What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus, the premise 'there is no reality-in-itself' [existing absolutely independent from humans ]
entail the conclusion,
'therefore, reality [in-itself] can't be absolutely independent from humans'

Your argument is a mess.

It is advisable for you to suspend judgment because you are arguing from a very primal and primitive basis, thus unable to understand [not agree with] my argument.

P1: Reality is not an illusion.

Agreed. You've said this many times recently. And it's philosophically realist. And it doesn't entail 'therefore. reality can't be absolutely independent from humans'. That doesn't follow at all.

Why not?

P1: Reality is not an illusion. [a p-realist claim that reality is absolutely independent of reality]
P2: Antirealist proves the reality [p-reality] claimed in P1 is actually an illusion.
C: Since P1 is an illusion, the real reality [antirealists' reality] cannot be absolutely independent from humans]

The p-realist sense of reality is illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40265

'Reality is real; therefore, reality can't be absolutely independent from humans.' That's either mysticism, or maybe some semi-mystical extrapolation from quantum mechanics - or, simply, a realist claim: 'all real things are connected, as parts of a whole'. Whatever 'connected' means, that is not an antirealist claim.

Reality is real as confirmed by scientific facts which is contingent upon a human-based FSERC.
If human-based scientific, it has nothing to do with 'mysticism'.
Since human-based it cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

If a realist claim 'all real things are connected, as parts of a whole' then all real things cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions which is also a part of the whole.
This contract the realists' claim that 'things are absolutely independent of the human conditions'.

This is the contradiction you cannot see in your claim.
I have highlighted this many times; reflect and think hard on it.

P2: Reality-in-itself is an illusion.

Agreed. The term 'reality-in-itself' is incoherent/meaningless. And anyway, it can have no entailment with regard to reality, which is not an illusion - see P1.

As I had stated many times, 'reality-in-itself' is coherent and meaningful for the philosophical realists like you. It is your fact-by-itself aka fact-itself. You cannot deny this.
You are claiming the thing-in-itself [moon-in-itself, rock-in-itself and so on] is absolutely independent of humans' beliefs, judgments and opinion, i.e. they exists regardless of whether human exists or not.
As such, to the p-realists [you] it has entailment to your reality which antirealists argue is actually an illusion.

I believe you need to be very patient in untangling this very tightly knotted problem in your hand. You are facing a problem because you are relying on very primal and primitive thinking to untangle that knotted problem.

[Peter Holmes]

I believe you need to be very patient in untangling this very tightly knotted problem in your hand. You are facing a problem because you are relying on very primal and primitive thinking to untangle that knotted problem.

Here's the supposed knot that needs untangling.

1 VA: 'Antirealists [Kant] do not believe all of reality [all there is] is an illusion.'
2 VA: 'Antirealist proves the reality [p-reality] claimed in P1 [Reality is not an illusion] is actually an illusion.'

This is not a knot. It's called a contradiction - a 'speaking against itself'. So your argument is a mess.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe you need to be very patient in untangling this very tightly knotted problem in your hand. You are facing a problem because you are relying on very primal and primitive thinking to untangle that knotted problem.

Here's the supposed knot that needs untangling.

1 VA: 'Antirealists [Kant] do not believe all of reality [all there is] is an illusion.'
2 VA: 'Antirealist proves the reality [p-reality] claimed in P1 [Reality is not an illusion] is actually an illusion.'

This is not a knot. It's called a contradiction - a 'speaking against itself'. So your argument is a mess.

You are ignorant of the precise definition of the Law of non-Contradiction??
I have explained to you a few times of your oversight.

In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC), states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time
WIKI

Note the two senses below:

• 1 VA: 'Antirealists [Kant] do not believe all of reality [all there is] (Kantian Sense) is an illusion.'
  
  2 VA: 'Antirealist proves [FSERC-ed] the reality [p-reality] claimed in P1 [Reality is not an illusion] (p-realist sense) is actually an illusion.'

