Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:41 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm Point out to whom? Only those willing to discuss my points and refute them will have the chance to weigh them. You already said you are not one of them.

Point them out to anyone who asks. Can you even refute yourself?

Anyone asking must at least risk engaging in debate. Don't want to take the risk? Don't ask.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:41 am If you can't - you are only making my point. You are making your self-refutation other people's problem.

You're clueless about how it works. One does challenge one's own ideas until a mature, polished point of view is reached. But to your surprise, the process does not end there. The next real challenge to your own ideas is to throw them into a debate.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:41 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm No, no need to guess. I took it from your own post, in which such views were explicit.

If my views were "explicit" then why are you misrepresenting them?

You just said it again: "refute yourself". You said that's what science is. No misrepresentation.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:41 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm Scientists do that in the process of doing their work as scientists or in the process of becoming scientists, none of which is the case of this forum where one already arrives with ideas to propose and be challenged.

Que? Scientists put forward the limits of their ideas at the outset. So that you don't have to waste your time "challenging" things that the scientist already knows can be challenged. Win-win.

Let me guess: you actually think that what you're doing here and what goes on in these threads is "science". I see. You really like the absurd.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:41 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm Implicit to those ideas are their philosophical foundations but you have said out loud that there are no foundations and refused to refute any points. It's a game, anything goes, remember? And of course, all that talk about some foundational "burdens", "models", and "intellectual integrity" are to be understood as part of the farce. We're just having fun.

"Philosophical foundations" sure is a big word for "basic assumptions". The value of scientific ideas is not determined on the quality of their "foundations".

It's determined on their utility/applicability towards solving important problems.

Who says? You also said "anything goes", "the impossible is possible", "let it be a farce", "nothing changes in practice", "no practical use for the real/non-real distinction".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:41 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm Your statements can only entail illusion as a possible case, not as the actual case, they lead to not having reliable assurance of what is the case (for you), and leaves open that it is the case that the world is not illusory, therefore not refuting my claim.

You are abusing "only". I am pointing out that multiple possibilities exist. I am pointing out that you have chosen one possibility out of many.

I am asking you to explain the process by which you dismissed the other alternatives.

It's not on me to refute your claim. it's on you to explain how you've chosen to use the adjective "real" instead of the adjective "illusionary" when you speak about your experiences, when the adjective makes no difference to the experiences.

I just chose to be realistic. You don't believe in reality as anything more than an arbitrary construct, anything goes. And that's it. Your question becomes useless and pointless.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:41 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm The sentences "this sentence does not exist" and "the sentence is still there" contradict each other. Their concurrence becomes absurd. They self-defeat.

And yet this "absurd concurrence" is right before your very eyes - empirical and everything. So what does this "self-defeat" amount to?

The concurrence of words that describe contradictions does not entail the real concurrence of what they describe. It is the case that A exists and that A doesn't exist at the same time can be written in the same sentence, yet it remains absurd.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:41 am It sure seems to me that "self-defeat" is actually impossible.

Well...was not you the one who said a few posts earlier that "the impossible is possible"?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:41 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:50 pm Oh, come on!! Computer science, really? Pfff...please don't get me started.

Don't be shy. You have a long road ahead of explaining why all of our Physics (mathematics) are computational; and why the feasibility of getting answers to mathematical questions about the universe hinges upon space, time and entropy as computational resources.

That's as ridiculous as a statement can be. Physics is mathematics as much as the printed edition of the New York times is cellulose.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:01 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am Nope I had never argued for solipsism which is a incoherent theory.

Your phenomenalism is one that inevitably leads to solipsism, even if you are not aware of it. I just explained to you why, you can deal with the arguments if you want to, but plainly denying your solipsism will not do.

You mentioned solipsism here,
viewtopic.php?p=506843#p506843
that was a strawman.
I responded none of your points [1 & 2] are applicable to mine.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am While most realists acknowledge indirect realism, they insist there is a real physical object that is transmitting the waves that generate the sense-data in the brain. This thing-in-itself to realists is real and is independent of the human conditions, or human mind.

