The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Just as an interesting piece of evidence about how scientists feel about this "chemistry fsk", how universal / objective or instead merely human-centric they consider it, notice this:

In 1977 the Voyager 1 space probe was launched. On that probe was placed a golden record which includes various samples of human culture as well as human knowledge - not the least of which includes examples of chemical compounds, particularly DNA.

Human scientists are so sure of the universality of the "chemistry fsk" that they apparently expect any advanced Alien civilization to understand the atomic model of chemistry in a fundamentally similar way to how we do.

I think that's pretty notable.

https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/ ... en-record/

I also think your prior approach to chemistry in the ol' h2o thread at least apparently stands at odds with your approach to it now

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:12 am
You are the one who is claiming H2O existed prior to its emergence from the scientific FSK independent of any entanglement with the human conditions.
Thus the onus of proof [justification] is on you.

This makes it sound like chemical descriptions of reality only became valid AFTER we discovered chemistry, and thus someone like PH can't correctly say water was h2o prior to the development of our model of chemistry.

But in this thread you're talking about the chemical basis of abiogenesis - for that to be valid, you have to accept chemical descriptions of events prior to human awareness of chemistry. For your acceptance of chemical abiogenesis, you're implicitly also accepting chemistry was happening, even before life existed. Otherwise, chemical abiogenesis just doesn't make sense.

and the Gray aliens' FSK is 17 light years older...

-Imp

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 09, 2023 1:25 pm This makes it sound like chemical descriptions of reality only became valid AFTER we discovered chemistry, and thus someone like PH can't correctly say water was h2o prior to the development of our model of chemistry.

It's more than that: there was no water before us. There was no primordial soup. There was no Big Band, whatever VA says here. Because we weren't looking at these things.

But in this thread you're talking about the chemical basis of abiogenesis - for that to be valid, you have to accept chemical descriptions of events prior to human awareness of chemistry. For your acceptance of chemical abiogenesis, you're implicitly also accepting chemistry was happening, even before life existed. Otherwise, chemical abiogenesis just doesn't make sense.

I think you're confused. He gets to be a realist when it supports something he says. If PH supports something PH says with realism, then it's bad.

I think if you reread VA's posts you'll find this little a priori in there.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 09, 2023 1:25 pm I also think your prior approach to chemistry in the ol' h2o thread at least apparently stands at odds with your approach to it now

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:12 am
You are the one who is claiming H2O existed prior to its emergence from the scientific FSK independent of any entanglement with the human conditions.
Thus the onus of proof [justification] is on you.

This makes it sound like chemical descriptions of reality only became valid AFTER we discovered chemistry, and thus someone like PH can't correctly say water was h2o prior to the development of our model of chemistry.

But in this thread you're talking about the chemical basis of abiogenesis - for that to be valid, you have to accept chemical descriptions of events prior to human awareness of chemistry. For your acceptance of chemical abiogenesis, you're implicitly also accepting chemistry was happening, even before life existed. Otherwise, chemical abiogenesis just doesn't make sense.

Note I wrote this earlier,

• Another point:
  You refer to commonly mentioned 'the primordial soup'.
  Note this is a hindsight thing which is based on the physics-chemistry-biology FSK.
  Without physics-chemistry-biology FSK, there is no basis for what is termed the the primordial soup'. [& abiogenesis]

Whatever reality we know of the past is based on hindsight conditioned upon a specific FSK which current, present and now.
The theory of Abiogenesis is conditioned to a BioChemistry human-based FSK which is conditioned upon the biology-FSK, the Chemistry-FSK, the Physics-FSK and the individual's-FSK.

So, yes, I accept 'Chemistry' based on the human-based Chemistry-FSK is prior to life but that is conditioned upon a combination the biology, Physics and human-FSK which enable the speculation [theory] that claimed abiogenesis emerged 4.0 billion years ago.
For any speculation [as in this case] to be credible and reliable, the FSK[s] it is conditioned upon must be credible and reliable [some sort of rating need to be evaluated upon].

Note my principle,
whatever the facts, truths and knowledge, they are [imperatively] conditioned upon a human-based FSK.

