No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon

[Fairy]

Yes, I don't mean "the object doesn’t actually exist at all until an observer looks at it."

Yes, thanks, I understand.

It's like, something cannot be ''Known'' to exist, not until that something is observed as an object known to the mind. It's like, the object has always been there, but the object has no mind to know it's there, the object in in state of not-knowing it's there. And so, ( an object ) had to have already existed for it to have become ''Known'' to exist to the mind.

And so, an object is only known to exist when the object is being 'looked upon'.
In other words, something, an object, cannot be known to exist, unless the object is already there, existing first.

[Belinda]

Yes, I don't mean "the object doesn’t actually exist at all until an observer looks at it."

Yes, thanks, I understand.

It's like, something cannot be ''Known'' to exist, not until that something is observed as an object known to the mind. It's like, the object has always been there, but the object has no mind to know it's there, the object in in state of not-knowing it's there. And so, ( an object ) had to have already existed for it to have become ''Known'' to exist to the mind.

And so, an object is only known to exist when the object is being 'looked upon'.
In other words, something, an object, cannot be known to exist, unless the object is already there, existing first.

A savage who has never looked upon a chair would not attach any meaning to some chair that she first looks upon.

A chair may on occasion mean a packing crate, a fallen tree trunk, a bed frame, a low table, a dead and stuffed horse, a folded mattress, or a convenient pile of small stones, and so forth.

For chair substitute boat, edible, river, stinging insect, means of transport, and so forth and the same principle applies that any object is not an object until it means something to an observer.

[Fairy]

Yes, I don't mean "the object doesn’t actually exist at all until an observer looks at it."

Yes, thanks, I understand.

It's like, something cannot be ''Known'' to exist, not until that something is observed as an object known to the mind. It's like, the object has always been there, but the object has no mind to know it's there, the object in in state of not-knowing it's there. And so, ( an object ) had to have already existed for it to have become ''Known'' to exist to the mind.

And so, an object is only known to exist when the object is being 'looked upon'.
In other words, something, an object, cannot be known to exist, unless the object is already there, existing first.

A savage who has never looked upon a chair would not attach any meaning to some chair that she first looks upon.

A chair may on occasion mean a packing crate, a fallen tree trunk, a bed frame, a low table, a dead and stuffed horse, a folded mattress, or a convenient pile of small stones, and so forth.

For chair substitute boat, edible, river, stinging insect, means of transport, and so forth and the same principle applies that any object is not an object until it means something to an observer.

Objects are known to exist without knowing what the object is. To know what the object is, is to conceptualise the object, which simultaneously attaches meaning by association.

An object has no meaning until an observer places meaning upon it in the form of a concept..

Once the concept is known in association to its meaning. The concept is fixed.
The known concept “Chair” is never a “ Table” the concept ‘chair’ once known to mean ‘chair’ is fixed, as that concept.

However, the ‘chair’ can mean different things, like a seat, or a pew, or carrying vehicle for small child, or carrying vehicle for a disabled person unable to walk.

[Belinda]

Yes, thanks, I understand.

It's like, something cannot be ''Known'' to exist, not until that something is observed as an object known to the mind. It's like, the object has always been there, but the object has no mind to know it's there, the object in in state of not-knowing it's there. And so, ( an object ) had to have already existed for it to have become ''Known'' to exist to the mind.

And so, an object is only known to exist when the object is being 'looked upon'.
In other words, something, an object, cannot be known to exist, unless the object is already there, existing first.

A savage who has never looked upon a chair would not attach any meaning to some chair that she first looks upon.

A chair may on occasion mean a packing crate, a fallen tree trunk, a bed frame, a low table, a dead and stuffed horse, a folded mattress, or a convenient pile of small stones, and so forth.

For chair substitute boat, edible, river, stinging insect, means of transport, and so forth and the same principle applies that any object is not an object until it means something to an observer.

Objects are known to exist without knowing what the object is. To know what the object is, is to conceptualise the object, which simultaneously attaches meaning by association.