Note Transcendental idealism is also empirical realism, i.e. the empirical external reality exists independently within the common and conventional sense.

So, basically, according to you, while some realists find the justification of their beliefs, you just embrace an unjustified belief.

What sort of justifications did the realists rely upon other than instinctive beliefs?

Note Bertrand Russell, a strong indirect realist conceded to the following;

• "Of course it is not by argument that we originally come by our belief in an independent external world.. "
  Problem of Philosophy Chapter II

What I embraced is based on justified empirical evidence the external world is real, re empirical realism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am There are few passages in the Critique that led many people to believe Kant was agnostic with things-in-themselves.
But in the whole context of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant is very firm things-in-themselves are illusory when reified as real.

I'm afraid that's not the case and it was exactly the opposite.
The first interpretation of his work that came out put him among the deniers of the thing in itself, and then he came back with an appendix to the Prolegomena to correct them (he also accused Berkeley of being one of the deniers), so that it was made clear that he only presented as illusory the forms of the thing in itself, but not the matter of the thing in itself, in other words, that we know there are things in themselves, but we know nothing about how they actually are, just how they appear to us, and they must appear to us as they do because of what they actually are, combined with our a priori concepts.

Nope you got it wrong. It is was not an appendix the Prolegomena, but it was in the Preface of the 2nd edition of the CPR that he added 'The refutation of idealism'.
This refutation replaced his original discussion of problematic idealism which was misinterpreted by many as if Kant agreed with Berkeley.
So Kant differentiated his sort of transcendental idealism from Berkeley's Subjective aka Problematic idealism.

Regardless of Berkeley's idealism as problematic, nevertheless Kant expressed that idealism in general is not harmless in comparison to philosophical realism;

Kant in CPR wrote:However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not, thus harmless),
it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General that the Existence of Things outside us (from which we derive the whole material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.
B55

In the above Kant challenged realist to provide proof, the external independent world exists,

Russell conceded as above.

Moore took up the challenge, but failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

Wittgenstein reaffirms Kant's challenge in his 'On Certainty' that one cannot prove the external independent worlds exist in the ultimate sense of reality.

• Ludwig Wittgenstein offered a subtle objection to Moore's argument in passage #554 of On Certainty (see below). Considering "I know..", he said "In its language-game it is not presumptuous ('nicht anmassend')," so that even if P implies Q, knowing P is true doesn't necessarily entail Q. Moore has displaced "I know.." from its language-game and derived a fallacy.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_o ... nd_replies

You can take up Kant's challenge and prove the independent external world exists and is really real in the ultimate sense.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am Note Kant wrote,

Unfortunately, something that we find consistently in Kant is his inconsistency. You can quote him saying something and then something else that seems to convey exactly the opposite. That's one reason of the multiple interpretations out of the mess that the Critique is, and one way to conciliate this is the view that he was simply agnostic about the thing in itself.

Show me the evidence in the context of the whole of Kant's CPR that Kant was certainly inconsistent.
Those who claimed 'inconsistency' is because they did not understand the CPR thoroughly re the various perspectives of reality that Kant was engaging in.

Note I'd spent [sometime ago] 3 years full time [up to 8 hours a day] intensively researching Kant, so I am very familiar with Kant's philosophy. You?

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:07 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:40 am Generally the point is reality is all there is and humans are a part and parcel of reality. Fundamentally there is no way humans can extricate themselves from what they are part and parcel of to make themselves independent of what they are part and parcel of.

There lies the problem of your argument, as I already explained. Humans (humanity) are only contingently entangled with the world they are part of, but they can easily be disentangled by not being part of the world, which is nothing rare. Today's humanity did not exist 200 years ago, neither any single human existing today. Perhaps one can say this humanity and these humans alive are fundamentally entangled with reality, but that's a temporary circumstance that will come to an end when they cease to exist. And yet, reality has been there and will be there, regardless of humanity.

