Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 10:42 am Here is an example, which hopefully you can grasp it.
When a baby is born how it is that it is able to direct its attention to the mother nipple even before it perceived, know and describe it.
It is the same with many other animals which are born so small, e.g. the joey [kangaroo] which climbed to its mother's pouch where is nipple is, without perceiving, knowing or being informed by description of those facts you claimed pre-exists.
In this case, the organisms or humans are pre-entangled with whatever the reality [relative not absolute].

This was a mistake on VA's part because humans are on the low end of built-in information. Baby humans can do very little compared to other species.
One hour after birth a foal can walk. After a couple of hours it can run.
With human babies 8 to 18 months.
Are human babies less entangled?
He's mixing categories and assuming tabula rasa.
In fact animals in general how many more innate behaviors than humans.
Our strength is in our plasticity. We can learn more than other animals, but our babies take much more time to learn things that animals can do from birth and are learning more things and more types of things at the same time.

Whatever the subsequent reality to an organism, it is conditioned by a a priori conditions and nurturing factors. In this case, the organism is in a way a co-creator of its reality.

There is no absolute, fixed or standard reality that is awaiting an organism to discover.

Then you have to wonder why the babies always seem to cocreate nipples in the same places on their mother's. Why not cocreate some other type of source of milk? And joeys crawl up, cause that's where the nipples are.

And foals all adapt to the contours of the field that we could photograph before the birth. They don't run uphill where it's downhill.

It's only recently VA has included animals in his cocreation/entanglement model. Earlier it was just humans. Then he realized there were problems with that and started talking about LUCU, the first common ancestor. Then organisms in the primordial soup.

Still not sure how those first organisms created not only the nutritious soup they were in, but the planet and sun. I get it. There was some quantum foam out of which the first organisms cocreated everything they needed. But for some reason they also created threats. And later they created predators. For some reason they created aging. And magma that poured into one side of pool and killed them.

As far as I can tell mothers had nipples before the babies were born.

But those first organisms created the solar system ex nihilo.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 2:13 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 10:42 am Here is an example, which hopefully you can grasp it.
When a baby is born how it is that it is able to direct its attention to the mother nipple even before it perceived, know and describe it.
It is the same with many other animals which are born so small, e.g. the joey [kangaroo] which climbed to its mother's pouch where is nipple is, without perceiving, knowing or being informed by description of those facts you claimed pre-exists.
In this case, the organisms or humans are pre-entangled with whatever the reality [relative not absolute].

This was a mistake on VA's part because humans are on the low end of built-in information. Baby humans can do very little compared to other species.
One hour after birth a foal can walk. After a couple of hours it can run.
With human babies 8 to 18 months.
Are human babies less entangled?
He's mixing categories and assuming tabula rasa.
In fact animals in general how many more innate behaviors than humans.
Our strength is in our plasticity. We can learn more than other animals, but our babies take much more time to learn things that animals can do from birth and are learning more things and more types of things at the same time.

Whatever the subsequent reality to an organism, it is conditioned by a a priori conditions and nurturing factors. In this case, the organism is in a way a co-creator of its reality.

There is no absolute, fixed or standard reality that is awaiting an organism to discover.

Then you have to wonder why the babies always seem to cocreate nipples in the same places on their mother's. Why not cocreate some other type of source of milk? And joeys crawl up, cause that's where the nipples are.

And foals all adapt to the contours of the field that we could photograph before the birth. They don't run uphill where it's downhill.

It's only recently VA has included animals in his cocreation/entanglement model. Earlier it was just humans. Then he realized there were problems with that and started talking about LUCU, the first common ancestor. Then organisms in the primordial soup.

Still not sure how those first organisms created not only the nutritious soup they were in, but the planet and sun. I get it. There was some quantum foam out of which the first organisms cocreated everything they needed. But for some reason they also created threats. And later they created predators. For some reason they created aging. And magma that poured into one side of pool and killed them.

As far as I can tell mothers had nipples before the babies were born.

But those first organisms created the solar system ex nihilo.

I think you're commendably patient. I'm afraid it's a lost cause - but your approach is useful. Thanks.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:08 pm I think you're commendably patient. I'm afraid it's a lost cause - but your approach is useful. Thanks.

