Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:35 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:23 am The FSK-ed shared realities are all there to it, there is no deeper reality beyond that [this is groping with METAphysics.]

Then fsks can't be wrong, and they can't be more or less objective. If you say they are on a sliding scale of objectiveness, with say astrology being on the low end of that scale and astronomy being on the high end, then that presupposes something you are comparing them to, to make one more objective and one less objective. Despite you insisting there is no deeper reality, the words you use consistently, implicitly, make reference to a deeper reality.

As I had stated many times, the objectivity of the astrology-FSK is contrasted with the science-astronomy-FSK where the science-FSK has the highest credibility and reliability.

Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

The scientific FSK is not compared to some other FSK, but rated based on various criteria.

You don't seem to be able to make an argument without peppering it with FSKs, which gives me an impression that you are up to no good. No one else seems to feel it necessary to end every other sentence with "FSK" in order to justify their reasoning. I am formally requesting that the forum administration confiscates all your FSKs. You have been allowed to get away with it for far too long, and it has to stop; NOW!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:35 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:23 am The FSK-ed shared realities are all there to it, there is no deeper reality beyond that [this is groping with METAphysics.]

Then fsks can't be wrong, and they can't be more or less objective. If you say they are on a sliding scale of objectiveness, with say astrology being on the low end of that scale and astronomy being on the high end, then that presupposes something you are comparing them to, to make one more objective and one less objective. Despite you insisting there is no deeper reality, the words you use consistently, implicitly, make reference to a deeper reality.

As I had stated many times, the objectivity of the astrology-FSK is contrasted with the science-astronomy-FSK where the science-FSK has the highest credibility and reliability.

Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

The scientific FSK is not compared to some other FSK, but rated based on various criteria.

ok, but VA clearly you just compared the scientific fsk to other fsks. I think what you mean by that final sentence is that you do not evaluate the scientific fsk via another fsk. But here's the thing.

Using criteria to rate something is an fsk. It is a kind of fsk. It presents a model of what is a good approach. It gives us things to measure or evaulate. That's an fsk.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:35 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:29 am

Then fsks can't be wrong, and they can't be more or less objective. If you say they are on a sliding scale of objectiveness, with say astrology being on the low end of that scale and astronomy being on the high end, then that presupposes something you are comparing them to, to make one more objective and one less objective. Despite you insisting there is no deeper reality, the words you use consistently, implicitly, make reference to a deeper reality.

As I had stated many times, the objectivity of the astrology-FSK is contrasted with the science-astronomy-FSK where the science-FSK has the highest credibility and reliability.

Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

The scientific FSK is not compared to some other FSK, but rated based on various criteria.

You don't seem to be able to make an argument without peppering it with FSKs, which gives me an impression that you are up to no good. No one else seems to feel it necessary to end every other sentence with "FSK" in order to justify their reasoning. I am formally requesting that the forum administration confiscates all your FSKs. You have been allowed to get away with it for far too long, and it has to stop; NOW!

Humor (with a core of seriousness) aside, I think VA needs to show how

rating something based on criteria

is not an fsk. It certainly seems like one.

That's exactly what happens in science and other fields.

We have methodology to arrive at conclusions and a way of evaulating conclusions.

If it's not an fsk, then way does all knowledge have to come through an fsk EXCEPT the knowledge of which fsk is the best (and also ranks the others)

So, what is the fsk that judges science best?

I have seen a list of criteria he had for science, and that's sort of an fsk. But this list does not justify it's criteria.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:31 am Here's the VA rub.

Premise: We humans can know reality only in a human way. [True.]
Conclusion: Therefore:
1 We humans can never know reality-as-it-really-is / reality-in-itself / the noumenon; or
2 There is no such thing as reality-as-it-really-is / reality-in-itself / the noumenon.

It seems to me that both conclusions are non sequiturs.

(I missed the above because PH did not quote my post, thus not notified)
Strawman again and again;

The conclusions should read;

Therefore:
1 We humans can never know an absolutely mind-independent reality-as-it-really-is / reality-in-itself / the noumenon; or
2 There is no such thing as an absolutely mind-independent reality-as-it-really-is / reality-in-itself / the noumenon.

