Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 5:37 am
Strawman and ignoring what I had stated.
Yes, only refers to;
VA:
As I had stated one can speculate on things that are potentially knowable if they are 'empirical-rational elements.
"Potentially knowable" is merely a possibility they may exist and knowable, but it does not confirm they do exist.He says 'Do you think there are things that are knowable that we do not know about yet. You said 'Yes.' That means you think there are things that are knowable, that we haven't found, experienced, seen, yet.
I see you don't seem to grasp the above.
No need for comments like this.
If they are found in the future, then they are FSK-ed thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
yes, I get that. That's not what I am focused on. If they exist now, which a yes to his question entails, then they exist now independent of minds. You said yes, that you think there are things that we do not currently know about but which exist.
Yes, to make an objective claim about them at some future time, we will need to integrate them in some FSK. But you answered that there were things that we do not know now but are knowable.
Note again it is
potentially knowable if they are 'empirical-rational elements. NOT merely knowable things.
If you have defined 'empirical-rational elements', please link me. That would seem to indicate nearly anything.
Prior to Kant there was the Empiricism versus the Rationalism camp. Kant's CPR argued the empirical should be complementary to the rational to realize reality to be more realistic. Thus the empirical must be supported by rationality, i.e. critical thinking of the higher order.
'Empirical-Rational' elements refer the elements dealt within Kant's Critical Philosophy.
Note Kant' famous quote;
"Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind."
i.e.
"Thoughts [reason] without content [empirical] are empty, intuitions [sensibiliy, empirical] without concepts [reason] are blind."
I don't see a definition of 'empirical-rational elements' here.
I NEVER stated 'they do exist'
And I never said you did. What you did say, by answering yes to his question is that you think they exist. Do you think....Yes. That means, when you answer yes, that what comes after Do you think in his question is what you think. So, I can then conclude that you think what is in question form there.
Do you think it is raining? Yes. This means You think it is raining. You have that belief. That's what answering yes to a do you think question means. And you later confirmed this.
So, how did we reproduce without DNA? It must have been by a different process, because DNA is central to reproduction.
The above are weird questions.
You are conflating hindsight with foresight.
No, I am talking about ontology. Things/processes, according to you only exist if they are integrated in an FSK. DNA only became that in the late 20th century and was, in fact, not even perceived, let alone integrated via some epistemology in an FSK.
So, it could not existed before that, in your non-realism.
I understand easily that it was not known before that. The issue is not whether neanderthals or early Cromagnon people or even the ancient Greeks had a good argument for the existence of DNA. I know they did not.
I am talking about the existence of the DNA. You have claimed that things do not exist if they are not integrated in an FSK. And even then that they do not exist when no one is perceiving them.
Well, no one was perceiving DNA or integrating it in an FSK or even an FSR before the 20th century. So how did it manage to exist in those time periods?
Before the discovery to DNA, the reality of reproduction of humans was conditioned to the science-biology FSK then [1500] which was relatively realistic to the knowledge then.
Then [1500], no biologists would have asked 'how did we reproduce without DNA?'
We can qualify this human-based reality as reality-1500.
Relative to the science-biology FSK then [1500], DNA did not exist at all.
Right, of course. But did it exist. Was is a functioning part of human reproduction?
And note that you see these as weird question but look below. You say there were no gut bacteria 500 years ago. So, there was no DNA. Because we knew about neither nor had we perceived them, let alone put them in an FSK.
This is weird since I was not there 500 years ago.
If you are asking me, did those gut bacteria existed 500 years ago, then I say, they do not exist.
Thank you. That's exactly what I have been asking.
So, this would mean humans digested their food in a manner very different from today. And given how gut health is dependent on good bacterial flora AND this affects the brain and other body systems, this means humans were quite different then. Do we have any evidence that humans back then had a different digestive process?
Same problem as above,
you are conflating hindsight with foresight.
Nope. I am not saying people back then could claim that their was DNA. They couldn't. A realist would say of course there was DNA and gut bacteria back then. A realist would even say, but a person back then had no justification for believing in gut bacteria or DNA, because they had no empirical research or empirical anything to back up such a claim. But the DNA was functioning back then. We know now a realist would say, that there are gut bacteria and there is DNA and there was back then. And even though people back then could not perceive it and had no FSK to even conceive of these things within, DNA and gut bacteria existed and performed the functions, in those people back then, even though they did not know about it.
Right there up above, you distinguish yourself from realists on this issue. You say there were no gut bacteria back then.
So, how did their digestion work without them?
And note: you directly say there were no gut bacteria back then. You didn't say 'They could not have known about them.' or 'Belief in them would not have been justified back then.' It has nothing to do with hindight. I am not saying that they should have believed back then. I am focused on your ontological claim that there were no gut bacteria then. (and it doesn't matter for me whether they were mind independent or mind dependent. Since you are claiming they did not exist, this doesn't matter. Further, I am not asserting they did exist. I am responding to your claim that they did not exist back then and then wondering how this would have affected digestion)