I'm patient? You've responded to VA, I'm not quite sure of the order of magnitude more times then me. But thanks.

I think I'll take a lesson from him and post links to other posts of mine. Save time coming up with new angles on the same thing.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 9:02 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:08 pm I think you're commendably patient. I'm afraid it's a lost cause - but your approach is useful. Thanks.

I'm patient? You've responded to VA, I'm not quite sure of the order of magnitude more times then me. But thanks.

I think I'll take a lesson from him and post links to other posts of mine. Save time coming up with new angles on the same thing.

Okay. Trouble is, VA's thinking so highly about what he's written - to the point where he can remember where it is (!) - is of a piece with his thinking so highly about what someone else has written - hence the repetition of passages from Kant, for example. It's a substitute for actually thinking about an argument.

I find myself responding by firing off the same points and questions, like routine salvoes on a static front.

If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena? If to construct a model of reality is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place?

A critique of Kant and Kantianism is nothing new - but it seems to appal VA, like it's sacrilege. My team's god is the real one, and look - here's the scripture that proves it. And hey - where are your scriptures? Why don't you cite authorities? Nothing but ignorance and arrogance!

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 3:01 am Okay. Trouble is, VA's thinking so highly about what he's written - to the point where he can remember where it is (!) - is of a piece with his thinking so highly about what someone else has written - hence the repetition of passages from Kant, for example. It's a substitute for actually thinking about an argument.

I have provided loads of arguments and references to support my views.
You? Zich! other than babbling without any references at all.

As for repetitions, they are very critical and relevant to support my arguments and they are 'wheels' of my argument, I don't have to reinvent such.

I find myself responding by firing off the same points and questions, like routine salvoes on a static front.

You are just 'firing' upward from your dogmatic tall narrow 'silo'.
note the number of times I have accused you of strawmanning, 'thousands' to 'million' of times!

If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?
If to construct a model of reality is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place?

Again, the above thinking is so pathetic without solid arguments.
Before you comment on 'noumena vs phenomena' you need to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's CPR. Otherwise you are shooting blanks from your 'silo'.
It is so pathetic that you keep repeating '1+1=5' in reference to understanding what Kant is arguing in his CPR.

A critique of Kant and Kantianism is nothing new - but it seems to appal VA, like it's sacrilege. My team's god is the real one, and look - here's the scripture that proves it. And hey - where are your scriptures? Why don't you cite authorities? Nothing but ignorance and arrogance!

Kant CPR was a critique Empiricism and Rationalism; the avoid the extremes of both and reconciled them as complementary; he took the middle-way between them.
Kant's CPR was critiqued from the first day it was published and had continued since then, but all those who critiqued had misunderstood Kant's CPR due to their own dogmatism, ignorance, ideology, psychology and a focus on cherry-picking.

In their narrow and shallow thinking, some Analytic Philosophers found analytical parts of Kant's CPR acceptable, thus Kant was not a 'dud' to them.

The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is a 1966 book about Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781) by the Oxford philosopher Peter Strawson, in which the author tries to separate what remains valuable in Kant's work from Kant's transcendental idealism, which he rejects.
The work is widely admired, and has received praise from philosophers as one of the first thorough works on the Critique of Pure Reason in the analytic tradition, although Strawson's treatment of transcendental idealism has been criticized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bounds_of_Sense

A critique of Kant and Kantianism is nothing new - but it seems to appal VA, like it's sacrilege. My team's god is the real one, and look - here's the scripture that proves it. And hey - where are your scriptures? Why don't you cite authorities? Nothing but ignorance and arrogance!

"God" "scriptures" that is a cheap diversion to hide your own ignorance and intellectual immaturity.

I insist,
And hey - where are your arguments with supporting references [scriptures]?
Why don't you cite authorities?
Why don't you make it a point to understand [not necessary agree with] what you are countering?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:55 am So, 'reality is entangled with the human conditions'. But 'humans are the co-creators of reality'. And no humans = no quantum reality = no reality at all = no humans.
Which is it: entanglement or co-creation? Or is it both?
With whom or what do humans co-create reality? And how does it happen? We need to know!
Do humans co-create reality and only then get all entangled with this creation? Or are we already entangled with it before this co-creation occurs? But then, how can we co-create a thing with which we're already entangled? Or is there no 'before', because it's all 'now'?