Thus reality [that feature of reality] cannot be "just-is" without any qualification to a FSK[s] as claimed by PH.
In its bare essence, the claim "reality is 'just-is' " is merely a speculation [no grounds] by an individual person, i.e. PH himself or his gang.
This is the same with theists who claim 'God is' without any qualification, and for them to insist God-is is real is delusional.

The "is" is not a predicate; existence [is] is not a predicate.

To be realistic, any claim of reality must be this;
that feature of reality "is" X, Y, Z as conditioned upon a specific FSK.
e.g.
that feature of reality, 'water' [linguistic FSK] is H2O [science-chemistry FSK].

"Let's eat!" proposed Tom. Dick and Harry looked at each other, both were puzzled, "eat what?" they asked. "Whatever you want of course," Tom replied in a reassuring tone. "Is this your idea of a joke Tom? It's not funny!" Harry was about to lose it. "Harry, Harry, Harry, remember the time when we went hiking up Green mountain?" Tom said. "Yes, but what does this have to do with this ... this ... whatever this is?" Harry spoke in an angry tone. "Dick, a little help ... auld lang syne" Tom addressed Dick. Dick was baffled by all this but suddenly he saw the light! He looked at Harry, "pass the salt Harry, I like my fish salty! "Here! Salt!" Harry said with a smile.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 2:11 am So, yes, I accept 'Chemistry' based on the human-based Chemistry-FSK is prior to life but that is conditioned upon a combination the biology, Physics and human-FSK which enable the speculation [theory] that claimed abiogenesis emerged 4.0 billion years ago.
For any speculation [as in this case] to be credible and reliable, the FSK[s] it is conditioned upon must be credible and reliable [some sort of rating need to be evaluated upon].

Now things that are not being looked at can be speculated to exist based on a variety of FSKs.

But why speculate, based on less than the best FSKs. We know from the recent Nobel Prize that things do not exist when they are not looked at. Thus the primordial soup and the big bang do not exist. This may be an uncomfortable fact, but IF we were to speculate, we should speculate based on the best FSK and the most recent supported conclusions.

Why speculate unnecessarily when our best science contradicts that speculation?

IOW VA here is arguing AS IF we do not have better knowledge already. Sure, we could speculate away if we did not have better science that contradicted what that speculation leads us to conclude. But we have better knowledge about the past. There was no human or even life form to collapse the wave function back then. Nothing existed then except a universe in superposition.

Since there were no real things before life/we arose, we arose ex nihilo.

You don't speculate about something when that speculation can be, via dedution, shown to be false.

One saves speculation for situations when we have some evidence in a specific FSK AND cannot rule out that speculation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 2:11 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 09, 2023 1:25 pm I also think your prior approach to chemistry in the ol' h2o thread at least apparently stands at odds with your approach to it now

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:12 am
You are the one who is claiming H2O existed prior to its emergence from the scientific FSK independent of any entanglement with the human conditions.
Thus the onus of proof [justification] is on you.

This makes it sound like chemical descriptions of reality only became valid AFTER we discovered chemistry, and thus someone like PH can't correctly say water was h2o prior to the development of our model of chemistry.

But in this thread you're talking about the chemical basis of abiogenesis - for that to be valid, you have to accept chemical descriptions of events prior to human awareness of chemistry. For your acceptance of chemical abiogenesis, you're implicitly also accepting chemistry was happening, even before life existed. Otherwise, chemical abiogenesis just doesn't make sense.

Note I wrote this earlier,

• Another point:
  You refer to commonly mentioned 'the primordial soup'.
  Note this is a hindsight thing which is based on the physics-chemistry-biology FSK.
  Without physics-chemistry-biology FSK, there is no basis for what is termed the the primordial soup'. [& abiogenesis]

Whatever reality we know of the past is based on hindsight conditioned upon a specific FSK which current, present and now.
The theory of Abiogenesis is conditioned to a BioChemistry human-based FSK which is conditioned upon the biology-FSK, the Chemistry-FSK, the Physics-FSK and the individual's-FSK.

So, yes, I accept 'Chemistry' based on the human-based Chemistry-FSK is prior to life but that is conditioned upon a combination the biology, Physics and human-FSK which enable the speculation [theory] that claimed abiogenesis emerged 4.0 billion years ago.
For any speculation [as in this case] to be credible and reliable, the FSK[s] it is conditioned upon must be credible and reliable [some sort of rating need to be evaluated upon].