Can you [as a human] show me an argument that follows to conclude;
Therefore, there is an absolutely mind-independent reality-as-it-is?

Note, it is a non-starter because it is inevitable humans are involved in all arguments. This is the reality since humans are inevitably part and parcel of reality.
Thus whatever follows cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

It is only due to a evolutionary default and psychological necessity under certain circumstances that humans are instinctual towards dualism of a mind-independent reality.

However, for more complex philosophical deliberation we have to do a paradigm shift from mind-independence to NOT-mind-independence.

You, unfortunately are incapable, do not have the competence and human maturity to shift from mind-independence to NOT-mind-independence to grasp more complex philosophical issues.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:09 am Now Philosophical Realists would claim there is a mind-independent Sun, Proxima Centauri, existing as an objective reality out there as real in real time t1.

But the fact [FSK] is Proxima Centauri in real time t1, may not exists anymore, i.e. could have died long ago in real time.

Some Philosophical realists may think this is not possible, but I doubt those who have any knowledge of astronomy think this.

But a philosophical realist can hold the position you have without contradicting their ideas.

As an aside; your argument is based on a realist model that there was a noumenal source for those light waves. That it did exist in the past, but might no longer exist. The very model you are using to demonstrate the foolishness of realists is a realist model of distant stars (which we have no direct contact with) emitting light etc.

But the main point is a philosophical realist can agree with you on this point and still be a philosophical realist.

Google away: you'll find lots of philosophical realists saying the same thing.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2017/0 ... %3A%20NASA.

When you look at a star, you are looking at the light that came from the star. Because stars are so far away, it takes years for their light to reach us. Therefore, when you look at a star, you are actually seeing what it looked like years ago. It is entirely possible that some of the stars you see tonight do not actually exist anymore.

"their light" noumenon's light.
It did exist, but might not anymore.
Realism

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:34 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:09 am Now Philosophical Realists would claim there is a mind-independent Sun, Proxima Centauri, existing as an objective reality out there as real in real time t1.

But the fact [FSK] is Proxima Centauri in real time t1, may not exists anymore, i.e. could have died long ago in real time.

Some Philosophical realists may think this is not possible, but I doubt those who have any knowledge of astronomy think this.

But a philosophical realist can hold the position you have without contradicting their ideas.

As an aside; your argument is based on a realist model that there was a noumenal source for those light waves. That it did exist in the past, but might no longer exist. The very model you are using to demonstrate the foolishness of realists is a realist model of distant stars (which we have no direct contact with) emitting light etc.

But the main point is a philosophical realist can agree with you on this point and still be a philosophical realist.

Google away: you'll find lots of philosophical realists saying the same thing.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2017/0 ... %3A%20NASA.

When you look at a star, you are looking at the light that came from the star. Because stars are so far away, it takes years for their light to reach us. Therefore, when you look at a star, you are actually seeing what it looked like years ago. It is entirely possible that some of the stars you see tonight do not actually exist anymore.

"their light" noumenon's light.
It did exist, but might not anymore.
Realism

My thesis is philosophical realism is not tenable to be realistic.
Philosophical Realism claims that things and reality are absolutely mind-independent to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will do so even after humans are extinct.

When a philosophical realist [PR] perceive a table out there, a PR will insist there is a real mind-independent table out there in reality regardless the existence of any mind.
Therefore, when a PR [based on philosophical realism] perceived a star, e.g. "Proxima Centauri" which is perceivable via a telescope, the PR will insist that the star perceived [Proxima Centauri] is a real 'star' in reality just like the table out there in reality.

People like PH [philosophical realist] will insist, that star [Proxima Centauri] perceived and described is not the real star; PH will insists there is a real star as matter of fact [the perceived] out there that is independent of opinions, beliefs, judgment and the human conditions [i.e. absolute mind-independent].

But the above claim of philosophical realism is false, because there is no real star as matter of fact [the perceived] out there that is independent of opinions, beliefs, judgment and the human conditions [i.e. absolute mind-independent].

What is deemed to be that real star in real time, is an illusion because in the above example, in real time [now], the observed and perceived Proxima Centauri could have been swallowed by a black hole, thus non-existence in real time.

There is a time-gap or Reality-Gap between what is perceived and the supposedly 'the-perceived' which is illusory.