The mystical atmosphere down this rabbit hole is so turbid that it's hard to see the metaphors coming, or catch and nail them down.

As I had mentioned somewhere you need to differentiate the TOP-DOWN and BOTTOM-UP approach as referred to in Hawking's Final Theory and elsewhere.
Hawking: My 'Brief History of Time' was Wrong.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39961

Hawking's initial Brief History of Time' was based on the BOTTOM-UP approach which he admitted was wrong and he changed his views to the TOP-DOWN approach which is more realistic.

Your current approach, re realism [philosophical] is based on the BOTTOM-UP approach which is actually mystical and woo woo.
In your BOTTOM-UP approach, you assumed as with those of your like, there is something-X down there independent of the human conditions, i.e. whatever is perceived, known and described, to match that something -X at the BOTTOM.
Your something-X as fact is a feature of reality, which is just-is, being-so and that which is the case.

You cannot tell me what exactly that something-X is just-what? and being-what?

On the other hand, I rely on the TOP-DOWN approach.
What is at the TOP in this case are whatever the things that are based on empirical evidences as verified and justified via a credible and reliable human-based FSK.
Whatever the thing is, I will take it as real as far as the evidence can support it as verified and justified within a credible and reliable human-based FSK.

You have this screwed up view that things are limited to what is perceived, known and described, but is totally ignorant that you are entangled with it, then it emerged and is realized before it is perceived, known and described.

• Here is an example, which hopefully you can grasp it.
  When a baby is born how it is that it is able to direct its attention to the mother nipple even before it perceived, know and describe it.
  It is the same with many other animals which are born so small, e.g. the joey [kangaroo] which climbed to its mother's pouch where is nipple is, without perceiving, knowing or being informed by description of those facts you claimed pre-exists.
  In this case, the organisms or humans are pre-entangled with whatever the reality [relative not absolute].
  
  Whatever the subsequent reality to an organism, it is conditioned by a a priori conditions and nurturing factors. In this case, the organism is in a way a co-creator of its reality.
  

There is no absolute, fixed or standard reality that is awaiting an organism to discover.
Whatever the reality to a living thing it is relative to the specific FSK within or adopted by the organism.

To understand as to what is realized, the most realistic is to adopt the TOP-DOWN approach, i.e. starting from experience, then to empirical evidence, verified and justified via a credible FSK.

It is delusional in your case of adopting an assumed absolute, fixed and standard reality out there awaiting to be discovered, then perceived, known and described.
You are so ignorant that you are the one who is chasing something mystical and woo woo, and when asked to justify it, you cannot prove it at all, other than to say it is just-is, being-so and that is the case.

If you asked me, say the apple on the table exists, I will take it in my hands, feel it, smell it and ask you to do the same and in addition eat it to be more certain.
If you are still skeptical it is exists as real, then we can refer to a scientific lab to test it within the scientific-FSK conditions to confirm it is a real apple comprising apple qualities, molecules and atoms of what a real apple is supposed to make up of, etc.
Where is the mystery and woo in this TOP-DOWN approach?

Your BOTTOM-UP merely assumed there is a real apple based on words that mean what is an apple that is just-is, being-so and that is the case. This word based confirmation is mystical and woo.

............
You asked me questions and I have responded.
The above is an explanation of the prior processes of entanglement, emergence and realization of reality [relative] before it is perceived, known and described.
Example, how did human babies and that of other animals react to a reality before they even have perceived, known or communicated with a description of it?

My point is there are prior processes programmed in the DNA of humans and living things that are conditioned upon a 13 billion year history and 200K of human evolution.
You just cannot assumed there is a BOTTOM_UP reality awaiting to be perceived, known and described without taking into consideration all those prior processes and elements.

Re intellectual integrity, you have an onus to counter my points, otherwise you will keep repeating your questions and complain I never respond to them.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 4:46 am
You asked me questions and I have responded.
The above is an explanation of the prior processes of entanglement, emergence and realization of reality [relative] before it is perceived, known and described.
Example, how did human babies and that of other animals react to a reality before they even have perceived, known or communicated with a description of it?