That is not my point.
I had explained that is a subsequent post.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:18 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:01 am

• Of course it is not by argument that we originally come by our belief in an independent external world.
  We find this belief ready in ourselves as soon as we begin to reflect: it is what may be called an instinctive belief.
  https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AR ... 12.djvu/41

If all we could rely on was common wisdom, that's what we get: how things look like at first hand. But we have already many centuries of developing systematized ways of thinking that can reliably confirm or deny the truth of what appears to our senses, and reveal its real, intrinsic nature. So, it is both things: we find the belief already in ourselves, but it evolves, takes shape, it is transformed to something else along with our cultural practices.

Surely you are familiar with Hume's Problem of Induction, i.e. association by constant conjunction which is not really real in the ultimate sense.
Btw, despite Russell's concession, he was still a philosophical realist, i.e. an indirect realist and believed firmly there is "an independent external world."

But the point is a philosophical realist though have some sort of assurances to his beliefs based on instincts only, he should not be so arrogant as to condemn other beliefs without thoroughly understood [not necessary agree with] the other views, especially that of Kant's empirical realism aka transcendental idealism.

Philosophical realism is relatively philosophical vulgarity [common and conventional sense] which is very glaringly evident from one's own experiences thus very shallow and narrow.
Empirical realism [aka transcendental idealism] digs deep and wide like how Quantum mechanics understood the final perspectives of reality.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:04 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:19 pm

Your views amount to solipsism, whether you explicitly argue for that, whether you like that, or not. It's the upshot of various things you claim. All idealism amounts to solipsism.

All idealism, you mean to include your "empirical idealism".

Demonstrate my transcendental idealism aka empirical realism amounts to solipsism.
To insist on the incoherent theory of solipsism is coherent is stupidity [lack philosophical intelligence] as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs.

I'm no sort of idealist.

You don't believe that you can observe anything external to your own mind.

Where did I claim that??

I have already stated my views are that of empirical-realism which believe that humans "entangle" with and experience the independent external world directly as real. I have already stated, if I see an oncoming car in my direction, I will avoid it.
The addition point is that empirical-realism is subsumed within transcendental idealism.

On the other hand, you, the philosophical realist aka an empirical idealist only have access to the sense data [ideas] from an externally real object which they cannot ever interact nor entangle which they cannot actually verify and justify.
What the philosophical realist aka an empirical idealist can verify and justify are merely the sense-data [ideas thus idealism] they received from a supposed physical object which is independent of their mind.

There is no way for you to access and interact directly with that supposed physical object which is independent of their mind to confirm it actually exists as real.
Therefore, you the philosophical realist aka an empirical idealist is merely toying with an illusion where you reify it as real.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:08 pm
Which humans think they are disentangled from reality? Dualists?

It is the realists, i.e. the philosophical realists,

• Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind..
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I'm a realist and I don't think I'm permanently disentangled from reality. No realist thinks they are permanently disentangled from reality. Realist think that you will be entangled with reality when you're part of it and disentangled when you aren't. Since reality still exists when one is disentangled (by not existing), reality is prior to the entanglements and independent of them.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am Your views are that of the common and conventional sense.
As I had stated, within the common and conventional sense, it is very evident all humans are disentangled from the external independent world. So it is also evident that the universe caused and brings about humans into existence.

My views just make sense. I'm ready to listen to any other that makes more sense, but so far there's silence.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am As I had stated earlier, there is this soup of star-dusts particles [even this is mind-entangled fundamentally] that enable things and humans to emerge from it.

This is plainly absurd. It is like saying Peter and Mary got together, she got pregnant and as a result the same Peter was born, so he was his own father and his own son. Is this supposed to be the great alternative to realism?

That is a strawman and not my intended meaning of 'entanglement'.
I believe you did not understand the term "entanglement" where this term itself is quite insufficient to explain the 'relation' from the BB and evolution that I have in mind.