By definition of the LNC, there is no contradiction because the above are in two different senses, i.e.
1. in the Kantian Sense[/b])
2. (p-realist sense)

In 1. in the Kantian Sense[/b]), reality is as-it-is of as contingent upon a human-based FSERR, the most credible and objective is confirmed by the human-based scientific FSERC.

In 2. (p-realist sense), your reality is a reification of an illusion. You are unable to prove the reality you claimed is real.

So, you still have that original knot to untangle.

[Peter Holmes]

VA's latest wheeze is to nullify the logical contradiction between 'reality is not an illusion' and 'reality is an illusion' - by defining the word 'reality' in different ways in each assertion. Here are the two definitions:

A Reality = reality-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans. (To simplify, let's call this 'Kantian-reality'.)
B Reality = the universe, or all-there-was-is-and-will-be. To simplify, let's call this 'reality-in-itself'.)

And, using these definitions, VA claims that Kantian-reality (A) is real - in other words, not an illusion - but that reality-in-itself (B) is an illusion.

But this distinction has silly implications, as follows.

1 If all we can know is Kantian-reality, then we can't know that Kantian reality is real. That claim has no basis or foundation. What we call reality could be an illusion.

2 If all we can know is Kantian-reality, then we can't know that there's no reality-in-itself. That claim is idle speculation, for which there can be no evidence.

An analogy. If all we can know is the bubble we're inside, then we can't know there's nothing outside the bubble. But if the bubble is the universe, or all-there-was-is-and-will-be, then why call it a bubble?

3 The 'Kantian-reality' idea depends on a ridiculous human exceptionalism and anthropocentrism. Reality could just as well be reality-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-any-non-human-species.

4 If there were no humans, then there would be no Kantian-reality, which would mean: no humans = no reality whatsoever.

This is the intellectual damage caused by Kant's silly distinction - which he simultaneously invoked and denied - between phenomena (Kantian-reality) and noumena (reality-in-itself).

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA's latest wheeze is to nullify the logical contradiction between 'reality is not an illusion' and 'reality is an illusion' - by defining the word 'reality' in different ways in each assertion. Here are the two definitions:

A Reality = reality-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans. (To simplify, let's call this 'Kantian-reality'.)
B Reality = the universe, or all-there-was-is-and-will-be. To simplify, let's call this 'reality-in-itself'.)

And, using these definitions, VA claims that Kantian-reality (A) is real - in other words, not an illusion - but that reality-in-itself (B) is an illusion.

Strawman as usual - > "a million" times.

My view is this;

A Reality = reality-emerged-realized_as_real-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans as contingent upon a human-based FSERC. (To simplify, let's call this 'Emerged-reality'.)

B Reality = the human-independent universe, or all-there-was-is-and-will-be. To simplify, let's call this 'reality-in-itself'.)

Hey! you have twisted my points so drastically.
Why is that? Something is wrong with your intellectual cognition?

Answer: It is due to the painful [subliminal] cognitive dissonances arising to the inherent existential crisis that drive you to twist my words to maintain consonance.
I had stated, you [as with all p-realists] and your ideology are driven by very primal and primitive impulses embedded deep in the brain stem.

But this distinction has silly implications, as follows.

1 If all we can know is Kantian-reality, then we can't know that Kantian reality is real. That claim has no basis or foundation. What we call reality could be an illusion.

2 If all we can know is Kantian-reality, then we can't know that there's no reality-in-itself. That claim is idle speculation, for which there can be no evidence.

An analogy. If all we can know is the bubble we're inside, then we can't know there's nothing outside the bubble. But if the bubble is the universe, or all-there-was-is-and-will-be, then why call it a bubble?

3 The 'Kantian-reality' idea depends on a ridiculous human exceptionalism and anthropocentrism. Reality could just as well be reality-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-any-non-human-species.

4 If there were no humans, then there would be no Kantian-reality, which would mean: no humans = no reality whatsoever.

This is the intellectual damage caused by Kant's silly distinction - which he simultaneously invoked and denied - between phenomena (Kantian-reality) and noumena (reality-in-itself).

Your above relying on your self-created strawman is invalid, e.g.