And I keep pointing out that your model or explanation is patently incorrect and self-defeating. Those babies exist, as does the physical environment around them, to which they react - and that reaction is a physical process which exists: the maturation of babies into adults.

The supposed 'entanglement, emergence and realisation of reality [relative] before it is perceived, known and described' is mystical nonsense which you don't explain, and which explains nothing. It's sound and fury, zignifying zilch.

Now, you can keep saying it, mumbling the mantra like some religious nutter, or you could try a different approach. You could try citing evidence for the existence of moral facts - not physical facts - and valid and sound argument for moral objectivity, for example. Never know, you could be taken seriously.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 6:53 am Now, you can keep saying it, mumbling the mantra like some religious nutter, or you could try a different approach. You could try citing evidence for the existence of moral facts - not physical facts - and valid and sound argument for moral objectivity, for example. Never know, you could be taken seriously.

What a conceptual mess by Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes.

Rejects the existence of minds and then gets stuck into a full-on mentalist language. (Evaluating) evidence, facts, validity, soundness, argumentation.

All those values exist. But not the moral ones.

When you are dumb - you are dumb.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 6:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 4:46 am
You asked me questions and I have responded.
The above is an explanation of the prior processes of entanglement, emergence and realization of reality [relative] before it is perceived, known and described.
Example, how did human babies and that of other animals react to a reality before they even have perceived, known or communicated with a description of it?

And I keep pointing out that your model or explanation is patently incorrect and self-defeating. Those babies exist, as does the physical environment around them, to which they react - and that reaction is a physical process which exists: the maturation of babies into adults.

You are merely babbling again.
The above is obvious but what are the detailed mechanics of the reactions process and what are they grounded upon.

I asked, you did not answer;
how did human babies and that of other animals react to a reality before they even have perceived, known or communicated with a description of it?

The supposed 'entanglement, emergence and realisation of reality [relative] before it is perceived, known and described' is mystical nonsense which you don't explain, and which explains nothing. It's sound and fury, zignifying zilch.

Your merely babbling without detailing the reaction processes and grounding, is mystical.

Now, you can keep saying it, mumbling the mantra like some religious nutter, or you could try a different approach. You could try citing evidence for the existence of moral facts - not physical facts - and valid and sound argument for moral objectivity, for example. Never know, you could be taken seriously.

As I had stated, there in the groundings of the above reactions processes of the baby situated within an environment are the objective physical moral facts [..I have justified elsewhere].

Note, what I defined as human-based FSK facts are not like your mystical woo illusory facts - which you have never demonstrated as real.

Btw, I have raised a thread with the relevant texts from Kant on the topics of phenomena and noumena.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39987
Since you often messed up these terms, I strongly you read the texts from the horses mouth.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 3:01 am Okay. Trouble is, VA's thinking so highly about what he's written - to the point where he can remember where it is (!) - is of a piece with his thinking so highly about what someone else has written - hence the repetition of passages from Kant, for example. It's a substitute for actually thinking about an argument.

Or he presents as thinking so highly or what he's written. Or he thinks highly of his plans and certain insights but feels a bit of defensive panic about parts of his justification. I don't know, just wanted to broaden the options there.

And yes, I don't think he quite knows how to separate appeals to authority from justfication using the work of others. There are grey areas of course, but he goes way into appeals to authority as least with regularity. Even his thinking he can dismiss your arguments because you don't fill your posts with links is confused. But in action, despite his sense that he can dismiss your arguments, his behavior takes them seriously. I do love his occasional stating that he has 1600 files as evidence that he must be an expert.

I find myself responding by firing off the same points and questions, like routine salvoes on a static front.

Yes, I'm repeating myself also, too much for my own taste. This is partly since he never responds to me, so I just feel the urge to get the responses into the threads. But I don't want to be reduced to being machinelike because his posting is. It's nice when he tries something new, like the entangled newborns of marsupials and mammals. Then I can play around with the new ideas and not repeat myself. I suppose that's why I like his, to me seeming a bit panicked, let's bring in the kitchen sink and tie it all together later approach.

If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena? If to construct a model of reality is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place?

The anti-realists also need to deal with the infinite regress, even if they don't exactly have a Cartesian theater, they've got a theater, and that theater is the self, there is nothing else. The realist has the model organism ->perception -> objects.

