Reality-Itself is Impossible to be Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

"...Reality-Itself is Impossible to be Real..."

Without quoting any form of Internet AI, what is your own personal definition of the word "real"?

You should read the whole post before you ask the above question, which is included in the OP, i.e.;

What is really-real?
What is really-real is confined to that which is contingent upon a human-based collective-of-subject framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality [FSERC] which is subsequently known and described.

Ah, of course. it's so obvious when you present it like that.

Everything becomes clear when presented in your formulaic-like arrangement of letters.

Can you show me which field of knowledge is not conditioned [contingent] upon its specific Framework and System [FS]?

I say, all instituted claims are presented and is contingent/conditioned within a specific Framework and System [FS], of which the scientific FS is the gold standard, i.e. most credible and objectivity.
Can you show me which FS [comparing their best] is more credible than the scientific FS.

The "human-based collective-of-subject" indicate that humans participation are intricate part and parcel of the resultant facts generated from the FS.
Why is this qualification so difficult for you to understand?

Emergence means, whatever [objects, things, events] is real emerges together with the FS and its conditions. They do not pre-exist awaiting discovery by humans.

Whatever emerges is realized and cognized as real via the FS, thus FSERC. What is so difficult with this?

Knowledge is gained from the processes of the FS [FSERC] e.g. scientific knowledge, facts and truths which is subsequently described and communicated.

Typically the majority will simply assert 'the sky is blue' or 'water is H20' without further qualifications which is bald and bankrupt knowledge.
Water is H20 because the science-chemistry FSERC said so, not because your mother said so.

With a contentious issue like whether 'Morality is Objective' or not, we need to invoke the details of an effective moral framework and system[FS] and FSERC to deal with the issue realistically and effectively.

[Atla]

Well, as my uncle Kent used to say, roflmaowtsdmf.

[seeds]

_______

Notes: KIV
_______

[seeds]

"...Reality-Itself is Impossible to be Real..."

Without quoting any form of Internet AI, what is your own personal definition of the word "real"?

You should read the whole post before you ask the above question, which is included in the OP, i.e.;

What is really-real?
What is really-real is confined to that which is contingent upon a human-based collective-of-subject framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality [FSERC] which is subsequently known and described.

I had read your whole post prior to commenting and found your answer (the one you copied and pasted above) to be woefully inadequate when it comes to determining what is "really real."

And that's because your answer only amounts to some kind of half-baked proprietary formula [HBPF] that is founded upon your egregious misconception that seems to suggest that what this...



...represents,...

(which is the unthinkably ordered (and "really real") physiological setting that had to have been firmly in place (pre-established/pre-fabricated) before we humans could even have come into existence)

...was (and still is) somehow dependent on us humans.

Or, as you put it...

"...is contingent upon a human-based collective-of-subject framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality [FSERC] which is subsequently known and described..."

I ran that past Granny...



...and she asked if it came with Thousand Island dressing?

Unfortunately, your entire philosophical schtick (encapsulated in the above quote), wherein you insist that that which is "really real" is contingent upon a human-based...blah, blah, blah [HBBBB], is not only a brazen non sequitur, but is complete and utter (but "really real") nonsense!

Now, let's look at your OP again and get back to this...

• The knowledge-of-reality is not reality-itself...
  
  ...'the description is not the described'...
  
  ...'appearance is not that which appears' which I (& majority) agrees with...
  
  ...Science can only give knowledge of reality but never of reality-itself...
  
  ...Since science is merely knowledge-of-reality, it is impossible for humans to know reality-itself...
  
  ...Philosophical realists ignorantly invoke 'science' but science is merely knowledge-of-reality which cannot be reality-itself....

My goodness, if all of those separate and, might I add, logical statements regarding what you deem to be "reality-itself" aren't a clear and cumulative reference to the existence of a "noumenal" realm, then I can't imagine what is.

Again, I ask you:

If not in a "noumenal-like" state of existence relative to us humans,...

(something of which you vehemently oppose)

...then what, exactly, is the ontological status of this "reality-itself" you keep alluding to, over and over again?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, I ask you:

If not in a "noumenal-like" state of existence relative to us humans,...

(something of which you vehemently oppose)

...then what, exactly, is the ontological status of this "reality-itself" you keep alluding to, over and over again?
_______

I deny the ontological existence of a noumenal reality, i.e. which exists in-itself or absolutely in-itself and absolutely mind-independent.

What I presented is whatever exists ontologically is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system [FS]. [extended to a FSERC].

There is no denial that the collective of human subjects are intricately part and parcel of reality as all-there-is.
As such, there is no way you can claim reality is absolute independent of the collective-of-subjects.

The usual counter to the above is,
"what about God, the moon, universe, dinosaurs and the like that existed before there were humans."
the counter in a finer point is, this assertion [before] cannot be absolutely independent of the collective-of-subjects.
The concept of "before" as an element of time which is not absolute mind-independent.

So, we can say, "the moon, universe, dinosaurs and the like that existed before there were humans" but that is relative mind-independence, never absolutely mind-independence.

One thing is, as humans, we need to be humble in our assertion of 'what is reality' and cannot be like an omnipotent God [illusory anyway] to proclaim absolute mind-independence of reality.