See my point below.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am Therefore philosophical realism [whilst acceptable at the common and conventional sense] is not realistic and tenable at the fundamental level of reality.
This is what happen with Newtonian Physics being acceptable at the conventional sense but not sound at the more fundamental levels of reality which has to be handled by Einsteinian and QM physics.

I was wondering how late would the quantum stuff arrive to crown the phenomenological stance. But Peter and Mary still cannot produce the miracle.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am

What is critical here is from point 1 [believe the big bang is true] to point 5, all the above are conditioned upon the human conditions.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:08 pmFirst, belief in the big bang is not necessary for acknowledging the universe exists. It is a theory of how it came to exist as we know it and experience it.

That is the best theory we have so far and thus acceptable to explain my position.
How else? If you are a theist, then you will of course resort to 'God did it'.

How about 'no one did it'. There was nothing to 'do'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am
Therefore the reality that humans know [epistemologically] and described is co-created [ontologically] by humans themselves.

You keep repeating the same sentence following the same pattern of "I meant X, therefore X". Repeatedly asserting something does not make it true all of the sudden.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:46 am "Ultimate entanglement" [not common or conventional sense] means at the most deepest level reducible, humans are entangled or related in someway to the reality which they co-created.

Sure, but will we ever see an argument to support this assertion?

I will try to explain the dynamic entanglement, connection, relation, interactions and the likes in this clearer example [hopefully],

1. First there was the Big Bang (BB) [the most reliable theory we have at present that explain the whole of reality, experienced and possible to be experienced].

2. The powerful force of the Big Bang underlies all of past and present reality, even within you and all of the universe. This indicate that all things [seemingly independent] are connected [entangled] by a strand of that underlying force. Note Chaos Theory if you sneeze [in USA] that could contribute to a hurricane/typhoon in the other end [China] of your world.

3. In this realistic underlying sense, Peter and Mary [albeit independent on the surface by self-awareness via evolution] are connected within that soup of stardusts in terms of that original powerful force of the BB.
If Peter and Mary produced a son Paul, they are all entangled or connected, the difference is merely in their self-awareness which enable them to perceive independence.

4. Thus within the common and conventional sense, Peter, Mary and Paul [as adult] will see themselves as externally independent from each other, BUT,
on reflection from the more realistic underlying sense, the 3 of them are inter-dependent with us other and with the forces of the BB and evolution.
It is the same with the whole universe which is not independent of Peter, Paul & Mary, and all humans.

5. Therefore empirical realism aka transcendental idealism is true in the ultimate sense of reality [most realistic], i.e. reality is not independent of the human conditions.
It is only not true if one view transcendental idealism ignorantly and conflate it with common and conventional sense.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:53 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:04 am
All idealism, you mean to include your "empirical idealism".

Demonstrate my transcendental idealism aka empirical realism amounts to solipsism.
To insist on the incoherent theory of solipsism is coherent is stupidity [lack philosophical intelligence] as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs.

I'm no sort of idealist.

You don't believe that you can observe anything external to your own mind.

Where did I claim that??

I have already stated my views are that of empirical-realism which believe that humans "entangle" with and experience the independent external world directly as real. I have already stated, if I see an oncoming car in my direction, I will avoid it.
The addition point is that empirical-realism is subsumed within transcendental idealism.

On the other hand, you, the philosophical realist aka an empirical idealist only have access to the sense data [ideas] from an externally real object which they cannot ever interact nor entangle which they cannot actually verify and justify.
What the philosophical realist aka an empirical idealist can verify and justify are merely the sense-data [ideas thus idealism] they received from a supposed physical object which is independent of their mind.

There is no way for you to access and interact directly with that supposed physical object which is independent of their mind to confirm it actually exists as real.
Therefore, you the philosophical realist aka an empirical idealist is merely toying with an illusion where you reify it as real.

Re where you claimed this, no way I'm looking through tons of posts trying to find it.

I'm fine with you saying that we can observe things that are external to our minds.