An object has no meaning until an observer places meaning upon it in the form of a concept..

Once the concept is known in association to its meaning. The concept is fixed.
The known concept “Chair” is never a “ Table” the concept ‘chair’ once known to mean ‘chair’ is fixed, as that concept.

However, the ‘chair’ can mean different things, like a seat, or a pew, or carrying vehicle for small child, or carrying vehicle for a disabled person unable to walk.

The object does get its meaning entirely from what you call "association".This being the case there is no need to think the object exists as a thing before some person or animal is around to associate its experiences with it.

Consider a small child before it has learned any language.The small child is out in the park with Mummy when the child sees a dog coming along. It has a nice face and moves around and so the child is interested .Mummy says "That's a doggy". The child begins to associate the sound of That's -a -doggy with the experience of that particular doggy at that particular place. Then the child generalises 'doggy' to other sightings and sounds of doggies. It sometimes so happens a small child begins to acquire language by calling all furry living things 'doggies' , and horses, squirrels, and cats may be "doggies" until the concept is further refined and particularised.

If some poor kid had no experience of the world outside and never saw a dog he would never know there was such a thing as a dog. All learning is from experience and not from pre-existing things.

[Impenitent]

if the kid was really with Mummy she'd say "that's Anubis"

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is AI:

Again, do not send me AI. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

It is at your discretion to ignore. It may be useful for others who read the post.

My main contention is anything grounded on philosophical realism [QM in this case] is unrealistic, fake and illusory

When you perceive the candle you are perceiving it as it is from your context. Someone farther away would perceive the candle differently, the light would've had more time to spread out and so it would be dimmer for example. They would see different things from different contexts. But both perspectives are equally real because that's how reality works.
There is no candle independent of some context under which its properties are realized.

If that is your belief, then, from the philosophical perspective, you're a philosophical antiRealist who opposes Philosophical Realism.
I am a philosophical anti-realist or I prefer to be ANTI-philosophical_realism.
There are many types of ANTI-philosophical_realism or [A]philosophical_realism, mine is the Kantian kind.

Philosophical realism ... is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

What you are perceiving directly is the reality of the candle, as it actually exists in the real world. In the real world, objects only realize their properties contextually. There are an infinite number of ways you can look at a candle and see it differently, and all are equally real.
There is no "true" perspective, as if someone closer to the candle is seeing it closer to how it really is than someone further away (with a smaller "time delay" as you say). They are both seeing the real candle as it actually exists in reality directly, but under different contexts, and there is no candle independent of context, as systems only realize their properties in context.

Even if you could somehow perceive the candle with zero time delay, that would not make such a perspective on the candle any "truer" or "more real" than any others.

As per your above views, you are a philosophical antirealist who opposes philosophical realists like Einstein who insisted, regardless of perspectives there is a real absolutely mind-independent moon that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

I am not sure you would declare yourself to be a philosophical antirealist here.
If you do, beware of the intellectual violence and poisonous arrows coming your way.
Philosophical realists will condemn philosophical antirealists as fools for ignoring common sense that there must be a mind-independent things out there in the external world.

They will quote Kant's point [he merely highlighted this common sense view for deeper thinking];
"the idea of an appearance without something that appears is absurd"
it is logical but cannot be ontological.
To Kant, hypostatizing or reifying something that appears [a logical abstract] is chasing an illusion [noumenon or thing-in-itself].

My contention is, the philosophical realists view is more psychological than epistemological.
It is driven by an evolutionary default of 'externalness' which philosophical realists has adopted as a fundamentalistic ideology to soothe their very painful soul as driven by an existential crisis. As such their ideology is very primitive and barbaric.
Some philosophical realists, especially the sub-tribe of theists will even kill those who oppose them.

What are your views on the above?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, I don't mean "the object doesn’t actually exist at all until an observer looks at it."

Yes, thanks, I understand.

It's like, something cannot be ''Known'' to exist, not until that something is observed as an object known to the mind. It's like, the object has always been there, but the object has no mind to know it's there, the object in in state of not-knowing it's there. And so, ( an object ) had to have already existed for it to have become ''Known'' to exist to the mind.