And may acknowldge various types and degrees of filters, distortions, interpretations, selection, prediction, construction invovled in that 'perception'. VA takes the object out of the model. I recently pointed out that there's nothing to be entangled with in that model. Entanglement as to do with, at first in am, particles in two places. So, in that model there are objects. Not just self + quantum foam in superposition. But a further line could be - what is the self in his version of antirealism? And what are other people? I mean, for example with the latter question...He's pretty nasty with you, but he's not, in his model, actually a separate entity from you. It's not just objects we would in some sense be a single phenomenon with, it'd be with 'other' people - with that 'other' decidedly in citation marks.

And without thinking of this specific issue, the self is always whatever it is perceiving. There's no viewer and viewed. IOW it's not just that the objects are not present. There is no self separate AT ALL from perseption. He does mention Buddhism sometimes, but in other contexts. I'm not sure if he understands that his sense of being who he is should get shifted radically by how he thinks of perception. Much of his pride and insults indicates, to me at least, that he hasn't really caught on what his model means about his identity. His 1600 files are not his. He isn't the guy who audits classes and is a fantastic expert in morality. Those are also separate ego fantasies, if he is correct about the world. What is a self in the antirealism model? I think it's implicit and likely sometimes explicit that he thinks of himself as a separate self. And others as other separate selves, some of whom are deserving of contempt. But they are not separate from him. Anything the self experiences is the self. Not also. But in identity - in his version of reality. IOW it is a kind of non-dualism (not just a monism, but that within that monism, there are no separate things).

'He refers to cocreation. And uses other terms that imply two separate 'things' involved. But that's not really following his own line of argument.
Perception would be more like the right hand figure here....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMQPr6_e56s
It's not just the Ding an Sich that disappear, it's the self as being anything like what it is generally supposed to be. He wants that anti-realism to get rid of the objects 'out there' so his morality can be on a par with science. I don't think he's noticed what this means about himself. The perceivers as separte thing disappears also. It's as hallucinated, or should be in his model, as ding an sich.

A critique of Kant and Kantianism is nothing new - but it seems to appal VA, like it's sacrilege. My team's god is the real one, and look - here's the scripture that proves it. And hey - where are your scriptures? Why don't you cite authorities? Nothing but ignorance and arrogance!

Yes, I don't think the appeal to scripture has he fully extricated himself from.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 7:49 am The anti-realists also need to deal with the infinite regress, even if they don't exactly have a Cartesian theater, they've got a theater, and that theater is the self, there is nothing else. The realist has the model organism ->perception -> objects.

When you default to holism everybody needs to deal with epistemic infinite regress.

You need a starting point - an uncaused first cause. The current fad is The Big Bang

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 3:01 am If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

If there are noumena then what are values and morals if not noumena?

Does anyone think there are noumena - thing-in-themselves? I don't, and I have no idea what they could be.

And if there are no noumena, then values and morals can't be noumena.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 7:12 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 6:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 4:46 am
You asked me questions and I have responded.
The above is an explanation of the prior processes of entanglement, emergence and realization of reality [relative] before it is perceived, known and described.
Example, how did human babies and that of other animals react to a reality before they even have perceived, known or communicated with a description of it?

And I keep pointing out that your model or explanation is patently incorrect and self-defeating. Those babies exist, as does the physical environment around them, to which they react - and that reaction is a physical process which exists: the maturation of babies into adults.

You are merely babbling again.
The above is obvious but what are the detailed mechanics of the reactions process and what are they grounded upon[?]

They are physical processes - features of reality - which natural scientists are increasingly able to describe. And what sort of grounding do you think they need?

I asked, you did not answer;
how did human babies and that of other animals react to a reality before they even have perceived, known or communicated with a description of it?

They react because we animals have evolved to react. What are you talking about?

The supposed 'entanglement, emergence and realisation of reality [relative] before it is perceived, known and described' is mystical nonsense which you don't explain, and which explains nothing. It's sound and fury, zignifying zilch.

Your merely babbling without detailing the reaction processes and grounding, is mystical.

Nope. Your explanations are nothing more than physical evidence for physical processes. In a word, facts. The entanglement - and so on - is unexplained, mangled mystical rubbish, perhaps recycled metaphorically from quantum mechanics - which tries to explain physical processes.