So for one, if we can observe things that are external to our minds, why would we say that those things we're observing only come to be in the first place because we exist and observe them? Are they instantaneously created as something external to our minds as we observe them somehow?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:51 pm Last time we spoke he didn't have a job either. He's probably broke anyway.

Probably? Surly you wanted to say "hopefully"?

How else could you justify your character assassination

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:43 am Anyone asking must at least risk engaging in debate. Don't want to take the risk? Don't ask.

You don't even understand what "risk" means.

You lose nothing when you lose in debate. Just an argument.

Real risk requires actual skin in the game. Tangible loss. Time, capital, reputation, resources.

Something you actually value. And I don't value winning argument soooo.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:43 am You just said it again: "refute yourself". You said that's what science is. No misrepresentation.

Cherry-picking too, huh? Seems like you are doubling down on the sophistry

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:43 am Let me guess: you actually think that what you're doing here and what goes on in these threads is "science". I see. You really like the absurd.

We are constructing predictive models of our experiences which explain other people's behaviour/use of language. We are trying to understand how other people think.

It's empirical/inferential. It's science, alright: you are just in denial.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:43 am Who says? You also said

Precisely.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:43 am I just chose to be realistic. You don't believe in reality as anything more than an arbitrary construct, anything goes. And that's it. Your question becomes useless and pointless.

Of course anything goes. That has nothing to do with my question.

I am asking why YOU chose realism and not something else. If anything goes why didn't you choose something else?

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:43 am The concurrence of words that describe contradictions does not entail the real concurrence of what they describe. It is the case that A exists and that A doesn't exist at the same time can be written in the same sentence, yet it remains absurd.

What makes it "absurd"?

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:43 am Well...was not you the one who said a few posts earlier that "the impossible is possible"?

It was precisely me who said it. And it's precisely you who insists that this is self-defeat. So it's on you to explain in what way "self-defeat" has taken place.

Because the words are still there - existing and undefeated.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:43 am That's as ridiculous as a statement can be. Physics is mathematics as much as the printed edition of the New York times is cellulose.

Physics is mathematics. When it comes to understanding the "fundamental particles of nature" you are left with no choice but to understand the equations which describe them. There's nothing underneath a photon or an electron - just Maths.

You don't have to believe me, but it's not me saying that - it's Roger Penrose saying that.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:53 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:06 am

I'm no sort of idealist.

You don't believe that you can observe anything external to your own mind.

Where did I claim that??

I have already stated my views are that of empirical-realism which believe that humans "entangle" with and experience the independent external world directly as real. I have already stated, if I see an oncoming car in my direction, I will avoid it.
The addition point is that empirical-realism is subsumed within transcendental idealism.

On the other hand, you, the philosophical realist aka an empirical idealist only have access to the sense data [ideas] from an externally real object which they cannot ever interact nor entangle which they cannot actually verify and justify.
What the philosophical realist aka an empirical idealist can verify and justify are merely the sense-data [ideas thus idealism] they received from a supposed physical object which is independent of their mind.

There is no way for you to access and interact directly with that supposed physical object which is independent of their mind to confirm it actually exists as real.
Therefore, you the philosophical realist aka an empirical idealist is merely toying with an illusion where you reify it as real.

Re where you claimed this, no way I'm looking through tons of posts trying to find it.

I'm fine with you saying that we can observe things that are external to our minds.

So for one, if we can observe things that are external to our minds, why would we say that those things we're observing only come to be in the first place because we exist and observe them? Are they instantaneously created as something external to our minds as we observe them somehow?

Again I NEVER said or agreed, "that those things we're observing only come to be in the first place because we exist and observe them."

What I asserted is, "reality [all there is] is never independent of the human conditions" in contrast to the philosophical realists position. This is because human beings are already entangled with reality in the first place, i.e. from the deterministic link of reality of the Big Bang to the present.

The problem is you keep are stuck with interpreting my position from your rigid realist's POV and position.