1 If all we can know is Kantian-reality, then we can't know that Kantian reality is real. That claim has no basis or foundation. What we call reality could be an illusion.

My reality as above is a FSERC-ed emerged-reality.
The most credible and objective emerged-reality is that of the human-based scientific FSERC which is the gold standard.
We can know and described the scientific FSERC-ed emerged-reality as real [contingent upon the human-based scientific FSERC].

Your 1 is a strawman and invalid.

[Peter Holmes]

VA's latest wheeze is to nullify the logical contradiction between 'reality is not an illusion' and 'reality is an illusion' - by defining the word 'reality' in different ways in each assertion. Here are the two definitions:

A Reality = reality-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans. (To simplify, let's call this 'Kantian-reality'.)
B Reality = the universe, or all-there-was-is-and-will-be. To simplify, let's call this 'reality-in-itself'.)

And, using these definitions, VA claims that Kantian-reality (A) is real - in other words, not an illusion - but that reality-in-itself (B) is an illusion.

Strawman as usual - > "a million" times.

My view is this;

A Reality = reality-emerged-realized_as_real-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans as contingent upon a human-based FSERC. (To simplify, let's call this 'Emerged-reality'.)

B Reality = the human-independent universe, or all-there-was-is-and-will-be. To simplify, let's call this 'reality-in-itself'.)

Hey! you have twisted my points so drastically.
Why is that? Something is wrong with your intellectual cognition?

This is a joke. Here's the supposedly crucial difference between our definitions.

My A Reality: reality-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans. (To simplify, let's call this 'Kantian-reality'.)
VA's A Reality:

A Reality = reality-emerged-realized_as_real-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans as contingent upon a human-based FSERC. (To simplify, let's call this 'Emerged-reality'.)

You've repeated this blather so often that you've convinced yourself that your mantra constitutes a meaningful distinction - that there's something radically important about 'emergence' and 'realisation' and 'contingency upon a human-based FSERC'. But all this means is 'reality-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans'.

And your addition of 'human-independent' to my definition of reality-in-itself is trivial, because all-there-was... must have been independent from humans before there were humans.

So don't kid yourself. I'm not straw manning your argument. I'm clarifying it in order to show how bad it is.

Answer: It is due to the painful [subliminal] cognitive dissonances arising to the inherent existential crisis that drive you to twist my words to maintain consonance.
I had stated, you [as with all p-realists] and your ideology are driven by very primal and primitive impulses embedded deep in the brain stem.

But this distinction has silly implications, as follows.

1 If all we can know is Kantian-reality, then we can't know that Kantian reality is real. That claim has no basis or foundation. What we call reality could be an illusion.

2 If all we can know is Kantian-reality, then we can't know that there's no reality-in-itself. That claim is idle speculation, for which there can be no evidence.

An analogy. If all we can know is the bubble we're inside, then we can't know there's nothing outside the bubble. But if the bubble is the universe, or all-there-was-is-and-will-be, then why call it a bubble?

3 The 'Kantian-reality' idea depends on a ridiculous human exceptionalism and anthropocentrism. Reality could just as well be reality-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-any-non-human-species.

4 If there were no humans, then there would be no Kantian-reality, which would mean: no humans = no reality whatsoever.

This is the intellectual damage caused by Kant's silly distinction - which he simultaneously invoked and denied - between phenomena (Kantian-reality) and noumena (reality-in-itself).

Your above relying on your self-created strawman is invalid, e.g.

1 If all we can know is Kantian-reality, then we can't know that Kantian reality is real. That claim has no basis or foundation. What we call reality could be an illusion.

My reality as above is a FSERC-ed emerged-reality.
The most credible and objective emerged-reality is that of the human-based scientific FSERC which is the gold standard.
We can know and described the scientific FSERC-ed emerged-reality as real [contingent upon the human-based scientific FSERC].

No, if there's only Kantian reality we can't know it's real, because we have no standard against which to assess it - no measure for its credibility or objectivity. I and others have explained this to you countless times, and you resolutely ignore the refutation. Try again.