What is real is merely what is based on what is perceived by the mind upon the emergence and realization [note this]of what is Proxima Centauri as conditioned upon the human-based [mind related] science-physics-cosmology FSK.

Thus, philosophical realism claimed of a mind-independent reality can never be tenable nor can it be realistic.

The light waves that hit the retina and perceived are merely light waves, they are not Proxima Centauri as it 'was'.
Even with light waves, there is still a time-gap or Reality-Gap between what is perceived and the supposed 'the-perceived' which is illusory.

My point of using Proxima Centauri as an example is to demonstrate the a time-gap or Reality-Gap between 'what is perceived' and the supposedly 'the-perceived' which is illusory.
This time-gap or Reality-Gap is applicable not just to stars but to EVERYTHING in reality.

Because of this time-gap or Reality-Gap, philosophical realism's absolute mind-independent things and reality [matter of fact] is not tenable, cannot be realistic and it impossible to be real.

Because PH's denial of objective moral facts is based on philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion, PH's refutation has no credibility at all.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:34 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:09 am Now Philosophical Realists would claim there is a mind-independent Sun, Proxima Centauri, existing as an objective reality out there as real in real time t1.

But the fact [FSK] is Proxima Centauri in real time t1, may not exists anymore, i.e. could have died long ago in real time.

Some Philosophical realists may think this is not possible, but I doubt those who have any knowledge of astronomy think this.

But a philosophical realist can hold the position you have without contradicting their ideas.

As an aside; your argument is based on a realist model that there was a noumenal source for those light waves. That it did exist in the past, but might no longer exist. The very model you are using to demonstrate the foolishness of realists is a realist model of distant stars (which we have no direct contact with) emitting light etc.

But the main point is a philosophical realist can agree with you on this point and still be a philosophical realist.

Google away: you'll find lots of philosophical realists saying the same thing.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2017/0 ... %3A%20NASA.

When you look at a star, you are looking at the light that came from the star. Because stars are so far away, it takes years for their light to reach us. Therefore, when you look at a star, you are actually seeing what it looked like years ago. It is entirely possible that some of the stars you see tonight do not actually exist anymore.

"their light" noumenon's light.
It did exist, but might not anymore.
Realism

VA already referred to this thread from at least two other threads:

The Reality-Gap should be more obvious for the P-realist.
Note
Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?
viewtopic.php?t=40154

See this:
Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?
PO: viewtopic.php?t=40154

which of course means that the debate is over, whatever VA said was correct, and is now fact.

One can only wonder why some philosophical gnats come back to this thread anyway just to make noises?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 6:37 am which of course means that the debate is over, whatever VA said was correct, and is now fact.

One can only wonder why some philosophical gnats come back to this thread anyway just to make noises?

I see a lot of fruit of the poison tree in his arguments.
I am using this metaphorically - and it was already a metaphor in law

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.

And here the odd idea that a realist wouldn't understand that some stars we see, even, or perhaps especially, in the realist model no longer exist. Or better put, that a realist for some reason must ignore ideas from astronomy that, in realist fashion, posit SOURCES that we cannot directly experience (that is: STARS) existed in the past and the light waves we see now come from that not-directly-experiencable source. And thus, given the vast periods of time involved may no longer exist.

In a sense he's already argued elsewhere that no stars exist, since we cannot experience them directly. But now suddenly he's going to undermine realism using a realist model of light coming from distant sources.

Better to stick to the radical position.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 6:46 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 6:37 am which of course means that the debate is over, whatever VA said was correct, and is now fact.

One can only wonder why some philosophical gnats come back to this thread anyway just to make noises?

I see a lot of fruit of the poison tree in his arguments.
I am using this metaphorically - and it was already a metaphor in law

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.

And here the odd idea that a realist wouldn't understand that some stars we see, even, or perhaps especially, in the realist model no longer exist. Or better put, that a realist for some reason must ignore ideas from astronomy that, in realist fashion, posit SOURCES that we cannot directly experience (that is: STARS) existed in the past and the light waves we see now come from that not-directly-experiencable source. And thus, given the vast periods of time involved may no longer exist.

In a sense he's already argued elsewhere that no stars exist, since we cannot experience them directly. But now suddenly he's going to undermine realism using a realist model of light coming from distant sources.

