For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Justify.
All I saw was 'yes'. Whatever you label them, it seems like you are saying they could exist, now, before being found.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:56 am PH wrote "knowable' but I qualified "empirical-rational possible' things" which can be speculated.
These "empirical-rational possible' things" are realizable as conditioned upon a human based FSK.
In this case, when realized they CANNOT be mind-independent.
Some of your labels appear to carry a greater weight in your mind than others.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 2:26 pm All I saw was 'yes'. Whatever you label them, it seems like you are saying they could exist, now, before being found.
Or are you saying they will arise (begin existing) when found?
I'm talking to someone who uses the word exist in ways that couple with his sense of realism, who uses it to distinguish between realist and non-realist positions. For example, here. viewtopic.php?p=624050#p624050
So which one is it then? Is he coupling himself to realism; or distinguishing/decoupling himself from realism?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 4:18 pm I'm talking to someone who uses the word exist in ways that couple with his sense of realism, who uses it to distinguish between realist and non-realist positions.
So what does the mind-independence of reality actually buy us if it doesn't buy us any knowledge of reality?According to constructivists, the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction.
You aren't. You asking questions in your misunderstanding of his language.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 4:18 pm Given his language and positions, I am asking questions, in his language.
Note I stated my approach is that of relative mind independence but ultimately it cannot be absolutely mind independent.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 11:22 amOh, no! You seemed to have made a breakthrough, but you didn't notice. You agree that there are knowable things in the universe that humans don't know about yet. So those things must be (human) mind-independent. There's no way out - unless you think there's some other kind of mind involved.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 10:25 amThat is a strawmanPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:47 am
Okay. It follows that there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared.
I did not state "there were knowable things in the universe before humans appeared."
It is presumed you are referring to "empirical-rational possible things" meaning they are merely possibilities while there are humans and are only realized upon a human based FSK.
The philosophical/ontological realist's position is things [known and knowable] exist absolutely mind-independent, i.e. they exist even if there are no humans.And this is a philosophical/ontological realist position. These knowable things we're talking about are the features of reality that I refer to. And, as you agree, 'being known' isn't a necessary condition for their existence.
When philosophical realists claim that reality and things exist absolutely mind-independent to the extreme that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists even when humans are extinct, these are literally things-in-themselves.And these things aren't 'things-in-themselves' - noumena - to use Kant's silly term. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself can possibly be. It's a contentless, useless fiction - a sort of ghost that's haunted philosophy ever since Kant invented it.
Kant is literally correct is using the term thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves, i.e. they exist independent of humans and the human conditions.
The philosophical realists' stance is an evolutionary default which led to theists claiming an absolutely mind independent soul that can survive physical death and a mind-independent God.
This evolutionary default leads to illusions albeit a useful illusions to drive Science forward and provide psychological comfort to theists at present.
The anti-philosophical_realists' [kantian] view is reality and things CANNOT exist in-themselves or by-themselves; somehow things exist in connection to the human conditions.
As Kant asserted,
Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182
To date, no philosopher had been able to prove that absolutely mind-independent things exist as real.
P1 An speculated* unknown thing cannot be mind-independent.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 11:55 am VA. Try out the following.
P1 An "unknown thing" must be mind-independent.
P2 There are unknown things in the universe.
C Therefore, there are mind-independent things in the universe.
My principle has always been this;Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 2:26 pmAll I saw was 'yes'. Whatever you label them, it seems like you are saying they could exist, now, before being found.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:56 am PH wrote "knowable' but I qualified "empirical-rational possible' things" which can be speculated.
These "empirical-rational possible' things" are realizable as conditioned upon a human based FSK.
In this case, when realized they CANNOT be mind-independent.
Or are you saying they will arise (begin existing) when found?
False. This is to mistake what we believe, know and say - or speculate - about reality - 'what is real' - for reality. And since you agree that there are knowable things in the universe that we don't know about, your claim is a contradiction. A description - including a speculative one - is not the described. Your 'principle' is incorrect.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 2:57 am
My principle has always been this;
What is real... is always conditioned to a specific human based FSK.
So yes, they emerge and are realized when processed via the specific human based FSK.
Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes strikes again.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 10:15 amFalse. This is to mistake what we believe, know and say - or speculate - about reality - 'what is real' - for reality.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 2:57 am
My principle has always been this;
What is real... is always conditioned to a specific human based FSK.
So yes, they emerge and are realized when processed via the specific human based FSK.
Are contradictions even real?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 10:15 am And since you agree that there are knowable things in the universe that we don't know about, your claim is a contradiction.
So what is the described then? Because (according to you) the described is not red.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 10:15 am A description - including a speculative one - is not the described. Your 'principle' is incorrect.
So, those things that you said exist that we don't know about yet. How do they exist now, prior to becoming conditioned on an FSK?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 2:57 am What is real, fact, truth, knowledge and objective is always conditioned to a specific human based FSK.
And before they are processed via a specific human-based FSK they don't exist?So yes, they emerge and are realized when processed via the specific human based FSK.
So, before the various sciences came along there was, for example, no tree-root or human-gut bacteria in symbiotic relationships with their hosts?If there are evidence provided for that speculated thing, and if it likely a scientific thing, then it has to be conditioned upon the specific scientific FSK, i.e. Physics, Chemistry or Biology or a combination.
Because it it conditioned within a human-based FSK, it cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
And you are comfortable that it satisfies my condition? e.g you don't know that perception is real.