No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon

[attofishpi]

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?

Maaaaaate...OMG, stop making the Life of Brian so difficult. I asked Jesus, but he has not responded, ergo I am asking u!

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

FSK stands for Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
It is interchangeable with Framework and System of Cognition [FSC].

It is a fact, whatever is knowledge is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective, i.e. taken as the gold standard. For details, see:

What is a Framework and System of Knowledge?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889

Besides personal opinion and beliefs whatever is propositioned is always contingent upon a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge with its constitution, principles, processes, assumptions, limitations, etc., e.g. science and its subs, politics, economics, finance, philosophy, religion, history, linguistic and all fields of knowledge.

For example, the statement 'Water is H20' is true only because the science-chemistry FSK said so, not you, your mother, father, kin, etc. said so.
Biden is the 46th President of the USA is true based on the US Political FSK, not because any individual or group said so.

The science FSK is the gold standard, the theistic FSK has very low credibility, how is this rating done?

Methodology of Rating Objectivity of FSK
viewtopic.php?p=676756&hilit=weight#p676756

Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

[puto]

Veritas Aequitas TROLL

[Flannel Jesus]

.. 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.

What fsk is that truth based on?

[Flannel Jesus]

.. 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?

His own invention. He still doesn't realise how idiotic it all is to everyone else.

[attofishpi]

And so what fsk did you base that decision on?

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

His own invention. He still doesn't realise how idiotic it all is to everyone else.

*phew*

Thanks..don't forget to send me an invite. (& teleport me to it late, cos I'm cool )

[Age]

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

FSK stands for Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
It is interchangeable with Framework and System of Cognition [FSC].

It is a fact, whatever is knowledge is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective, i.e. taken as the gold standard. For details, see:

What is a Framework and System of Knowledge?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889

Besides personal opinion and beliefs whatever is propositioned is always contingent upon a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge with its constitution, principles, processes, assumptions, limitations, etc., e.g. science and its subs, politics, economics, finance, philosophy, religion, history, linguistic and all fields of knowledge.

For example, the statement 'Water is H20' is true only because the science-chemistry FSK said so, not you, your mother, father, kin, etc. said so.
Biden is the 46th President of the USA is true based on the US Political FSK, not because any individual or group said so.

The science FSK is the gold standard, the theistic FSK has very low credibility, how is this rating done?

Methodology of Rating Objectivity of FSK
viewtopic.php?p=676756&hilit=weight#p676756

Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

In other words, and in short, it is "veritas aequitas" OWN invention.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And so what fsk did you base that decision on?

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

His own invention. He still doesn't realise how idiotic it all is to everyone else.

A Quickie response from AI:

[AI's Challenge:]"If you believe that FSK is an invention, I invite you to provide an example of knowledge or cognition that does not rely on a framework or system. I suspect such examples will reinforce, rather than challenge, the universality of FSK."

ChatGpt wrote:
To address accusations that you are inventing the concept of FSK (Framework and System of Knowledge), you can provide a robust explanation that emphasizes its basis in common practices of human cognition and knowledge-building. Here's how to respond effectively:

1. Clarify the Concept of FSK as a Common Fact
Define the FSK: Explain that a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) is simply a structured way of organizing and validating knowledge based on specific criteria. This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge.
Example: The scientific method is an FSK built on empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, and critical peer review. Similarly, ethical systems, legal frameworks, or even religious beliefs rely on their own sets of foundational principles and validation mechanisms.
"FSK is not my invention; it is a descriptive term for the structured ways in which knowledge has always been organized and validated across different domains of human activity."

2. Provide Examples of Implicit FSKs
Scientific FSK: The scientific community relies on a framework built on observation, experimentation, and falsifiability. This is a well-documented system of knowledge.
Legal FSK: Legal systems are frameworks based on statutes, case law, and principles like justice and fairness.
Cultural FSK: Different cultures operate within their own frameworks of knowledge, values, and practices, demonstrating that FSKs are ubiquitous.
"Every discipline, community, or system of inquiry operates within an implicit or explicit framework and system of knowledge. I am merely articulating this universal practice with the term 'FSK.'"