And so, an object is only known to exist when the object is being 'looked upon'.
In other words, something, an object, cannot be known to exist, unless the object is already there, existing first.

Not exactly that.

1. Reality is all-there-is.
2. All-there-is comprise [intricately part and parcel] humans and all non-human things.
3. Therefore humans are intricately part and parcel of reality.
4. Therefore humans cannot be absolutely independent from all non-human-things.

Before an object is perceived, observed and described, it has to emerge and be realized.
Whatever the object that has always been there or recently been there, it has to emerge in interaction and in co-operation with humans. [as per argument above].
There is no such a thing-in-itself which is absolutely independent of the human conditions or human mind.

From a certain perspective, things are perceived as mind-independent but that is relative mind-independence not "absolutely" mind independent.

[Fairy]

A savage who has never looked upon a chair would not attach any meaning to some chair that she first looks upon.

A chair may on occasion mean a packing crate, a fallen tree trunk, a bed frame, a low table, a dead and stuffed horse, a folded mattress, or a convenient pile of small stones, and so forth.

For chair substitute boat, edible, river, stinging insect, means of transport, and so forth and the same principle applies that any object is not an object until it means something to an observer.

Objects are known to exist without knowing what the object is. To know what the object is, is to conceptualise the object, which simultaneously attaches meaning by association.

An object has no meaning until an observer places meaning upon it in the form of a concept..

Once the concept is known in association to its meaning. The concept is fixed.
The known concept “Chair” is never a “ Table” the concept ‘chair’ once known to mean ‘chair’ is fixed, as that concept.

However, the ‘chair’ can mean different things, like a seat, or a pew, or carrying vehicle for small child, or carrying vehicle for a disabled person unable to walk.

The object does get its meaning entirely from what you call "association".This being the case there is no need to think the object exists as a thing before some person or animal is around to associate its experiences with it.

Consider a small child before it has learned any language.The small child is out in the park with Mummy when the child sees a dog coming along. It has a nice face and moves around and so the child is interested .Mummy says "That's a doggy". The child begins to associate the sound of That's -a -doggy with the experience of that particular doggy at that particular place. Then the child generalises 'doggy' to other sightings and sounds of doggies. It sometimes so happens a small child begins to acquire language by calling all furry living things 'doggies' , and horses, squirrels, and cats may be "doggies" until the concept is further refined and particularised.

If some poor kid had no experience of the world outside and never saw a dog he would never know there was such a thing as a dog. All learning is from experience and not from pre-existing things.

I meant: “By Association” in the context of two things are connected by a shared characteristic. For example: the observed and the observer, or the sensor and the sensed.

Mistranslations occur when trying to describe an object as a known thing, that is fundamentally nameless. Because known things can mean a myriad of things, and at the same time things are a mental construction of mind, namely, no known thing, appearing as thing known.

[Fairy]

Yes, I don't mean "the object doesn’t actually exist at all until an observer looks at it."

Yes, thanks, I understand.

It's like, something cannot be ''Known'' to exist, not until that something is observed as an object known to the mind. It's like, the object has always been there, but the object has no mind to know it's there, the object in in state of not-knowing it's there. And so, ( an object ) had to have already existed for it to have become ''Known'' to exist to the mind.

And so, an object is only known to exist when the object is being 'looked upon'.
In other words, something, an object, cannot be known to exist, unless the object is already there, existing first.

Not exactly that.

1. Reality is all-there-is.
2. All-there-is comprise [intricately part and parcel] humans and all non-human things.
3. Therefore humans are intricately part and parcel of reality.
4. Therefore humans cannot be absolutely independent from all non-human-things.

Before an object is perceived, observed and described, it has to emerge and be realized.
Whatever the object that has always been there or recently been there, it has to emerge in interaction and in co-operation with humans. [as per argument above].
There is no such a thing-in-itself which is absolutely independent of the human conditions or human mind.