Note my principle,
whatever the facts, truths and knowledge, they are [imperatively] conditioned upon a human-based FSK.

You haven't fully dealt with your problem here. You haven't fully dealt with the fact that you don't allow for ph to talk about h2o prior to the development of chemistry, but you're now allowing yourself to talk about chemicals for abiogenesis prior to the development of chemistry.

Obviously it's hindsight, that goes without saying. You allow yourself the privilege of hindsight for abiogenesis but not ph.

Apparently the chemical formula of water, h2o, was discovered in 1811. Ph, according to you, is incorrect to say h2o existed prior to its discovery by "the chemistry fsk", but you now seem free to talk about the existence of chemicals long before their discovery.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 7:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 2:11 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 09, 2023 1:25 pm I also think your prior approach to chemistry in the ol' h2o thread at least apparently stands at odds with your approach to it now



This makes it sound like chemical descriptions of reality only became valid AFTER we discovered chemistry, and thus someone like PH can't correctly say water was h2o prior to the development of our model of chemistry.

But in this thread you're talking about the chemical basis of abiogenesis - for that to be valid, you have to accept chemical descriptions of events prior to human awareness of chemistry. For your acceptance of chemical abiogenesis, you're implicitly also accepting chemistry was happening, even before life existed. Otherwise, chemical abiogenesis just doesn't make sense.

Note I wrote this earlier,

• Another point:
  You refer to commonly mentioned 'the primordial soup'.
  Note this is a hindsight thing which is based on the physics-chemistry-biology FSK.
  Without physics-chemistry-biology FSK, there is no basis for what is termed the the primordial soup'. [& abiogenesis]

Whatever reality we know of the past is based on hindsight conditioned upon a specific FSK which current, present and now.
The theory of Abiogenesis is conditioned to a BioChemistry human-based FSK which is conditioned upon the biology-FSK, the Chemistry-FSK, the Physics-FSK and the individual's-FSK.

So, yes, I accept 'Chemistry' based on the human-based Chemistry-FSK is prior to life but that is conditioned upon a combination the biology, Physics and human-FSK which enable the speculation [theory] that claimed abiogenesis emerged 4.0 billion years ago.
For any speculation [as in this case] to be credible and reliable, the FSK[s] it is conditioned upon must be credible and reliable [some sort of rating need to be evaluated upon].

Note my principle,
whatever the facts, truths and knowledge, they are [imperatively] conditioned upon a human-based FSK.

You haven't fully dealt with your problem here. You haven't fully dealt with the fact that you don't allow for ph to talk about h2o prior to the development of chemistry, but you're now allowing yourself to talk about chemicals for abiogenesis prior to the development of chemistry.

Obviously it's hindsight, that goes without saying. You allow yourself the privilege of hindsight for abiogenesis but not ph.

Apparently the chemical formula of water, h2o, was discovered in 1811. Ph, according to you, is incorrect to say h2o existed prior to its discovery by "the chemistry fsk", but you now seem free to talk about the existence of chemicals long before their discovery.

Somehow you missed the main theme.

When PH claimed 'water is H20' he as a realist is referring to something-X existing as objective reality regardless of the description 'water' or 'water is H20' or whatever the FSK.
This is like the 'moon' thingy; that something-X we described as 'water' 'water is H20' exists even if there are no humans to 'FSK' it.
This is essentially Philosophical Realism, i.e. mind-independent reality without any qualification to a specific FSK.

I stated, it is nonsensical to claim 'water is H20' "just-is" or 'it is something-X' without any qualification to a specific FSK.

Note my principle,
all facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.

Because PH insists 'water is H20' period!, or something-X exists independent of the human conditions without qualifications, I assert it is nonsensical and delusion where ultimate reality [not common sense] is concern.

Why can't PH accept 'water is H20' as conditioned to the human based science-chemistry-FSK?
The qualification of 'water is H20' to the human based science-chemistry-FSK is so obvious, why don't he admit it?
Why? because it is psychological painful with the potential cold-turkey.