3. Highlight Philosophical Precedents
Philosophy and Paradigms: Refer to Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigms in science as examples of implicit FSKs. Kuhn described how scientific knowledge progresses within paradigms that dictate methods, questions, and interpretations.
Kantian Philosophy: Immanuel Kant’s Transcendental Idealism can be understood as an FSK, where human cognition structures knowledge through categories and principles.
Epistemology: Epistemologists often discuss "frameworks" or "systems" of justification, making the idea of FSK a recognized concept in philosophical inquiry.
"The notion of frameworks and systems guiding knowledge is not new. Philosophical traditions, from Kant to Kuhn, have long recognized the structured nature of human knowledge."

4. Frame FSK as an Explicit Articulation
Acknowledge that while the term FSK may not be commonly used, it is simply an explicit articulation of a widespread and intuitive concept.
Explain that articulating this concept with precision can help make it easier to analyze and discuss the structure of knowledge.
"The term 'FSK' is my way of explicitly articulating a common and widely observed reality: that all knowledge operates within structured frameworks and systems. Naming this concept makes it easier to discuss and analyze."

5. Invite Constructive Engagement
Challenge your accuser to provide examples of knowledge or cognition that do not rely on any framework or system.
Encourage them to critically assess whether FSK is genuinely an invention or a descriptive reality.
"If you believe that FSK is an invention, I invite you to provide an example of knowledge or cognition that does not rely on a framework or system. I suspect such examples will reinforce, rather than challenge, the universality of FSK."

This approach reinforces your position while demonstrating that the concept of FSK is grounded in well-established practices and philosophical insights. By framing FSK as a clarification of what is already common, you disarm accusations of inventing it.

[Flannel Jesus]

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

His own invention. He still doesn't realise how idiotic it all is to everyone else.

*phew*

Thanks..don't forget to send me an invite. (& teleport me to it late, cos I'm cool )

Let me be clear though, there are some base intuitions about his whole 'fsk' spiel that are absolutely philosphically valuable and worthy of consideration. When it was first brought to my attention, years ago, he had taken it way too far.

Basically he was insisting that you couldn't say "water is made of H2O molecules" without then saying "conditioned on the chemistry FSK". He was even going so far as to say that, if I were to claim "water was still H2O back in the year 1000", before modern chemistry was conceived, that I would be incorrect for saying that.

So, 1) yes, of course everything every human knows is 'conditioned upon' the realm of study where we found it out. It's transparently correct, and the idea that people need to add 'conditioned upon' to every statement of fact is absurd. 'Conditioned upon' just means 'if chemistry is not true, then water is H2O is not true'. VA needs that spelled out explicitly every time you state a fact, whereas the majority of people just implicitly understand that when you say a scientific fact, OBVIOUSLY that scientific fact was discovered by people and if those people are wrong, that fact is wrong, and if the model they're operating under is wrong, that fact might be wrong. It doesn't need to be spelled out with every sentence, but for VA it does because i guess VA is too stupid to just accept that implicitly.

2) If the best of our scientific knowledge says water is composed of H2O, then that is not just true now, we're obviously going to talk about water retroactively as if it were composed of H2O as well. He says he trusts the scientific FSK - well the scientific FSK talks about chemicals in the past the same way as it talks about chemicals now. Any discussion of abiogenesis will involve scientists talking about chemicals we discovered in the last 300 years, as if those chemicals really existed 4 billion years ago - he wants to accept the scientific FSK, but not allow for chemicals that exist now to have existed 4 billion years ago? Fucking... why? Why pick and choose in such an aribtrary manner? If we trust the scientific FSK, then let's trust the scientific FSK when it talks about chemicals from 4 billion years ago, holy fuck.

So it's not that the FSK thing is explicitly incorrect, it's that it's useless in the way he uses it. He needs 'fsks' spelling out for every claim where everyone else already understands that when you say something about biology, that fact comes from the field of biology, you don't need to explicitly mention "the biology fsk" to anybody with more brain cells than VA.