If there's no reality-in-itself, there's no way to compare the credibility/reliability/objectivity of descriptions of reality - no way to conclude that astronomy is more credible, etc, than astrology. So you theoretically deny the existence of reality-in-itself, but then pathetically appeal to it when you claim that science is 'the gold standard'. The gold standard in the description OF WHAT? Of the FSERCs that 'condition' reality?

Oh. And what about my points 2-4 above? Eg: 4 If there were no humans, then there would be no Kantian-reality, which would mean: no humans = no reality whatsoever.

You simply can't address this, because it demolishes your stupid Kantian/emerged-reality argument.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA's latest wheeze is to nullify the logical contradiction between 'reality is not an illusion' and 'reality is an illusion' - by defining the word 'reality' in different ways in each assertion. Here are the two definitions:

A Reality = reality-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans. (To simplify, let's call this 'Kantian-reality'.)
B Reality = the universe, or all-there-was-is-and-will-be. To simplify, let's call this 'reality-in-itself'.)

And, using these definitions, VA claims that Kantian-reality (A) is real - in other words, not an illusion - but that reality-in-itself (B) is an illusion.

Strawman as usual - > "a million" times.

My view is this;

A Reality = reality-emerged-realized_as_real-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans as contingent upon a human-based FSERC. (To simplify, let's call this 'Emerged-reality'.)

B Reality = the human-independent universe, or all-there-was-is-and-will-be. To simplify, let's call this 'reality-in-itself'.)

Hey! you have twisted my points so drastically.
Why is that? Something is wrong with your intellectual cognition?

This is a joke. Here's the supposedly crucial difference between our definitions.

My A Reality: reality-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans. (To simplify, let's call this 'Kantian-reality'.)
VA's A Reality:

A Reality = reality-emerged-realized_as_real-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans as contingent upon a human-based FSERC. (To simplify, let's call this 'Emerged-reality'.)

You've repeated this blather so often that you've convinced yourself that your mantra constitutes a meaningful distinction - that there's something radically important about 'emergence' and 'realisation' and 'contingency upon a human-based FSERC'. But all this means is 'reality-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans'.

And your addition of 'human-independent' to my definition of reality-in-itself is trivial, because all-there-was... must have been independent from humans before there were humans.

So don't kid yourself. I'm not straw manning your argument. I'm clarifying it in order to show how bad it is.

WHO ARE YOU to claim you have the final say on what are my intended point?

When you twist my premise as your own and counter therefrom, that is strawmanning.

The proper approach is to trash it out until there is a consensus between us and you understand [not agree with] my point.

I have raised many threads for you to understand my points re Emergence:

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

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

Emergent: Reality is not Absolutely Independent
viewtopic.php?t=42320

You are like a kindi kid trying to insist a very tenable PhD's hypothesis is very wrong [without understanding it], and insist in present it from the kindi level.

Answer: It is due to the painful [subliminal] cognitive dissonances arising to the inherent existential crisis that drive you to twist my words to maintain consonance.
I had stated, you [as with all p-realists] and your ideology are driven by very primal and primitive impulses embedded deep in the brain stem.

But this distinction has silly implications, as follows.

1 If all we can know is Kantian-reality, then we can't know that Kantian reality is real. That claim has no basis or foundation. What we call reality could be an illusion.

2 If all we can know is Kantian-reality, then we can't know that there's no reality-in-itself. That claim is idle speculation, for which there can be no evidence.

An analogy. If all we can know is the bubble we're inside, then we can't know there's nothing outside the bubble. But if the bubble is the universe, or all-there-was-is-and-will-be, then why call it a bubble?

3 The 'Kantian-reality' idea depends on a ridiculous human exceptionalism and anthropocentrism. Reality could just as well be reality-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-any-non-human-species.

4 If there were no humans, then there would be no Kantian-reality, which would mean: no humans = no reality whatsoever.

This is the intellectual damage caused by Kant's silly distinction - which he simultaneously invoked and denied - between phenomena (Kantian-reality) and noumena (reality-in-itself).

