No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon

[Fairy]

So where do thoughts come from that were not there in the physical being that was in your mother’s womb?

Again, what is meant by "where"? My thoughts seem to come from my brain, according to contemporary neuroscience. It seems that when my brain is gone, my thoughts might likely go bye, bye too. Not sure. Why do you ask?

So when you die, there’s no more moon that can be known to exist. That’s true.

I ask because No thought is ever found in a brain. The thought informs but that information is invisible, do you agree?

If like the Buddha says: THOUGHTS are things. Then things must have originated from the invisible.

In other words, things are invisible creations of an invisible creator? Right?

The object that is known by the invisible mind has no knowledge of its existence independently of the mind. The moon has no mind nor can the moon inform itself it is a moon, even though objects are there existing noumenally prior to them being conceptualised and known….Do you agree?

Or is this just more word salad?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can only say 'no absolutely mind indepndent moon' relative to some FSK. All facts are 'conditioned on' some FSK, right? So... if we don't use that FSK, and we use some other one instead, then there is a mind-independent moon.

And you might so, no no but this FSK is judged as the most objective! But... judged as the most objective, based on the criteria from some FSK. And if we don't use that FSK, then this so-called most objective FSK is no longer the most objective one.

And given that most scientists think the Moon persists when not perceived, their scientific FSERC would be, according to VA, the most objective.

“Moon”is a label. A label known - knows nothing of any independent existence apart from the knower. The knower cannot be known without shapeshifting into an object known. And so the object known can never exist independently of the knower. Both knower and known - or, subject and object must both arise together in the exact same instance of knowing.

Human awareness knows the label known as moon, as human awareness is that which is witness to it’s own conceived concept, or thought. . . as both thought and thinker are simultaneously conceived.

Again, that’s what VA is pointing to. I’m not sure. Needs clarification, again.

In the ultimate sense, yes, it is emergence; the moon emerged to be realized [FSER] as real then known and described [FSC].
In the ultimate sense, there is no absolute pre-existing mind-independent object out there awaiting discovery.

However, within the common and conventional sense, the object exists independent of the knower. This is empirical realism and it is relative the human conditions.
But this whole common and conventional sense is subsumed within the ultimate sense, so, ultimately, whatever the object it cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say:

No Humans = no moon that is absolutely HUMAN-mind-DEPENDENT?

Otherwise, it seems like it would be an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and logically futile statement (by humans anyway). Maybe even chauvinistic. It's a bit like saying, without Gary Childress, there can be no absolutely mind-independent moon. I mean, I realize the world revolves around me and me alone, but I like to be generous toward others and pretend to give you all some significance in the world too.

To be more accurate:

No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon
'absolutely' = the mind-independent moon exists regardless of whether there are human or not

With Humans = There is a relatively Mind-Independent Moon
'relative' = there is a mind-independent moon but it is somehow relative to the human conditions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can only say 'no absolutely mind indepndent moon' relative to some FSK. All facts are 'conditioned on' some FSK, right? So... if we don't use that FSK, and we use some other one instead, then there is a mind-independent moon.

So, if we do not use any FSK, then there are no facts, any non-FSK proposition is not factual.

And you might so, no no but this FSK is judged as the most objective! But... judged as the most objective, based on the criteria from some FSK. And if we don't use that FSK, then this so-called most objective FSK is no longer the most objective one.

The judgment of any FSK is based on the FSK or FSERC of the general sense of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom as the final criteria to stop the regress.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can only say 'no absolutely mind indepndent moon' relative to some FSK. All facts are 'conditioned on' some FSK, right? So... if we don't use that FSK, and we use some other one instead, then there is a mind-independent moon.

And you might so, no no but this FSK is judged as the most objective! But... judged as the most objective, based on the criteria from some FSK. And if we don't use that FSK, then this so-called most objective FSK is no longer the most objective one.

And given that most scientists think the Moon persists when not perceived, their scientific FSERC would be, according to VA, the most objective.

As stated before, there are two senses to scientific objective, i.e. based on
1. Scientific realism - FSK grounded on the noumenon
2. Scientific antirealism - no noumenon, just FSK

For scientists who also wear the philosophy hat;
Those who are scientific realists and insist on the belief "the Moon persists when not perceived" are delusional since they are grounding on the noumenon which is an illusion.
Their insistence is psychological and not epistemological.

For those who are scientific antirealists, they do not believe "the Moon persists when not perceived" in the absolute sense.
They only believe the "the Moon persists when not perceived" in the relative [common and conventional] sense.

For those scientists who do not bother about philosophy at all, they just merely do scientific work and produce scientific outputs out their scientific FSK for various reasons, i.e. for knowledge sake, for ego sake, for predictions of other knowledge, serves their sponsors, inputs into other FSK, etc.

[Fairy]

And given that most scientists think the Moon persists when not perceived, their scientific FSERC would be, according to VA, the most objective.

“Moon”is a label. A label known - knows nothing of any independent existence apart from the knower. The knower cannot be known without shapeshifting into an object known. And so the object known can never exist independently of the knower. Both knower and known - or, subject and object must both arise together in the exact same instance of knowing.

Human awareness knows the label known as moon, as human awareness is that which is witness to it’s own conceived concept, or thought. . . as both thought and thinker are simultaneously conceived.