Now, you can keep saying it, mumbling the mantra like some religious nutter, or you could try a different approach. You could try citing evidence for the existence of moral facts - not physical facts - and valid and sound argument for moral objectivity, for example. Never know, you could be taken seriously.

As I had stated, there in the groundings of the above reactions processes of the baby situated within an environment are the objective physical moral facts [..I have justified elsewhere].

No. No. You smuggle in the expression 'objective physical moral fact' as though saying it somehow magics it into existence. No physical processes have any moral significance. The expression 'physical moral fact' is a chimera - a monstrous incoherence.

Note, what I defined as human-based FSK facts are not like your mystical woo illusory facts - which you have never demonstrated as real.

Wtf is a baby finding a nipple if not an example of a fact - something that happens in reality - a physical process?

Btw, I have raised a thread with the relevant texts from Kant on the topics of phenomena and noumena.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39987
Since you often messed up these terms, I strongly you read the texts from the horses mouth.

I understand what Kant was doing much better than you do. Answer my questions.

If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?

If one pole of a dichotomy doesn't exist, why is it still a dichotomy?

Or keep dodging these questions by telling me to read Kant.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 7:12 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 6:53 am And I keep pointing out that your model or explanation is patently incorrect and self-defeating. Those babies exist, as does the physical environment around them, to which they react - and that reaction is a physical process which exists: the maturation of babies into adults.

You are merely babbling again.
The above is obvious but what are the detailed mechanics of the reactions process and what are they grounded upon[?]

They are physical processes - features of reality - which natural scientists are increasingly able to describe. And what sort of grounding do you think they need?

I asked, you did not answer;
how did human babies and that of other animals react to a reality before they even have perceived, known or communicated with a description of it?

They react because we animals have evolved to react. What are you talking about?

How can you be SO naive?
I asked "how" [the detailed mechanics of the reactions process and the groundings] and you just said 'evolved' which exposed your ignorance.

The fact [FSK] is, before the babies can react, they must be endowed with the inherent potentiality to react. The paths to the ultimate ground are as follow;

• 1. Within a situated environment, ALL HUMANS [babyhood to adulthood] are evolved with physical processes "features of reality" [innate potentials] to react.
  
  2. These innate potentials are neural algorithms programmed via evolution adapted from our human ancestors since >200,000 years ago when the first humans emerged.
  
  3. Our human ancestors inherited those innate potentials from their non-human ancestors, from animals to LUCA [Last Universal Common Ancestors]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_univ ... n_ancestor
  
  4. LUCA evolved from the first living one-cell organism which arose from abiogenesis from organic elements >3.5 billion years ago
  
  5. These organic elements with other elements were grounded in the Big Bang >13 billion years ago.

I have stated the above many times. What is critical for this discussion is, before any human action is expressed, we must account for the above physical processes in detail down to its ground within the human brain.

Why the babies are able to react even before perceiving, knowing and being described what is real to them is because all babies are programmed with innate algorithm of potentiality to ‘realize’ [via a realization process] the emerging reality relative to them and what supposedly real to them’ as grounded from 6 to 1 above.
In this sense they are entangled [not QM’s] with the emerging reality.

A baby sonar bat and a human baby will realize a different version of reality specific to their innate potentials and conditions.
There is no fixed or absolute reality for either the baby bat or baby human to perceive, know or describe. Whatever the reality realized and subsequently perceived, known and described is relative to the individual bats or humans.
If you do not agree, prove and demonstrate to me there is a fixed fact or feature of reality that is absolute and independent of the conditions of living things?

Thus before scientists are able to describe anything, they as humans must be able to realize the entangled and emerging reality before they can perceive, know and describe it.
As for scientists, they have to realize the entangled and emerging human reality via a human-based scientific FSK.
In this case, the entangled and emerging human reality via human-based scientific FSK must be conditioned to the human conditions, thus cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions [mind].

The supposed 'entanglement, emergence and realisation of reality [relative] before it is perceived, known and described' is mystical nonsense which you don't explain, and which explains nothing. It's sound and fury, zignifying zilch.

Your merely babbling without detailing the reaction processes and grounding, is mystical.