Your above relying on your self-created strawman is invalid, e.g.

1 If all we can know is Kantian-reality, then we can't know that Kantian reality is real. That claim has no basis or foundation. What we call reality could be an illusion.

My reality as above is a FSERC-ed emerged-reality.
The most credible and objective emerged-reality is that of the human-based scientific FSERC which is the gold standard.
We can know and described the scientific FSERC-ed emerged-reality as real [contingent upon the human-based scientific FSERC].

No, if there's only Kantian reality we can't know it's real, because we have no standard against which to assess it - no measure for its credibility or objectivity. I and others have explained this to you countless times, and you resolutely ignore the refutation. Try again.

If there's no reality-in-itself, there's no way to compare the credibility/reliability/objectivity of descriptions of reality - no way to conclude that astronomy is more credible, etc, than astrology. So you theoretically deny the existence of reality-in-itself, but then pathetically appeal to it when you claim that science is 'the gold standard'. The gold standard in the description OF WHAT? Of the FSERCs that 'condition' reality?

Oh. And what about my points 2-4 above? Eg: 4 If there were no humans, then there would be no Kantian-reality, which would mean: no humans = no reality whatsoever.

You simply can't address this, because it demolishes your stupid Kantian/emerged-reality argument.

Your above 2-4 is based on your strawman, therefore not valid.

PH: Oh. And what about my points 2-4 above? Eg: 4 If there were no humans, then there would be no Kantian-reality, which would mean: no humans = no reality whatsoever.
You simply can't address this, because it demolishes your stupid Kantian/emerged-reality argument.

I have already addressed this:
No Humans = No Human-based Reality
viewtopic.php?t=42291

Antirealists [Kantian] accept No-Human - No Human-based Reality in one perspective but that is merely relative [1], and not taken as an ideology,
ultimately the above is subsumed it is;
No Humans = No Human-based Reality[2]

I have also demonstrated the various pragmatic implications with [1] and [2] in relation to every aspect of life.

Note if you accept things in reality are absolutely independent of the human conditions,
then,
you are also a thing [thing]
which in this case, you will claim here is a me-in-myself,
i.e. claiming you as an independent soul that in independent of your physical body.
You will deny this,
but when you claim things in reality are absolutely independent of the human conditions, then you will end up with claiming an independent soul from the human [physical] conditions.

Btw, it is very foolish to resort to "I and others have explained to you but you do not accept"
that is what theists and creations would insist upon non-theists and secular scientists.

[FlashDangerpants]

WHO ARE YOU to claim you have the final say on what are my intended point?

You do that to everybody, how can you have so little self-awareness?

[Peter Holmes]

Here's another straw version of VA's argument.

1 Reality-in-itself, independent from humans, is an illusion - in other words, not real.
2 Only the emerged, realised. human-based, FSERC-ed reality is real - in other words, not an illusion.
3 If there were no humans, then there would be no emerged, realised, human-based, FSERC-ed reality.
4 Therefore, if there were no humans, then there would be no reality whatsoever.

But #4 is obviously false. So we can expect game-changing improvements to #1-3, so that they don't entail #4.

PS. The claim that reality is independent from humans doesn't entail the claim that the human soul is independent from the human body. There's no logical connection between those two claims.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's another straw version of VA's argument.

1 Reality-in-itself, independent from humans, is an illusion - in other words, not real.
2 Only the emerged, realised. human-based, FSERC-ed reality is real - in other words, not an illusion.
3 If there were no humans, then there would be no emerged, realised, human-based, FSERC-ed reality.
4 Therefore, if there were no humans, then there would be no reality whatsoever.

But #4 is obviously false. So we can expect game-changing improvements to #1-3, so that they don't entail #4.

Your usual strawman.

I have never [strictly] claimed the following;
4 Therefore, if there were no humans, then there would be no reality whatsoever.
Your strawman #4 does not follow, i.e. you are equivocating two different senses.
Your #4 [as edited below] is based on your illusory reality which you have not proven;

PH: 4 Therefore, if there were no humans, then there would be no human-independent reality whatsoever.

