Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 8:44 am
VA: 'Whatever is reality is always grounded to the human conditions.'
False. There's no such thing as 'whatever is reality' or 'reality-in-itself'.
So the claim that reality
is what humans perceive and know it to be, and say it is, is false.
Strawman again!
I had never made the following claim;
"So the claim that reality
is what humans perceive and know it to be, and say it is"
How many times, must I repeat my claim before it gets into your thick skull?
Suggest you read my few posts to you earlier to get my point.
What is your definition of 'reality'.
The following is the typical definition of what is reality;
- 1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs
(2) : the totality of real things and events
2 b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality
I believe you can accept the above meanings of what is reality.
Based on the above, whatever-is-reality to you IS whatever you deemed reality to be.
I understand what is reality to you is independent of the human conditions, i.e. represent by facts that are independent of individual's opinions, beliefs and judgment, which is literally reality-in-itself or facts-in-themselves.
So, how can you say, "There's no such thing as 'whatever is reality' or 'reality-in-itself'."
We humans must perceive, know and describe reality - including humans - in a human way. But so what?
What exactly is it that we can't have access to, that we can never know or understand?
You defined reality as independent from you, that is why you can never have access to it directly, thus can never know or understand it fully with the possibility of error.
It is because YOU can't have access to, that YOU can never know or understand, that you have to
speculate and
postulate what-it-is, i.e. it is something that is close to your description of it.
If we can't know what reality is, then we also can't know what reality is not. For example, we can't know that reality is not the way we perceive, know and describe it.
If you can't know what reality is [in-itself or by-itself], and you can't know what reality is not, plus you can't know that reality is not the way you perceive, know and describe it, then why bother with such a reality [in-itself or by-itself]. You are chasing after illusions.
As I had explained why you are chasing after such illusions is because of terrible psychological pains driven by an inherent existential crisis generating cognitive dissonances.
What exactly does model-dependent realism mean? A model is not the thing being modelled. And if all models are wrong, why are some models more useful than others? And what would a model that's right be like? The saying that says it all?
Strawman again.
Note the term 'realism' in model-dependent
realism which indicate this not purely about modelling.
It mean the reality culminating from relying on a model is the totality comprising of 'the one who model' entangling with the model together that enable the emergence of a reality [reality] identified as model-dependent-realism.
As I had stated the all of reality is conditioned upon a specific FSK which involved a model therein generating different degrees of objectivity, thus confidence level.
There are various criteria to verify the realism of a model; the ultimate is the utility of the model in contribution to the progress and well being of humanity.
If a biology-model confirm based on empirical evidence that thing is a real apple and is nutritious and human can eat it, then such a model-realism is credible.
If a Physics model can confirm a law based on empirical evidences that can take one to the moon and back, then its realism is credible and reliable.
There is no need to give a damn with your,
"reality in-itself or by-itself that cannot know directly, and you can't know what reality is not, plus you can't know that reality is not the way you perceive, know and describe it".
A description is not the thing being described. An objection to realism is usually an objection to the claim that one kind of description captures the essence or truth of reality - as though there is such a thing, and as though such a thing could be captured. It's a giant straw windmill.
That is why you are claiming, i.e. there are such entities called independent facts that can be known and described.
As stated above, such facts-in-themselves are useless, meaningless and non-sensical.
What is most meaningful, sensible and useful is the fact that is conditioned upon a credible and reliable FSK, i.e. a FSK-conditioned scientific fact or moral fact.
The factual assertion that water is H2O isn't an overweening attempt to describe 'reality-in-itself'. And like all factual truth-claims, it's contextual and conventional - it makes sense as a chemical description. The fact that it doesn't make sense as a quantum mechanical description is trivially true and irrelevant.
What is fact to you is that entity that is independent of the human conditions.
That is literally reality-in-itself, fact-in-itself with its description 'Water is H2O'
Like most of the rest of us, natural scientists do deal with truth and false factual assertions, such as expressions of data. The fashionable idea that all they do is propose models or paradigms - and that therefore all we can ever know are models or paradigms - is catastrophically misleading. And it comes from mistaking what we say about things for the way things are.
What you are missing above is the 3 phases of reality I stated above, i.e.
1. The entanglement, the emergence and realization in modeling of reality, i.e. the FSK processes.
2. The perception and knowing of 1.
3. The description of 2.
You are totally unable to grasp the activities of realities in 1 above, i.e. the "FSK'ing" of reality.
This is an indefinite use of what. They could be questioning, observing, investigating and trying to explain anything.