Better to stick to the radical position.

If he knew what logic was, he would know that logically, the fact that causality in Einsteinian spacetime is restricted to the speed of light, has nothing to do with the positive noumenon being impossible to exist.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 6:46 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 6:37 am which of course means that the debate is over, whatever VA said was correct, and is now fact.

One can only wonder why some philosophical gnats come back to this thread anyway just to make noises?

I see a lot of fruit of the poison tree in his arguments.
I am using this metaphorically - and it was already a metaphor in law

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.

And here the odd idea that a realist wouldn't understand that some stars we see, even, or perhaps especially, in the realist model no longer exist. Or better put, that a realist for some reason must ignore ideas from astronomy that, in realist fashion, posit SOURCES that we cannot directly experience (that is: STARS) existed in the past and the light waves we see now come from that not-directly-experiencable source. And thus, given the vast periods of time involved may no longer exist.

In a sense he's already argued elsewhere that no stars exist, since we cannot experience them directly. But now suddenly he's going to undermine realism using a realist model of light coming from distant sources.

Better to stick to the radical position.

In a complex issue like this, can you paraphrase my argument above so I can check whether you have understood [not necessary agree with] my points, else we will be talking pass each other all the time.

I have never asserted "no stars exist" in any unqualified sense.
Stars do exist when we look at the night sky.
However I do not claim the stars observed exist in the absolute mind-independent sense [noumenon] which is claimed by the philosophical realists.

On point philosophical realists [being very immature and primal] is they are ignorant "what is star" had been experienced by humans way back to their common ancestors, the rat-like animal, 90-160 millions years ago and longer when we stretch our common ancestors of microbes.
This 'pattern' of "what is a star" is programmed within the DNA and it continues to change in time.

That is what I meant by 'what is a star' [or things] emerged and realized prior to being perceived, known and described.

There is no such thing as a permanent 'star' existing as an absolute mind-independent thing awaiting discovery by humans.

1. What about things that supposedly existed before there were humans.
2. 'Before' is time-based.
3. Time is not-mind independent.
4. Therefore 1 cannot be ultimately mind-independent.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 7:37 am 1. What about things that supposedly existed before there were humans.
2. 'Before' is time-based.
3. Time is not-mind independent.
4. Therefore 1 cannot be ultimately mind-independent.

Kantian time is not mind-independent, Einsteinian time is mind-independent.

You're an idiot

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 7:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 7:37 am 1. What about things that supposedly existed before there were humans.
2. 'Before' is time-based.
3. Time is not-mind independent.
4. Therefore 1 cannot be ultimately mind-independent.

Kantian time is not mind-independent, Einsteinian time is mind-independent.

You're an idiot

In the field of the Philosophy of QM, Einstein was a loser.

Your position is grounded on a loser.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:26 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 7:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 7:37 am 1. What about things that supposedly existed before there were humans.
2. 'Before' is time-based.
3. Time is not-mind independent.
4. Therefore 1 cannot be ultimately mind-independent.

Kantian time is not mind-independent, Einsteinian time is mind-independent.

You're an idiot

In the field of the Philosophy of QM, Einstein was a loser.

Your position is grounded on a loser.

Looks like you can't even differentiate between the Theory of Relativity and QM. Why you even mention science is a mistery.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 9:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:26 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 7:59 am
Kantian time is not mind-independent, Einsteinian time is mind-independent.

You're an idiot

In the field of the Philosophy of QM, Einstein was a loser.

Your position is grounded on a loser.

Looks like you can't even differentiate between the Theory of Relativity and QM. Why you even mention science is a mistery.

and

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 7:37 am
1. What about things that supposedly existed before there were humans.

The OP uses a realist model that includes stars existing before humans existed in an attempt to undermine realism. And then oddly assumes that realists can't work with a realist model. Yes, any realist who says that if we see (lightwaves from) a star then it still exists. But those are realists without much knowledge of science/astronomy and other realists, can, as odd as it seems, agree with the realist model that says the lightwaves took a long time to get here from a (at least once) existent star that may no longer exist.

And I sense an equivocation about the meaning of mind-dependent hovering around this thread like all the other threads.