You are conflating two different senses.
If there were no humans, there is no relevance for a 'human-independent' reality.

In the above I referenced this:
No Humans = No Human-based Reality
viewtopic.php?t=42291

#3 is sufficient, there is no need for #4.

PS. The claim that reality is independent from humans doesn't entail the claim that the human soul is independent from the human body. There's no logical connection between those two claims.

There is a logical connection between those two claims.

1. You claim a thing [appearance] are absolutely independent of the thing-in-itself [that which appeared].
2. An apple [thing as appearance] is absolutely independent of the apple-in-itself
3. A human [thing as appearance] is absolutely independent of the human-in-itself.
4. The only human-in-itself is the soul that is independent and survives physical death.

You can deny all you want, but inherently you believed in the independent human-in-itself [1,3] which is called the independent 'soul' by many which survives physical death.
This is why the majority believes in a soul that goes to heaven or reincarnates.
You deny but you are ignorant you are in fact as believer of the human-in-itself aka soul.

In addition, you are also in the same brotherhood with theists in claiming an absolutely independent reality.
The difference is theist convert this absolutely independent reality as an dynamic entity with perfect agency, i.e. God.

Both you and theists are driven by the primal and primitive mode of thinking grounded on an evolutionary default of a necessary externalness, outerness and independence.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's VA's latest chef d'oeuvre:

'If there were no humans, there is no relevance for a 'human-independent' reality.'

Erm. Perhaps this means the following:

'The only reason for talking about a human-independent reality is if there are humans. If there were no humans, the claim that reality is independent from humans would be otiose.'

But this is ridiculous. We're arguing about the existence of a reality that is, in fact, independent from humans. And VA denies such a thing exists, while having to camouflage the silliness of this claim.

Because, of course, VA knows that the universe existed before humans evolved, would have existed had humans not evolved, and will exist when humans are gone.

But what VA's Kantian faith cannot in any way allow is the existence of 'reality-in-itself' - which the rest of us call the universe or reality.

So the trick is to call the universe 'reality-as-humans-perceive-know-and-describe-it', and then deny that such a thing can be independent from humans. It's a linguistic sleight-of-hand.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's VA's latest chef d'oeuvre:

'If there were no humans, there is no relevance for a 'human-independent' reality.'

Erm. Perhaps this means the following:

'The only reason for talking about a human-independent reality is if there are humans. If there were no humans, the claim that reality is independent from humans would be otiose.'

But this is ridiculous. We're arguing about the existence of a reality that is, in fact, independent from humans. And VA denies such a thing exists, while having to camouflage the silliness of this claim.

Because, of course, VA knows that the universe existed before humans evolved, would have existed had humans not evolved, and will exist when humans are gone.

But what VA's Kantian faith cannot in any way allow is the existence of 'reality-in-itself' - which the rest of us call the universe or reality.

So the trick is to call the universe 'reality-as-humans-perceive-know-and-describe-it', and then deny that such a thing can be independent from humans. It's a linguistic sleight-of-hand.

You missed my points which I have explained many times.

Re Kant's Empirical Realism, I do recognize [cognize] there is a human independent external reality,
BUT empirical realists [me] do not accept this as absolute, i.e. a thing-in-itself as an ideology like you [philosophical realism] do.

The empirical realists accept whatever is empirical and empirical-externalness as very real and independent of the human conditions within the common and conventional sense or FSERC.
Thus the apple on the tree outside in my garden is an external reality independent of my human conditions within the common and conventional sense or FSERC.
The approaching train on the track I am standing on is very real and independent of my human conditions within the common and conventional sense or FSERC, so I will immediately jump of the rail track to ensure I am not smashed to pieces.

But in a higher philosophical perspective from deeper reflection, the above external independent common and conventional sense reality is not absolute but contingent upon the human conditions are a higher and subtle level.
I have given the analogy in physics contrasting between the realist classical and Einsteinian
physics and those of the antirealist Quantum Mechanics.