As I had stated elsewhere,
my position is empirical realism, i.e. we can observe and justify things external to our mind empirically BUT this whole schema is subsumed within transcendental idealism [note the Big Bang connection and entanglement] at the most fundamental level of reality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:52 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:53 am
Where did I claim that??

I have already stated my views are that of empirical-realism which believe that humans "entangle" with and experience the independent external world directly as real. I have already stated, if I see an oncoming car in my direction, I will avoid it.
The addition point is that empirical-realism is subsumed within transcendental idealism.

On the other hand, you, the philosophical realist aka an empirical idealist only have access to the sense data [ideas] from an externally real object which they cannot ever interact nor entangle which they cannot actually verify and justify.
What the philosophical realist aka an empirical idealist can verify and justify are merely the sense-data [ideas thus idealism] they received from a supposed physical object which is independent of their mind.

There is no way for you to access and interact directly with that supposed physical object which is independent of their mind to confirm it actually exists as real.
Therefore, you the philosophical realist aka an empirical idealist is merely toying with an illusion where you reify it as real.

Re where you claimed this, no way I'm looking through tons of posts trying to find it.

I'm fine with you saying that we can observe things that are external to our minds.

So for one, if we can observe things that are external to our minds, why would we say that those things we're observing only come to be in the first place because we exist and observe them? Are they instantaneously created as something external to our minds as we observe them somehow?

Again I NEVER said or agreed, "that those things we're observing only come to be in the first place because we exist and observe them."

What I asserted is, "reality [all there is] is never independent of the human conditions" in contrast to the philosophical realists position. This is because human beings are already entangled with reality in the first place, i.e. from the deterministic link of reality of the Big Bang to the present.

The problem is you keep are stuck with interpreting my position from your rigid realist's POV and position.

As I had stated elsewhere,
my position is empirical realism, i.e. we can observe and justify things external to our mind empirically BUT this whole schema is subsumed within transcendental idealism [note the Big Bang connection and entanglement] at the most fundamental level of reality.

So at the temporal point of the big bang, for example, human beings are entangled with that event via?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:11 am So at the temporal point of the big bang

There is no such thing. Time didn't exist at the big bang.

The big bang caused time.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:22 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:01 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am Nope I had never argued for solipsism which is a incoherent theory.

Your phenomenalism is one that inevitably leads to solipsism, even if you are not aware of it. I just explained to you why, you can deal with the arguments if you want to, but plainly denying your solipsism will not do.

You mentioned solipsism here,
viewtopic.php?p=506843#p506843
that was a strawman.
I responded none of your points [1 & 2] are applicable to mine.

No, actually you didn't answer, you avoided a direct response to my argument. You claimed humans do exist and I explained that this have consequences that lead directly either to acknowledging the existence of a universe without humans or to solipsism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am Note Bertrand Russell, a strong indirect realist conceded to the following;

• "Of course it is not by argument that we originally come by our belief in an independent external world.. "
  Problem of Philosophy Chapter II

The key word here is "originally". At the level of cognition and common sense, we could not expect anything else. It is only at higher levels of systematization of knowledge in philosophy and science that what appears as an independent external world is confirmed as real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am What I embraced is based on justified empirical evidence the external world is real, re empirical realism.

So, the answer to the point in contention: 'does the universe exists if there are no humans' is a categorical YES.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am There are few passages in the Critique that led many people to believe Kant was agnostic with things-in-themselves.
But in the whole context of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant is very firm things-in-themselves are illusory when reified as real.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:01 pmI'm afraid that's not the case and it was exactly the opposite.
The first interpretation of his work that came out put him among the deniers of the thing in itself, and then he came back with an appendix to the Prolegomena to correct them (he also accused Berkeley of being one of the deniers), so that it was made clear that he only presented as illusory the forms of the thing in itself, but not the matter of the thing in itself, in other words, that we know there are things in themselves, but we know nothing about how they actually are, just how they appear to us, and they must appear to us as they do because of what they actually are, combined with our a priori concepts.