[Atla]

the counter in a finer point is, this assertion [before] cannot be absolutely independent of the collective-of-subjects.

Einstein has proven that it can be, not all time is a priori dependent of subjects. Your 'finer point' is trash.

[seeds]

Never heard any actual physicists talk in absurd, clumsy acronyms. There's no point in an acronym if you can't actually say it; that kind of defeats the purpose of them. Framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality. Why are people pretending that this means something?...

Generally, people are mocking when they use his terms.

Oh, come on now,...

...would it really be a case of mocking if, say, someone VA has referred to as being an "intellectual recalcitrant ultracrepidarian philosophical gnat" were to suggest that what VA has managed to pull from his rear end is a "fiendish, acronym-reliant torture system" [FARTS] that he is determined to drive us all nuts with?
_______

[Iwannaplato]

Never heard any actual physicists talk in absurd, clumsy acronyms. There's no point in an acronym if you can't actually say it; that kind of defeats the purpose of them. Framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality. Why are people pretending that this means something?...

Generally, people are mocking when they use his terms.

Oh, come on now,...

...would it really be a case of mocking if, say, someone VA has referred to as being an "intellectual recalcitrant ultracrepidarian philosophical gnat" were to suggest that what VA has managed to pull from his rear end is a "fiendish, acronym-reliant torture system" [FARTS] that he is determined to drive us all nuts with?
_______

You're right. I overgeneralized.

[seeds]

Generally, people are mocking when they use his terms.

Oh, come on now,...

...would it really be a case of mocking if, say, someone VA has referred to as being an "intellectual recalcitrant ultracrepidarian philosophical gnat" were to suggest that what VA has managed to pull from his rear end is a "fiendish, acronym-reliant torture system" [FARTS] that he is determined to drive us all nuts with?
_______

You're right. I overgeneralized.

Nah, I was definitely mocking.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh, come on now,...

...would it really be a case of mocking if, say, someone VA has referred to as being an "intellectual recalcitrant ultracrepidarian philosophical gnat" were to suggest that what VA has managed to pull from his rear end is a "fiendish, acronym-reliant torture system" [FARTS] that he is determined to drive us all nuts with?
_______

You're right. I overgeneralized.

Nah, I was definitely mocking.
_______

Those who mock do not have anything substantial to counter, given a chance they may even kill their opponents since the existential crisis is so forceful.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh, come on now,...

...would it really be a case of mocking if, say, someone VA has referred to as being an "intellectual recalcitrant ultracrepidarian philosophical gnat" were to suggest that what VA has managed to pull from his rear end is a "fiendish, acronym-reliant torture system" [FARTS] that he is determined to drive us all nuts with?
_______

You're right. I overgeneralized.

Nah, I was definitely mocking.
_______

I wrote that meaning to be wry and it didn't work, but I posted it anyway. I saw VA recent response to me and it would take work to go back and show that this guy disagrees with him. I find myself losing all interest in dialoguing with brick walls.

[Atla]

Those who mock do not have anything substantial to counter, given a chance they may even kill their opponents since the existential crisis is so forceful.

Those who disagree with me are murderers!!!

- VA, the greatest philosopher of all time

[seeds]

Again, I ask you:

If not in a "noumenal-like" state of existence relative to us humans,...

(something of which you vehemently oppose)

...then what, exactly, is the ontological status of this "reality-itself" you keep alluding to, over and over again?
_______

I deny the ontological existence of a noumenal reality,...

Yes, and that's what makes you such a shallow thinker.

Because, in my book, to deny the existence of a noumenal reality is the equivalent of denying the status of an electron as it momentarily resides in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen of the double slit experiment...



...for as I have pointed out so many times before in other threads:

...what is taking place in that interim space of the double slit experiment is something that is obviously "real," yet can only be apprehended by way of the "intellect and intuition" and never by any sort of direct or empirical means.

It is the near perfect example of the existence of a noumenal realm which, according to Wiki,...

"...is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, I ask you:

If not in a "noumenal-like" state of existence relative to us humans,...

(something of which you vehemently oppose)

...then what, exactly, is the ontological status of this "reality-itself" you keep alluding to, over and over again?
_______

I deny the ontological existence of a noumenal reality,...

Yes, and that's what makes you such a shallow thinker.

Because, in my book, to deny the existence of a noumenal reality is the equivalent of denying the status of an electron as it momentarily resides in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen of the double slit experiment...



...for as I have pointed out so many times before in other threads:

...what is taking place in that interim space of the double slit experiment is something that is obviously "real," yet can only be apprehended by way of the "intellect and intuition" and never by any sort of direct or empirical means.

It is the near perfect example of the existence of a noumenal realm which, according to Wiki,...

"...is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

_______

We have gone tru this many times.

The statement that the noumenal is unknowable is an oxymoron and false which based on the wrong translation by NK Smith who translated Erkenntnis [cognition] as Knowledge [Wissen].

see:
Erkenntnis [cognition] conflated as Knowledge [Wissen].
viewtopic.php?t=42891

[Iwannaplato]

What is really-real?

So, we have here yet another pleonasm. VA loves to frame other people's positions using pleonastic phrases like absolutely absolute. Or he calls his own positions _____________-proper.

Can we expect in a few years that he will up the ante?

Absolutely really-reals morality-proper.