From a certain perspective, things are perceived as mind-independent but that is relative mind-independence not "absolutely" mind independent.

I understand what you are saying.Thanks.

It’s like the relative finite cannot know the absolute infinite because there is only the absolute infinite.

Yay, or nay?

[amihart]

If that is your belief, then, from the philosophical perspective, you're a philosophical antiRealist who opposes Philosophical Realism.

I am a person who believes there exists an objective reality that is independent of the conscious observer and the mind. If that is a "anti-realist" to you... well, I think your definitions are a bit bizarre, but you are free to define words however you wish.

As per your above views, you are a philosophical antirealist who opposes philosophical realists like Einstein who insisted, regardless of perspectives there is a real absolutely mind-independent moon that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

I oppose Einsteinian realism, which is really just a specific formulation of metaphysical realism. I do not oppose realism. The moon is mind-independent, it is just not context-independent. I am a contextual realist, not a metaphysical realist.

They will quote Kant's point [he merely highlighted this common sense view for deeper thinking];
"the idea of an appearance without something that appears is absurd"

Yes, the idea of an appearance without something that appears is absurd, because I reject that our experience of relaity has anything to do with appearance at all.

To Kant, hypostatizing or reifying something that appears [a logical abstract] is chasing an illusion [noumenon or thing-in-itself].

I reject Kant's invisible noumenon, but precisely because the idea of appearance without something that appears is absurd, I am simultaneously also forced to reject his phenomenon. It makes no sense to speak of reality in terms of its conscious impressions on my mind if I do believe this invisible reality actually even exists.

Contextual realism is a direct realist philosophy. What exists is reality which is not something invisible, but precisely what we perceive it to be. And, as such, it has nothing to do with "mind" or "consciousness." The objects we perceive in reality do not "appear" to us, they just are. That is precisely their ontological mind-independent being.

Some philosophical realists, especially the sub-tribe of theists will even kill those who oppose them.

To be honest, I'm not that interested in discussing the personal character of people who hold these beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If that is your belief, then, from the philosophical perspective, you're a philosophical antiRealist who opposes Philosophical Realism.

I am a person who believes there exists an objective reality that is independent of the conscious observer and the mind. If that is a "anti-realist" to you... well, I think your definitions are a bit bizarre, but you are free to define words however you wish.

Based on the above you are a general realist, i.e. believing in a mind-independent reality.

As per your above views, you are a philosophical antirealist who opposes philosophical realists like Einstein who insisted, regardless of perspectives there is a real absolutely mind-independent moon that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

I oppose Einsteinian realism, which is really just a specific formulation of metaphysical realism. I do not oppose realism. The moon is mind-independent, it is just not context-independent. I am a contextual realist, not a metaphysical realist.

OK, you're a contextual realist i.e. the focus is on context but usually a contextual is agnostic of an absolutely mind-independent reality.

They will quote Kant's point [he merely highlighted this common sense view for deeper thinking];
"the idea of an appearance without something that appears is absurd"

Yes, the idea of an appearance without something that appears is absurd, because I reject that our experience of reality has anything to do with appearance at all.

OK

To Kant, hypostatizing or reifying something that appears [a logical abstract] is chasing an illusion [noumenon or thing-in-itself].

I reject Kant's invisible noumenon, but precisely because the idea of appearance without something that appears is absurd, I am simultaneously also forced to reject his phenomenon. It makes no sense to speak of reality in terms of its conscious impressions on my mind if I do believe this invisible reality actually even exists.

Kant's phenomenon is what science can confirm as empirically real [actual or possible].
The noumenon is only a logical thought or an ideal but is in a way illusory which is necessary and useful for various philosophical purposes. For example, a perfect circle with its mathematic formula is a noumenon which does not exist in reality but nevertheless use as a necessary and critical guide for the practical.

Contextual realism is a direct realist philosophy. What exists is reality which is not something invisible, but precisely what we perceive it to be. And, as such, it has nothing to do with "mind" or "consciousness." The objects we perceive in reality do not "appear" to us, they just are. That is precisely their ontological mind-independent being.