Nope. Your explanations are nothing more than physical evidence for physical processes. In a word, facts. The entanglement - and so on - is unexplained, mangled mystical rubbish, perhaps recycled metaphorically from quantum mechanics - which tries to explain physical processes.

What "physical processes"?
Point is whatever the physical processes, they are conditioned by the conditions and grounds within 1 -6 above.
If the physical processes are facts, then they must be conditioned within 1-6 above which cannot be your ‘what is fact’ [illusory, mystical and nonsensical] which is independent of the human conditions.
Realistically, whatever is defined as fact [FSK], it must be conditioned to the human conditions [modern mind]

Now, you can keep saying it, mumbling the mantra like some religious nutter, or you could try a different approach. You could try citing evidence for the existence of moral facts - not physical facts - and valid and sound argument for moral objectivity, for example. Never know, you could be taken seriously.

As I had stated, there in the groundings of the above reactions processes of the baby situated within an environment are the objective physical moral facts [..I have justified elsewhere].

No. No. You smuggle in the expression 'objective physical moral fact' as though saying it somehow magics it into existence. No physical processes have any moral significance. The expression 'physical moral fact' is a chimera - a monstrous incoherence.

Smuggle?
I stated the ‘objective physical moral fact’ emerged from a credible moral FSK just like how objective physical scientific facts emerged from a credible science-FSK.
You have not countered this similarity.

Note, what I defined as human-based FSK facts are not like your mystical woo illusory facts - which you have never demonstrated as real.

Wtf is a baby finding a nipple if not an example of a fact - something that happens in reality - a physical process?

Nope!
Your sense of ‘physical process’ is too naïve and not detailed as necessary within this discussion.
A baby emerging into the environment has innate potentials to realize its own reality specific to its conditions. [just like the unique fingerprints each has].
There is no independent fact, but whatever the fact it is conditioned by the specific individual FSK and then the collective FSK, e.g. common sense facts [not credible] or scientific facts [more credible].

Btw, I have raised a thread with the relevant texts from Kant on the topics of phenomena and noumena.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39987
Since you often messed up these terms, I strongly you read the texts from the horses mouth.

I understand what Kant was doing much better than you do. Answer my questions.
If there are no noumena, then of what are phenomena phenomena?
If one pole of a dichotomy doesn't exist, why is it still a dichotomy?
Or keep dodging these questions by telling me to read Kant.

If you understand Kant more than I do, why don’t you refer to the texts from Kant [conveniently numbered and posted for you] to support your point.

Don’t make yourself an intellectual fool. If you want to maintain intellectual integrity, you must read the original texts from Kant that I posted - it is only 3 pages with 60 points.

Generally,

Phenomena are objects of experience, conditioned by the senses plus space and time.

Noumena are Intelligible Entities, objects of thoughts, conditioned only by pure intellect and pure reason; they are not conditioned by the senses.

• 1. B306 …, if we entitle certain Objects, as Appearances, Sensible entities (Phenomena),
  then since we thus distinguish the Mode in which we intuit them from the nature that belongs to them in-themselves,
  it is implied in this distinction that we place the latter [in-themselves], considered in their own nature,
  although we do not so intuit them, or that we place other Possible Things, which are not Objects of our Senses but are Thought as Objects merely through the Intellect,
  in opposition to the former [Phenomena, Sensible entities],
  and that in so doing we entitle them Intelligible Entities (Noumena).
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39987

Kant explained why for noumena when relative to phenomena, the noumena can only be used in the negative [empty thought] sense as limiting the sense faculty.

• 16. Doubtless, indeed, there are Intelligible entities [noumena] corresponding to the Sensible entities [phenomena];
  there may also be Intelligible entities to which our Sensible Faculty of Objectifying-Faculty has no Relation whatsoever;
  but our Concepts of Intellect, being mere Forms of Thought for our Sensible Objectifying-Faculty, could not in the least apply to them {intelligible entities}.
  
  17. That, therefore, which we entitle 'Noumenon' must be understood as being [re intelligible entities] such only in a negative sense.

From the way you post of Kant’s idea, I am very certain you have not understood [not necessary agree with] Kant’s CPR fully.
Read all that I had posted to get an idea of how phenomena is distinct from noumena and how they are related.

To understand the distinction more properly you will have to read the whole of Kant’s CPR fully and thoroughly.