I think he has some deep language issues.

[Atla]

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?

Rationality points to itself; the height of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom is VA's enhanced version of Kantian philosophy.

Any more questions?

[Belinda]

Philosophical Realism [absolute] versus Philosophical AntiRealism [relative]

Philosophical Realism [cover indirect/direct realism, scientific realism ] claims there is a real absolutely mind-independent object [noumenon] beyond empirical observations.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

On the other hand, Philosophical antirealism oppose and reject such a claim, i.e. it is impossible for a real absolutely mind-independent object [noumenon] to exists beyond empirical observations.

Rather, Philosophical antirealists [Kantian] claim there is only a relatively mind-independent object within the empirical world. As such, while humans do observe an apple on a tree out there which is independent from humans physically, somehow [require detailed explanations] they are still related to the human conditions.

Here at 54:37
https://youtu.be/ISdBAf-ysI0?t=3268
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

So, there is no absolutely mind-independent moon if there are no humans.

While Al-Khalili [as a Quantum Physicist] admit the above, as a dogmatic philosophical realist he is unable to accept the above fact from QM. This reflect a psychological issue dealing with the pains of cognitive dissonances which he had to avoid.

I had argued, philosophical realism is a dogmatic ideology that is adopted from an evolutionary default to deal with an existential crisis that generate cognitive dissonance that generate terrible and terrific existential pains and terror at a subliminal level.

While philosophical realists are at the mercy of the above terror, philosophical antirealists has evolved and matured further to be able to manage the terror of the evolutionary default to some degrees.

As such the contentions between Philosophical Realists [absolute] versus Philosophical AntiRealists [relative] has to be revealed by Critical Philosophy and resolved at the psychological level and not the epistemological level.

Discuss??
Views??

Note this is merely philosophical discussion not a "whack-a-mole" game.

There is no such thing as a thing in itself

. how could there be! If no dog, bird, insect, plant, or human saw the moon or detected the moon with scientific instruments , then the moon would not exist except as an item of faith.

[attofishpi]

There is no such thing as a thing in itself

. how could there be! If no dog, bird, insect, plant, or human saw the moon or detected the moon with scientific instruments , then the moon would not exist except as an item of faith.

Hang on. What about Giraffes? Everybody always forgets about the giraffes and they are a lot closer to the moon than humans (when humans are on the ground, not when they are on the moon)

I'm not sure how high up the moon is, but for all we know some of them have been banged on the head by it.

[Flannel Jesus]

.. 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?

Rationality points to itself; the height of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom is VA's enhanced version of Kantian philosophy.

Any more questions?

No, that's fantastic. It's circular.

That's okay. After all, we're all, I assume, aware of the Münchhausen trilemma.

But then let's not over-encumber our language with all this 'fsk' bullshit. I can say water is H2O, and I don't need to say "water is h2o as conditioned upon the scientific chemistry fsk" like the moron VA thinks. We don't need to litter our sentences with that bullshit, do we?

[attofishpi]

Precisely. Anyway, it sounds like bla bla bla...ForfuckSaKe (FSK)

[Fairy]

Physical objects like “moon”or any other physical object…First must exist before the object can be Known to exist.

Knowing a physical object requires an observer to first look at the object, to know it is there. The human observer sees the object in space and calls the object a moon.

If the human observer never looked at the object, then the moon would never have been (known) as a moon, even though the object is there.

Without the human observer conceptualising the object a (moon) then no moon would have existed as known, even though the object is there. So without the concept of the object, there would just be an object there, and observer would not know what was being looked at, it would be there, but not known what it is, had the human observer not conceptualised it.

I think that’s what VA is pointing to in this thread…but I could be wrong. I think the whole idea is about “knowing” an object as a concept known…rather than the object doesn’t actually exist at all until an observer looks at it. The object MUST exist first for it to be known to exist as a concept.

Clarification needed.