.8 billion years of evolution. But they don't actually exist "ontologically", they just shape our experience.

In short, his philosophy seems to be: nothing affects something.

[Iwannaplato]

How did they interact with "that", when there is nothing outside of them to interact with?

I think the entire idea of external/outside and identity in general needs to be looked at regarding his position. He continues to use language that may or may not at all fit the ontology that never quite gets explained. Realism has made it's ontology pretty clear and we have ideas about what is inside/internal, outside/external. We have things in existence simultaneously separated by space and persistant through time.

We have no idea what his ontology and what assumptions it may have. And it is convenient to not explain any of that, because suddenly many assumptions may well just be a priori. Since much of his potshotting is based on realism, supposedly, have an extra assumption that antirealism does not have. But, then antirealism, at least his version, is quiet on so much, while implying things about ontology.

He doesn't know what to say. He thinks that what we experience is manufactured using a priori Kantian-type mental faculties, and these were shaped via 13.8 billion years of evolution. But they don't actually exist "ontologically", they just shape our experience.

In short, his philosophy seems to be: nothing affects something.

I would say his philosophy is:Zygotes created their environment and the 'space' where this happened, was retroactively created, backwards in time, to the big bang. Humans created that which went before their existence. There is no universe, laid out, distributed over a persistent space, like one might have on a map. Non-located tunnels of existences move through a void. Each has a human in it and it is non-dual. There there are no things. Occasionally thse tunnels cross and two creators have overlapping creation, which happens nowhere..

[Atla]

I think the entire idea of external/outside and identity in general needs to be looked at regarding his position. He continues to use language that may or may not at all fit the ontology that never quite gets explained. Realism has made it's ontology pretty clear and we have ideas about what is inside/internal, outside/external. We have things in existence simultaneously separated by space and persistant through time.

We have no idea what his ontology and what assumptions it may have. And it is convenient to not explain any of that, because suddenly many assumptions may well just be a priori. Since much of his potshotting is based on realism, supposedly, have an extra assumption that antirealism does not have. But, then antirealism, at least his version, is quiet on so much, while implying things about ontology.

He doesn't know what to say. He thinks that what we experience is manufactured using a priori Kantian-type mental faculties, and these were shaped via 13.8 billion years of evolution. But they don't actually exist "ontologically", they just shape our experience.

In short, his philosophy seems to be: nothing affects something.

I would say his philosophy is:Zygotes created their environment and the 'space' where this happened, was retroactively created, backwards in time, to the big bang. Humans created that which went before their existence. There is no universe, laid out, distributed over a persistent space, like one might have on a map. Non-located tunnels of existences move through a void. Each has a human in it and it is non-dual. There there are no things. Occasionally thse tunnels cross and two creators have overlapping creation, which happens nowhere..

Well that sounds like some creation+realism, two things he denies.

[Iwannaplato]

He doesn't know what to say. He thinks that what we experience is manufactured using a priori Kantian-type mental faculties, and these were shaped via 13.8 billion years of evolution. But they don't actually exist "ontologically", they just shape our experience.

In short, his philosophy seems to be: nothing affects something.

I would say his philosophy is:Zygotes created their environment and the 'space' where this happened, was retroactively created, backwards in time, to the big bang. Humans created that which went before their existence. There is no universe, laid out, distributed over a persistent space, like one might have on a map. Non-located tunnels of existences move through a void. Each has a human in it and it is non-dual. There there are no things. Occasionally thse tunnels cross and two creators have overlapping creation, which happens nowhere..

Well that sounds like some creation+realism, two things he denies.

You're not suggesting there might be a contradiction!!?? Shame on you!

Anyway, he certainly hasn't said that stuff, though some of it is heavily implied. In the silence over his ontology, these things echo.