You and philosophical realists insist there is only an external reality independent of the human conditions within the common and conventional sense as absolute, conditioned and cling to it as a dogmatic ideology.

So a Kantian is an Empirical Realist [based on whatever is empirical] and is not a philosophical realist which claim the independence of the external reality is absolute as a thing-in-itself.
In a way, a Kantian [empirical realist also transcendental idealist] believes in two-truths, i.e.

• 1. -there is an empirical external reality which is independent of the human conditions with the common and conventional sense but only relatively.
  At level 1, I also accept, "the moon predates humans" but only relative to the human conditions at the ultimate level.
  
  2. the "empirical external reality which is independent of the human conditions with the common and conventional sense" is contingent within the human conditions at the higher and subtle ULTIMATE level.

Each truths must be applied in its relevant perspective and context.

Level 1 deals with everyday practical realities of the physical world to ensure basic and intermediate survival.

Level 2 deals with all the sophisticate philosophical problems [theistic, moral, epistemology, ontological] that has been raised up to the present.
One cannot rely on level 1 knowledge to resolve level 2 issues.

Because, of course, VA knows that the universe existed before humans evolved, would have existed had humans not evolved, and will exist when humans are gone.

At level I, I do agree with the above in alignment with the common and conventional sense or FSERC.

But what VA's Kantian faith cannot in any way allow is the existence of 'reality-in-itself' - which the rest of us call the universe or reality.

You are ignorant that what you "call the universe or reality" is actually "reality-in-itself' i.e. it exists by itself regardless of whether there are human or not.

If yours is "which the rest of us call the universe or reality" that is merely linguistic and empty.

To be realistic you must qualify, predicate it or make it contingent, i.e.
"which the rest of us realized and call the universe or reality as contingent upon a human-based FSERC, e.g. the scientific FSERC.

If you don't qualify your reality as contingent,
then it is 'reality-in-itself' i.e. not contingent upon anything, or is absolutely unconditional or it is merely an empty linguistic claim or statement.

To be realistic, the universe or reality must be contingent [so not in-itself].
The only contingent condition is the human conditions.

It is the ignorance and insistence of philosophical realists which are the reasons we still cannot resolve the theist-non_theist debate, the moral_realism vs moral_relativism, all other philosophical dichotomies and antinomies.
This hindrance by philosophical realists [you] had hindered humanity's progress to cope with the rising greater threats to humanity.

My point:
I as a Kantian empirical realist recognize a human-independent external reality which at the ultimate level is contingent upon the human conditions.
I also accept, "the moon predates humans" but only relative to the human conditions at the ultimate level.

Philosophical Realists [PH et al] insist there is only a human-independent external reality existing absolutely as a thing-in-itself as a dogmatic ideology, i.e. exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.
For a p-realist, there is no room to shift gears to higher perspectives, philosophical realism is the only way or the highway.

[Peter Holmes]

Re Kant's Empirical Realism, I do recognize [cognize] there is a human independent external reality,
BUT empirical realists [me] do not accept this as absolute, i.e. a thing-in-itself as an ideology like you [philosophical realism] do.

The empirical realists accept whatever is empirical and empirical-externalness as very real and independent of the human conditions within the common and conventional sense or FSERC...

The approaching train on the track I am standing on is very real and independent of my human conditions within the common and conventional sense or FSERC, so I will immediately jump of the rail track to ensure I am not smashed to pieces.

But in a higher philosophical perspective from deeper reflection, the above external independent common and conventional sense reality is not absolute but contingent upon the human conditions are a higher and subtle level.

1 To say empirical reality is 'external' is to imply there is an 'internal' reality. So this is the residual dualism of 'the mind', or 'consciousness' or 'the subject', or - further back - 'the soul'. Or if it isn't, then what's the distinction? To what is the external world external?

So, to clean this up: there is, was and will be a human-independent reality. To state the glaringly obvious.

2 But wait. In 'a higher philosophical perspective from deeper reflection', there is no such human-independent reality, because at 'a higher and subtle level', reality is 'not absolute but contingent upon the human conditions'.

