PH: Science Support "That is the Case"

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Your claim that there was a 'prior emergence and realisation of reality' - before humans appeared to perceive, know and describe it - is either mystical nonsense or stunningly banal. Of course, the universe existed and evolved long before humans appeared. Agreed.

And that's why your anti-realist claim that 'whatever is real, fact,' etc is contingent upon human ways of perceiving, knowing and describing it is such an absurd contradiction. Your whole argument - before you even get to morality - is ridiculous.

Your above is mere babbling without proper justifications.

The central issue started with philosophical realism [yours] claim that whatever is real, fact, and the like is absolutely independent of the human-conditions/mind, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans nor not.
Such a beliefs is full of holes, generate radical skepticism [Descartes, Hume], generate dilemmas -antinomies, philosophical problems and it is grounded on an illusion, thus delusional.
You have not been able to prove your above claim.

To avoid all the generated philosophical problems and dilemmas generated by philosophical realism [based on primal beliefs driven by an evolutionary default], philosophical antirealists [with a more enlightened, intelligent and wiser thinking] opposed and rejected philosophical realism.

Philosophical antirealists in general insist, whatever is reality, fact and the like CANNOT be absolutely independent of the human-conditions/mind, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans nor not.

Philosophical antirealists [Kantian] claim at most, reality, fact and the like has to be relatively independent of the human-conditions/mind.
Note relatively, not ABSOLUTELY.

This is why philosophical antirealists [Kantian] proposed:
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Such a belief is very realistic, it can be justified empirically.
You just waved off such a claim without justification just as the same you're making the ideological philosophical realism claim without justification.

So far, you claim a 'fact' is a feature of reality 'that is the case' 'state of affairs' which is just-is.
This is merely linguistic babbling, where is your justification to support your belief?

To support your belief, you mentioned briefly Science tells us "that is the case".
Can you confirm this again?
But whatever is a scientific fact cannot exists by itself, it is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] extended to FSERC.
Thus, it follows deductively, whatever is confirmed as a scientific reality or scientific fact cannot be absolutely independent of subjects [human conditions].

Generally, some will counter the above with scientific realism, but scientific realism is merely a subset of philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.

Therefore, I am not claiming;
"what we humans perceive, know and say about reality, is reality itself"
rather what I claim is this,
"what we humans perceive, know and say about reality, is not an absolutely independent reality in-itself; what is reality is relatively human independent, i.e. somehow entangled with the human conditions."

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Iwannaplato]

This is why philosophical antirealists [Kantian] proposed:
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

So, in that thread I spent a great deal of time actually trying to get you to respond to specific objections to the OP. You evade, reassert, change terms and then give up or forget about the thread.

Then later use it as if you have demonstrated something.

[Iwannaplato]

In that other thread VA says that realism is an evolutionary default and illusion that is necessary for survival.
1) how odd that to survive animals must believe something that is false or they won't survive
2) non-human animals survive and they do not have beliefs in things like 'externalness' 'philosophical realism' 'the outside world is absolutely mind indenpendent' yet for some reason VA considers this a necessary set of defaults driven by fear and without which one cannot survive, or at least could not.
3) in that thread he uses the discredited Triune Brain theory
4) In that thread VA conflates perception with thinking. This is around the belief in an absolutely mind independent world. He kept presenting 'evidence' regarding perception rather than thinking.
5) Atla and Bahman also had lines of critique that undermine VA's position.

So, we have a pattern of in sense appealing to his own authority. I demonstrated X, here's the link to the thread. But in the threads one is linked to one finds responses that either directly go unanswered (ignored) and responses by others here that are met with reassertions or rebuttals that do not rebut the actual arguments made. It is as if after a time incomplete weak arguments gain the status of demonstrations and proof.

And this pattern goes back to much earlier threads and posts, since these also refer back to earlier 'demonstrations'.

Of course incomplete discussions and lack of demonstration in and of themselves are not a problem - philosophy has many ongoing not resolved issues, but when the person in question labels all his philosophical opponents as more likely to be violent - with zero empirical research that would need control groups and the ability to, for example, compare rates of violence between realists and antirealist and eliminate other factors - who mind reads via ad hom the positions of those he disagree with, we have a toxic individual who cannot tolerate dissent from his views.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In that other thread VA says that realism is an evolutionary default and illusion that is necessary for survival.
1) how odd that to survive animals must believe something that is false or they won't survive
2) non-human animals survive and they do not have beliefs in things like 'externalness' 'philosophical realism' 'the outside world is absolutely mind indenpendent' yet for some reason VA considers this a necessary set of defaults driven by fear and without which one cannot survive, or at least could not.
3) in that thread he uses the discredited Triune Brain theory
4) In that thread VA conflates perception with thinking. This is around the belief in an absolutely mind independent world. He kept presenting 'evidence' regarding perception rather than thinking.
5) Atla and Bahman also had lines of critique that undermine VA's position.

So, we have a pattern of in sense appealing to his own authority. I demonstrated X, here's the link to the thread. But in the threads one is linked to one finds responses that either directly go unanswered (ignored) and responses by others here that are met with reassertions or rebuttals that do not rebut the actual arguments made. It is as if after a time incomplete weak arguments gain the status of demonstrations and proof.

And this pattern goes back to much earlier threads and posts, since these also refer back to earlier 'demonstrations'.

Of course incomplete discussions and lack of demonstration in and of themselves are not a problem - philosophy has many ongoing not resolved issues, but when the person in question labels all his philosophical opponents as more likely to be violent - with zero empirical research that would need control groups and the ability to, for example, compare rates of violence between realists and antirealist and eliminate other factors - who mind reads via ad hom the positions of those he disagree with, we have a toxic individual who cannot tolerate dissent from his views.

If there is something that oppose the OP and it is rational, I would definitely have not left it uncountered.

Here is the strawman irrational part:

1) how odd that to survive animals must believe something that is false or they won't survive
2) non-human animals survive and they do not have beliefs in things like 'externalness' 'philosophical realism' 'the outside world is absolutely mind independent' yet for some reason VA considers this a necessary set of defaults driven by fear and without which one cannot survive, or at least could not.

Where did I assert, "to survive animals must believe something that is false or they won't survive"

Rather, I asserted, to facilitate basic survival, all animals are adapted with an evolutionary default of 'externalness'.

Non-human animals are incapable of 'believing' like humans do, so bringing in non-human animals to relate to philosophical realism is off topic; actually it is stupid to do so.

My point is,
to facilitate basic survival, all animals are adapted with an evolutionary default of 'externalness';
humans with the capacity for beliefs, grasp this belief of externalness as a dogmatic and fundamentalistic ideology, as in philosophical realism.

The rest of the point are merely babbling.
Present a rational argument that is something wrong with my proposition and I will leave it without a counter.

[Iwannaplato]

LOL - never a concession, the motto of the fragile.