Nope you got it wrong. It is was not an appendix the Prolegomena, but it was in the Preface of the 2nd edition of the CPR that he added 'The refutation of idealism'.
This refutation replaced his original discussion of problematic idealism which was misinterpreted by many as if Kant agreed with Berkeley.
So Kant differentiated his sort of transcendental idealism from Berkeley's Subjective aka Problematic idealism.

Regardless of Berkeley's idealism as problematic, nevertheless Kant expressed that idealism in general is not harmless in comparison to philosophical realism;

Here is Kant in the Prolegomena in response to his critics (my comments added in blue):

The dictum of all genuine idealists from the Eleatic school to Bishop Berkeley, is contained in this formula: "All cognition through the senses and experience is nothing but sheer illusion, and only, in the ideas of the pure understanding and reason there is truth." This is the equivalent of saying: "there is NOT a real physical object that is transmitting the waves that generate the sense-data in the brain. This thing-in-itself is NOT real and is NOT independent of the human conditions, or human mind." And Kant says he does not endorse this.

The principle that throughout dominates and determines my Idealism, is on the contrary: "All cognition of things merely from pure understanding or pure reason is nothing but sheer illusion, and only in experience is there truth."

But this is directly contrary to idealism proper. How came I then to use this expression for quite an opposite purpose, and how came my reviewer to see it everywhere?

The solution of this difficulty rests on something that could have been very easily understood from the general bearing of the work, if the reader had only desired to do so. Space and time, together with all that they contain, are not things nor qualities in themselves, but belong merely to the appearances of the latter: up to this point I am one in confession with the above idealists. But these, and amongst them more particularly Berkeley, regarded space as a mere empirical presentation that, like the phenomenon it contains, is only known to us by means of experience or perception, together with its determinations. I, on the contrary, prove in the first place, that space (and also time, which Berkeley did not consider) and all its determinations a priori, can be known by us, because, no less than time, it inheres in our sensibility as a pure form before all perception or experience and makes all intuition of the same, and therefore all its phenomena, possible. It follows from this, that as truth rests on universal and necessary laws as its criteria, experience, according to Berkeley, can have no criteria of truth, because its phenomena (according to him) have nothing a priori at their foundation; whence it follows, that they are nothing but sheer illusion; whereas with us, space and time (in conjunction with the pure conceptions of the understanding) prescribe their law to all possible experience a priori, and at the same time afford the certain criterion for distinguishing truth from illusion therein. My so-called (properly critical) Idealism is of quite a special character, in that it subverts the ordinary idealism, and that through it all cognition a priori, even that of geometry, first receives objective reality... Here Kant endorses the view that "there is a real objective reality that is transmitting the waves that generate the sense-data that is received as cognition by the brain. This thing-in-itself is real and is independent of the human conditions, or human mind."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:22 am

Kant in CPR wrote:However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not, thus harmless),
it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General that the Existence of Things outside us (from which we derive the whole material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.
B55

In the above Kant challenged realist to provide proof, the external independent world exists,

Which of course was the first most obvious interpretation of Kant, but to which Kant responded denying it. Actually, what Kant meant is that the thing in itself had to exist in order for the phenomena to be perceived, in other words, that the phenomena have something a priori at their foundation, they cannot be pure illusion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:22 am You can take up Kant's challenge and prove the independent external world exists and is really real in the ultimate sense.

Actually, the point was to prove whether it existed as it appeared to our senses or in other form, which Kant said was impossible to know, adding that space and time were merely a priori contributions of our minds.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:01 pm Note Kant wrote,

Unfortunately, something that we find consistently in Kant is his inconsistency. You can quote him saying something and then something else that seems to convey exactly the opposite. That's one reason of the multiple interpretations out of the mess that the Critique is, and one way to conciliate this is the view that he was simply agnostic about the thing in itself.

Show me the evidence in the context of the whole of Kant's CPR that Kant was certainly inconsistent.
Those who claimed 'inconsistency' is because they did not understand the CPR thoroughly re the various perspectives of reality that Kant was engaging in.