This is odd, how can it be contextualized which require a mind if no mind or consciousness are involved.
There are no absolutely mind-independent object that 'send' signal as appearances; but there is mind-related appearance appearing to the mind-related empirical self.

btw, direct realism is philosophical realism i.e. it believe there is an absolutely mind-independent moon regardless of whether there are human or not.
Contextual realism focus on contexts and do not focus or is agnostic regarding an absolutely mind-independent moon regardless of whether there are human or not.

I don't think contextual-direct-realism makes sense within the current philosophical community? You have an argument for it?

Some philosophical realists, especially the sub-tribe o[]f theists will even kill those who oppose them.

To be honest, I'm not that interested in discussing the personal character of people who hold these beliefs.

According to Kant, humanity's ultimate vision and mission is perpetual peace, via what we ought to do [morality] and what we can know [epistemology].
To strive towards humanity's ultimate vision and mission, the individual need to adopt philosophy as a way of life, thus deliberating on the psychological of humans.

As I read it, contextual realism could believe,
no humans = no absolutely mind-independent moon, but maybe or maybe not?

[Belinda]

if the kid was really with Mummy she'd say "that's Anubis"

-Imp

I imagine it's not too hard for you to understand my English term as the American 'Mom'.

"Pussy," or "Kitty", "Mr McQuachle's white cat", or "Don't touch it it has fleas!"! Whatever. The point is the child learns the name of an event from some relationship such as its mother. Then the growing and experiencing child generalises the idea via many other relationships towards the cultural or subcultural norm.
The acquisition of language and related concepts is within a huge web of socialisation.

However during 1950s-70s Chomsky published his theory that rules for language acquisition are innate (inborn) and strengthen naturally as humans grow and develop.
Even including Chomsky's theory of universal grammar the moon , or any other phenomenon, would simply not exist unless there were a subject that could conceptualise it.

Aristotle's theory of forms is that each individual thing has its own form which it struggles to attain. Thomas Aquinas Christianised the Aristotelian theory. Within the Aristotelian-Christian culture of belief the Moon is a pre-established form that is independent of human consciousness.

[Age]

if the kid was really with Mummy she'd say "that's Anubis"

-Imp

I imagine it's not too hard for you to understand my English term as the American 'Mom'.

"Pussy," or "Kitty", "Mr McQuachle's white cat", or "Don't touch it it has fleas!"! Whatever. The point is the child learns the name of an event from some relationship such as its mother. Then the growing and experiencing child generalises the idea via many other relationships towards the cultural or subcultural norm.
The acquisition of language and related concepts is within a huge web of socialisation.

However during 1950s-70s Chomsky published his theory that rules for language acquisition are innate (inborn) and strengthen naturally as humans grow and develop.

And what are those innate/inborn 'rules', for language acquisition, exactly?

[Belinda]

if the kid was really with Mummy she'd say "that's Anubis"

-Imp

I imagine it's not too hard for you to understand my English term as the American 'Mom'.

"Pussy," or "Kitty", "Mr McQuachle's white cat", or "Don't touch it it has fleas!"! Whatever. The point is the child learns the name of an event from some relationship such as its mother. Then the growing and experiencing child generalises the idea via many other relationships towards the cultural or subcultural norm.
The acquisition of language and related concepts is within a huge web of socialisation.

However during 1950s-70s Chomsky published his theory that rules for language acquisition are innate (inborn) and strengthen naturally as humans grow and develop.

And what are those innate/inborn 'rules', for language acquisition, exactly?

Chomsky's theory of language acquisition is called Generative Grammar. Generative grammar is about subconscious knowledge of grammatical rules such that a native speaker of a language knows sort of instinctively if a sentence sounds odd.

The man is happy.
Happy man is the.

Sounds odd , and we know that instinctively and did not have to be taught it.

Your question is legitimate although tangential to the main question. It's a long time since I studied Chomsky and I have forgotten the explicit rules , I seem to remember there actually are explicit rules. I'm sorry but I can't find a brief resume of the rules of generative transformational grammar.