Again, that’s what VA is pointing to. I’m not sure. Needs clarification, again.

In the ultimate sense, yes, it is emergence; the moon emerged to be realized [FSER] as real then known and described [FSC].
In the ultimate sense, there is no absolute pre-existing mind-independent object out there awaiting discovery.

However, within the common and conventional sense, the object exists independent of the knower. This is empirical realism and it is relative the human conditions.
But this whole common and conventional sense is subsumed within the ultimate sense, so, ultimately, whatever the object it cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

This totally makes accurate philosophical sense.

Ignore the brickbrats VA …you are a sound coherent philosopher doing a great job here.

[Flannel Jesus]

You can only say 'no absolutely mind indepndent moon' relative to some FSK. All facts are 'conditioned on' some FSK, right? So... if we don't use that FSK, and we use some other one instead, then there is a mind-independent moon.

So, if we do not use any FSK, then there are no facts, any non-FSK proposition is not factual.

And you might so, no no but this FSK is judged as the most objective! But... judged as the most objective, based on the criteria from some FSK. And if we don't use that FSK, then this so-called most objective FSK is no longer the most objective one.

The judgment of any FSK is based on the FSK or FSERC of the general sense of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom as the final criteria to stop the regress.

And if you reject that fsk then... anything goes. And all facts are conditioned on some fsk so there's no objective reason NOT to reject that fsk.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can only say 'no absolutely mind indepndent moon' relative to some FSK. All facts are 'conditioned on' some FSK, right? So... if we don't use that FSK, and we use some other one instead, then there is a mind-independent moon.

So, if we do not use any FSK, then there are no facts, any non-FSK proposition is not factual.

And you might so, no no but this FSK is judged as the most objective! But... judged as the most objective, based on the criteria from some FSK. And if we don't use that FSK, then this so-called most objective FSK is no longer the most objective one.

The judgment of any FSK is based on the FSK or FSERC of the general sense of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom as the final criteria to stop the regress.

And if you reject that fsk then... anything goes. And all facts are conditioned on some fsk so there's no objective reason NOT to reject that fsk.

There is no rejection of FSK, reality and knowledge end with the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.

[Flannel Jesus]

So, if we do not use any FSK, then there are no facts, any non-FSK proposition is not factual.


The judgment of any FSK is based on the FSK or FSERC of the general sense of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom as the final criteria to stop the regress.

And if you reject that fsk then... anything goes. And all facts are conditioned on some fsk so there's no objective reason NOT to reject that fsk.

There is no rejection of FSK, reality and knowledge end with the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.

What fsk did you base that on?

[Veritas Aequitas]

And if you reject that fsk then... anything goes. And all facts are conditioned on some fsk so there's no objective reason NOT to reject that fsk.

There is no rejection of FSK, reality and knowledge end with the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.

What fsk did you base that on?

.. on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom which is based on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom based on FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom and ....
see:
Avoiding Circularity in Assessing Objectivity of FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=42003

[Flannel Jesus]

There is no rejection of FSK, reality and knowledge end with the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.

What fsk did you base that on?

.. on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom which is based on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom based on FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom and ....
see:
Avoiding Circularity in Assessing Objectivity of FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=42003

And so what fsk did you base that decision on?

[attofishpi]

What fsk did you base that on?

.. on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom which is based on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom based on FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom and ....
see:
Avoiding Circularity in Assessing Objectivity of FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=42003

And so what fsk did you base that decision on?

Is FSK an actual thing? ..or is it Veritas' invention?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What fsk did you base that on?

.. on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom which is based on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom based on FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom and ....
see:
Avoiding Circularity in Assessing Objectivity of FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=42003

And so what fsk did you base that decision on?

I believe after an extensive explanation, to insist on an infinite regress is insulting one's intelligence.
It is like insisting on what is before the Big Bang and expecting a prior Big Bang and so on.
However, scientists who are rational, critical thinkers and wise would merely accept the Theory of the Big Bang with some reservations.

[attofishpi]

.. on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom which is based on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom based on FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom and ....
see:
Avoiding Circularity in Assessing Objectivity of FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=42003

And so what fsk did you base that decision on?

I believe after an extensive explanation, to insist on an infinite regress is insulting one's intelligence.
It is like insisting on what is before the Big Bang and expecting a prior Big Bang and so on.
However, scientists who are rational, critical thinkers and wise would merely accept the Theory of the Big Bang with some reservations.

If the Big Bang Theory is correct, then it is not ridiculous to consider that Big Bangs have been happening eternally in some form of infinite 'regression'.

btw, how 'bout answering my FSK question (Jesus must be too busy planning his birthday party )

[Veritas Aequitas]

And so what fsk did you base that decision on?

I believe after an extensive explanation, to insist on an infinite regress is insulting one's intelligence.
It is like insisting on what is before the Big Bang and expecting a prior Big Bang and so on.
However, scientists who are rational, critical thinkers and wise would merely accept the Theory of the Big Bang with some reservations.

If the Big Bang Theory is correct, then it is not ridiculous to consider that Big Bangs have been happening eternally in some form of infinite 'regression'.

btw, how 'bout answering my FSK question (Jesus must be too busy planning his birthday party )

Where you did not ask me anything about FSK?