Calling VA. Why is this the case? What constitutes this contingency or dependency? And what evidence do you have for this claim? Presumably there's no empirical evidence for it. So it must be mystical claptrap.

I have given the analogy in physics contrasting between the realist classical and Einsteinian
physics and those of the antirealist Quantum Mechanics.

And I have explained many times that quantum mechanics gives no support to philosophical antirealism. QM is an (extremely successful) attempt to describe reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Re Kant's Empirical Realism, I do recognize [cognize] there is a human independent external reality,
BUT empirical realists [me] do not accept this as absolute, i.e. a thing-in-itself as an ideology like you [philosophical realism] do.

The empirical realists accept whatever is empirical and empirical-externalness as very real and independent of the human conditions within the common and conventional sense or FSERC...

The approaching train on the track I am standing on is very real and independent of my human conditions within the common and conventional sense or FSERC, so I will immediately jump of the rail track to ensure I am not smashed to pieces.

But in a higher philosophical perspective from deeper reflection, the above external independent common and conventional sense reality is not absolute but contingent upon the human conditions are a higher and subtle level.

1 To say empirical reality is 'external' is to imply there is an 'internal' reality. So this is the residual dualism of 'the mind', or 'consciousness' or 'the subject', or - further back - 'the soul'. Or if it isn't, then what's the distinction? To what is the external world external?

So, to clean this up: there is, was and will be a human-independent reality. To state the glaringly obvious.

The above is a strawman.

You have a Selective Attention Disorder where you are unable to see that 500 pound gorilla around you.
selective attention test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

I did not state "empirical reality is external".
As an empirical realist, there is an external reality and also an internal reality, i.e. one's internal physical self and all its mental activities and thoughts; this would have been agreed with Hume and the like.

"the mind itself, far from being an independent power, is simply 'a bundle of perceptions' without unity or cohesive quality".[98] The self is nothing but a bundle of experiences linked by the relations of causation and resemblance; or, more accurately, the empirically warranted idea of the self is just the idea of such a bundle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#Writings

Once the person is dead, there is no more self, no left behind soul.
But in your case of your philosophical realism, it follow logically there is that absolute unconditional person-in-itself, aka the absolutely 'soul' that survives physical death.
That is your dilemma and you are ignorant of it.

2 But wait. In 'a higher philosophical perspective from deeper reflection', there is no such human-independent reality, because at 'a higher and subtle level', reality is 'not absolute but contingent upon the human conditions'.

Calling VA. Why is this the case? What constitutes this contingency or dependency? And what evidence do you have for this claim? Presumably there's no empirical evidence for it. So it must be mystical claptrap.

I have already given the argument.

Whatever is reality is conditioned empirically upon a human based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.
Thus at the ultimate level [the best of reality that can be inferred from what is realized] is human-based thus contingent upon the human conditions.

I have given the analogy in physics contrasting between the realist classical and Einsteinian
physics and those of the antirealist Quantum Mechanics.

And I have explained many times that quantum mechanics gives no support to philosophical antirealism. QM is an (extremely successful) attempt to describe reality.

Where?

There had been various views on QM but what rules QM is antirealism.
I have explained and provided evidences why QM is grounded on antirealism i.e. anti-p_realism.

We discuss the influential role of Niels Bohr’s work in the anti-realist realist re-foundation of physics that took place during the 20th century. We will focus in how, developing the modern co-relational matrix of scientific understanding, his essentially anti-realist scheme was able to capture, subvert and defeat the realist program of science through the establishment of a weakened impotent form of “religious realism” grounded on faith instead of scientific conditions.
Finally, we will focus in how, still today, anti-realist realism continues to rule the contemporary post-modern research in both (quantum) physics and philosophy.
Link

The 2022 Physics Nobel Prize is related to QM is based on the antirealist grounding.
How Physicists Proved The Universe Isn't Locally Real
viewtopic.php?t=41902

[Atla]

Funny that they are both accusing the other of arguing for some kind of independent soul, when neither of them is doing so.