However in my case,
whatever I assert re
'water is water' linguistic FSK,
'water is H20' -science-chemistry-FSK
'abiogenesis originated 3.5-4 billion year ago' [science-physics-chemistry-biology FSK],
any other facts or truths, [specific FSK]
it is always qualified to a specific human-based FSK, the human-based biology, chemistry, physics FSKs.

So, as long as one qualify one's statement to a specific FSK, then it is valid, but the question then is, whether it is sound or objective, credible and reliable.

These are your words:

You are the one who is claiming H2O existed prior to its emergence from the scientific FSK independent of any entanglement with the human conditions.
Thus the onus of proof [justification] is on you.

Ph is being criticized for talking about the existence of h2o prior to 1811. You are not criticizing yourself for the same sort of thing, you're quite happy to talk about chemicals 4 billion years ago.

Was your criticism of ph incorrect? Did you leave out the bit where he CAN talk about h2o prior to 1811, as long as he says the magic words "fsk yada yada"? Because the quote doesn't include anything about how he would be correct as long as he says the magic words.

Because when you say this:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 9:11 am.

However in my case,
whatever I assert re 'water is H20' 'abiogenesis originated 3.5-4 billion year ago, any other facts or truths, it is always qualified to a specific human-based FSK, the human-based biology, chemistry, physics FSKs.

So, as long as one qualify one's statement to a specific FSK, then it is valid, but the question then is, whether it is sound or objective, credible and reliable.

... It sounds like the criticism isn't about him saying h2o existed prior, it sounds like the real criticism, which isn't in the quote of the actual criticism you gave, is "he didn't say the magic words FSK yada yada"

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 9:17 am These are your words:

You are the one who is claiming H2O existed prior to its emergence from the scientific FSK independent of any entanglement with the human conditions.
Thus the onus of proof [justification] is on you.

Ph is being criticized for talking about the existence of h2o prior to 1811. You are not criticizing yourself for the same sort of thing, you're quite happy to talk about chemicals 4 billion years ago.

And the Big Bang. I took a similar line to yours above...
viewtopic.php?p=634202#p634202
After I first pointed this out, he then talked about how it was ok to speculate using chemistry, etc. FSKs. But why would it suddenly be alright to speculate, since he has already claimed that things that are not looked at do not exist. We did not look at the primordial soup. We did not look at the Big Bang. If, as he claims, we have the best FSK saying that things do not exist when we are not there to look at them, then deduction rules out their existence. Speculation is for things that have not been ruled out, but we can tentatively consider existing or being like X.

His realism is called using FSKs.- But he doesn't consider it realism.
If PH uses FSKs that's realism.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 9:30 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 9:17 am These are your words:

You are the one who is claiming H2O existed prior to its emergence from the scientific FSK independent of any entanglement with the human conditions.
Thus the onus of proof [justification] is on you.

Ph is being criticized for talking about the existence of h2o prior to 1811. You are not criticizing yourself for the same sort of thing, you're quite happy to talk about chemicals 4 billion years ago.

And the Big Bang. I took a similar line to yours above...
viewtopic.php?p=634202#p634202

Yes, I think all that is valid critique too.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 9:22 am Because when you say this:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 9:11 am.

However in my case,
whatever I assert re 'water is H20' 'abiogenesis originated 3.5-4 billion year ago, any other facts or truths, it is always qualified to a specific human-based FSK, the human-based biology, chemistry, physics FSKs.

So, as long as one qualify one's statement to a specific FSK, then it is valid, but the question then is, whether it is sound or objective, credible and reliable.

... It sounds like the criticism isn't about him saying h2o existed prior, it sounds like the real criticism, which isn't in the quote of the actual criticism you gave, is "he didn't say the magic words FSK yada yada"

As I had stated before,
pragmatism aside, all philosophical issues are reducible to the philosophical realism vs anti-philosophical realism.
.

In my case, the anti-philosophical realism I adopt is that of empirical realism within Transcendental Idealism.
his claims with any specific FSK, his basis is that of philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

So, as long as one qualify one's statement to a specific FSK, then it is valid, but the question then is, whether it is sound or objective, credible and reliable.

So, back to this criticism
The problem isn't that he says h2o existed, the real problem is he didn't say "fsk yada yada" before he said h2o existed prior. Just making sure I got that right.