Another linguistic theory called linguistic determinism concerns whether or not the Moon is mind-independent. Linguistic determinism is the concept that language and its structures limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought processes such as categorization, memory, and perception.

[Age]

I imagine it's not too hard for you to understand my English term as the American 'Mom'.

"Pussy," or "Kitty", "Mr McQuachle's white cat", or "Don't touch it it has fleas!"! Whatever. The point is the child learns the name of an event from some relationship such as its mother. Then the growing and experiencing child generalises the idea via many other relationships towards the cultural or subcultural norm.
The acquisition of language and related concepts is within a huge web of socialisation.

However during 1950s-70s Chomsky published his theory that rules for language acquisition are innate (inborn) and strengthen naturally as humans grow and develop.

And what are those innate/inborn 'rules', for language acquisition, exactly?

Chomsky's theory of language acquisition is called Generative Grammar. Generative grammar is about subconscious knowledge of grammatical rules such that a native speaker of a language knows sort of instinctively if a sentence sounds odd.

But which obviously could only 'arise' AFTER one has 'grown up in' or has 'been already introduced' to 'that language', right?

Obviously the words 'native speaker of a language' could only refer to one that has, ALREADY, HAD prior experience with a particular language

The man is happy.
Happy man is the.

Well considering that the knowing of where the placement of words is correct, like in your example here, only 'arises' AFTER being introduced or being 'educated' in and with a particular language, NO one is born ALREADY knowing what is correct NOR incorrect, here.

Sounds odd , and we know that instinctively and did not have to be taught it.

Are you JOKING, here?

Language is LEARNED, and the DIFFERENT ways languages are SPOKEN, WRITTEN, and TAUGHT all around the world could NEVER be instinctively NOR innately known.

Your question is legitimate although tangential to the main question. It's a long time since I studied Chomsky and I have forgotten the explicit rules , I seem to remember there actually are explicit rules. I'm sorry but I can't find a brief resume of the rules of generative transformational grammar.

That is fine, there is no need to apologize.

Another linguistic theory called linguistic determinism concerns whether or not the Moon is mind-independent. Linguistic determinism is the concept that language and its structures limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought processes such as categorization, memory, and perception.

Okay. But ALL theories are NOT necessarily true, nor right, completely NOR partly.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, the 'thing', which some of you 'things', called 'human beings', call, and have labelled and/or named, 'moon', existed BEFORE the 'thing', human being, came-to-be, and would still exist even if the 'thing' that some 'things' call and label 'human beings' stopped existing.

And, this applies to ALL 'things'. The 'thing', itself, or 'things', themselves, NEVER depend upon what 'the things', human beings, have 'conceptualized up', or not.

Now, 'communicating' or 'communication', itself, may have some sort of innate, inborn, or instinctive 'knowing' component to it. However, language, itself, and 'the way' that it is spoken and written in the COUNTLESS DIFFERENT ways around the world is ALL LEARNED, and TAUGHT, along the way.

For example, if you grew up LEARNING what you 'now know' as, 'The man is happy', as, 'Happy is the man', (as it is spoken and written in SOME languages, then 'that' would NOT sound, AT ALL, odd. And, this is NOT because of some CLAIMED 'instinctive knowing'. It is BECAUSE OF being TAUGHT, consciously AND unconsciously of what so-call 'sounds odd' or 'sounds not odd'.

Another example is if you grew up hearing and/or reading, 'Happy man is the', when the words, 'Happy is man the', were TAUGHT, to you, to mean or referred to what you 'now' know as, 'tree is not green'. Words, and thus language, itself, do NOT mean absolutely ANY thing, in and of themselves. you human beings just TEACH and LEARN a 'conceptualized version' of what words, themselves, mean, refer to, and/or are 'pointing at', as some would say, here.

NO one is born KNOWING what 'sounds' 'odd' NOR 'correct'. you ALL just LEARN 'these things', along the way.