That Kant's work is obscure and open to several interpretations from competent scholars is not something controversial. It does not diminish his greatness. Denying it amounts to approaching philosophy with the fan club mentality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:22 am Note I'd spent [sometime ago] 3 years full time [up to 8 hours a day] intensively researching Kant, so I am very familiar with Kant's philosophy. You?

I would advice anyone in these forums not to claim expertise in any given subject, it might be counterproductive to their whole debate strategy, as it is the case now. It looks like you will need some more years of research. I don't claim myself to be an expert on Kant, but I have debated a good enough amount of idealists throughout the years as to know where they are standing.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:52 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:44 am

Re where you claimed this, no way I'm looking through tons of posts trying to find it.

I'm fine with you saying that we can observe things that are external to our minds.

So for one, if we can observe things that are external to our minds, why would we say that those things we're observing only come to be in the first place because we exist and observe them? Are they instantaneously created as something external to our minds as we observe them somehow?

Again I NEVER said or agreed, "that those things we're observing only come to be in the first place because we exist and observe them."

What I asserted is, "reality [all there is] is never independent of the human conditions" in contrast to the philosophical realists position. This is because human beings are already entangled with reality in the first place, i.e. from the deterministic link of reality of the Big Bang to the present.

The problem is you keep are stuck with interpreting my position from your rigid realist's POV and position.

As I had stated elsewhere,
my position is empirical realism, i.e. we can observe and justify things external to our mind empirically BUT this whole schema is subsumed within transcendental idealism [note the Big Bang connection and entanglement] at the most fundamental level of reality.

So at the temporal point of the big bang, for example, human beings are entangled with that event via?

Via the concept of time and temporality.
Time is entangled with the human conditions.
When humans realized the BB is appx 13 billion years old [time], the entanglement is implied.
This realization is subsumed within the human conditions.

Then there is the other perspective, i.e. via the principle of determination [open ended not absolute].

Why you are clinging to your existing realist views which is opposite to the above is due to psychological desperation arising from the existential crisis and cognitive dissonance.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:22 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:01 pm
Your phenomenalism is one that inevitably leads to solipsism, even if you are not aware of it. I just explained to you why, you can deal with the arguments if you want to, but plainly denying your solipsism will not do.

You mentioned solipsism here,
viewtopic.php?p=506843#p506843
that was a strawman.
I responded none of your points [1 & 2] are applicable to mine.

No, actually you didn't answer, you avoided a direct response to my argument. You claimed humans do exist and I explained that this have consequences that lead directly either to acknowledging the existence of a universe without humans or to solipsism.

I have read your points and responded accordingly.
The Kantian sort of transcendental idealism [aka empirical realism] will not lead to solipsism.
Other types of idealism [which I do not agree with, e.g. Berkeley's] may lead to solipsism [incoherent anyway.] Usually that is based on the wrong interpretation of Berkeley's idealism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am Note Bertrand Russell, a strong indirect realist conceded to the following;

• "Of course it is not by argument that we originally come by our belief in an independent external world.. "
  Problem of Philosophy Chapter II

The key word here is "originally". At the level of cognition and common sense, we could not expect anything else. It is only at higher levels of systematization of knowledge in philosophy and science that what appears as an independent external world is confirmed as real.

What higher levels of systematization of knowledge in philosophy and science?
Bertrand Russell never present any "systematization of knowledge in philosophy and science" to prove nor justify the independent external world.
He argued based on common sense that the independent external world is just more realistic by comparing it to Berkeley's God driven idealism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am What I embraced is based on justified empirical evidence the external world is real, re empirical realism.

So, the answer to the point in contention: 'does the universe exists if there are no humans' is a categorical YES.

Note I stated based on "empirical realism", wonder you understand what is that.

As I wrote somewhere, empirical realism [there is a 'real' independent external world] is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism which is pre-qualified to the human conditions. Thus ultimately there is no absolute independent externa world in itself.