To Insist there is an Independent Reality is an Oxymoron.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From the vulgar [common] sense, it is obvious there is an external world out there that is 'independent' from the individual human person. There is no need to dispute this at the 'vulgar' level.
But is reality-as-it-is really and absolutely independent of the human person?

The ultimate gambit thrown in [out of psychological desperation] by the independent realist is to claim, the Sun, Moon, and the likes pre-existed humans and will continue even if the human species has gone extinct.
Really?

What is reality-as-it-is [to humans] emerges from a reality recipe with the following imperative ingredients within the following formulation;

• Human consciousness + humanity-based-things = reality-as-it-is to humans.

It is only when the above elements come together in the above formula that results in reality-as-it-is to humans.

Note my argument;
Reality is an Emergence
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

We can substitute 'humans' for bats or any other living things;

• Bats consciousness + bats-based-things = reality-as-it-is to bats.

It make no sense to claim;

• consciousness-in-itself + things-in-themselves = reality-in-itself.

From a philosophical perspective,
the element 'claim' above has to be done by humans.
There is no escape from the human elements in the emergence of reality and being conscious of the emergences which humans are part and parcel of.

As I had stated
-humans [7b+] and other living things are part and parcel of reality-as-it-is to humans,
-there is no way humans can extricate themselves from reality which they are part and parcel of, to make an independent objective claim on reality.

To insist humans can make an absolute independent objective claim of reality in which they are part and parcel of would be a CONTRADICTION, i.e. an oxymoron.
Can you dispute this?

[Impenitent]

you are a brain in a vat, and always have been

-Imp

[Dontaskme]

you are a brain in a vat, and always have been

-Imp

Indeed, we are literally not inside our brain but walking right through it on the outside.

We are the inside out -outside in people.

Listen up people, everytime you take a stroll in the park or the supermarket you are literally walking through your actual brain.

[TheVisionofEr]

you are a brain in a vat, and always have been

-Imp

Indeed, we are literally not inside our brain but walking right through it on the outside.

We are the inside out -outside in people.

Listen up people, everytime you take a stroll in the park or the supermarket you are literally walking through your actual brain.

False. The brain is an object. All objects or things can not be inside some master object or thing. Infinite regression. On the other hand, any speculation about a "mind" has no demonstrable connection to the thing or object called brain.

The mistake is perhaps due to the defunct claim that we are "humans" or animal thing objects.

[TheVisionofEr]

From the vulgar [common] sense, it is obvious there is an external world out there that is 'independent' from the individual human person. There is no need to dispute this at the 'vulgar' level.
But is reality-as-it-is really and absolutely independent of the human person?

The ultimate gambit thrown in [out of psychological desperation] by the independent realist is to claim, the Sun, Moon, and the likes pre-existed humans and will continue even if the human species has gone extinct.
Really?

What is reality-as-it-is [to humans] emerges from a reality recipe with the following imperative ingredients within the following formulation;

• Human consciousness + humanity-based-things = reality-as-it-is to humans.

It is only when the above elements come together in the above formula that results in reality-as-it-is to humans.

Note my argument;
Reality is an Emergence
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

We can substitute 'humans' for bats or any other living things;

• Bats consciousness + bats-based-things = reality-as-it-is to bats.

It make no sense to claim;

• consciousness-in-itself + things-in-themselves = reality-in-itself.

From a philosophical perspective,
the element 'claim' above has to be done by humans.
There is no escape from the human elements in the emergence of reality and being conscious of the emergences which humans are part and parcel of.

As I had stated
-humans [7b+] and other living things are part and parcel of reality-as-it-is to humans,
-there is no way humans can extricate themselves from reality which they are part and parcel of, to make an independent objective claim on reality.

To insist humans can make an absolute independent objective claim of reality in which they are part and parcel of would be a CONTRADICTION, i.e. an oxymoron.
Can you dispute this?

Common sense presupposes we know what we are. And where. Thus, fouling the question.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Common sense presupposes we know what we are. And where. Thus, fouling the question.

I had critiqued common sense in the OP as inferior, thus useless for philosophical arguments.

To stay above the "foul", the point in the OP need philosophical reflection.

[TheVisionofEr]

Common sense presupposes we know what we are. And where. Thus, fouling the question.

I had critiqued common sense in the OP as inferior, thus useless for philosophical arguments.

To stay above the "foul", the point in the OP need philosophical reflection.

You don't got it, hombre.

[tapaticmadness]

As I had stated
-humans [7b+] and other living things are part and parcel of reality-as-it-is to humans,
-there is no way humans can extricate themselves from reality which they are part and parcel of, to make an independent objective claim on reality.

To insist humans can make an absolute independent objective claim of reality in which they are part and parcel of would be a CONTRADICTION, i.e. an oxymoron.
Can you dispute this?

I think this shows why there can never be a totally objective scientific observation. The observer will always be a part of the experiment. And the desires and beliefs of the one doing the experiment will determine the outcome. It is also why there can be no proof, one way or the other, of paranormal activity. The one doing the experiment will get the results he or she wants and believes in. It is why the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva found the Higgs boson. That's what it was designed to find and that's what the physicists wanted and believed they would find.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated
-humans [7b+] and other living things are part and parcel of reality-as-it-is to humans,
-there is no way humans can extricate themselves from reality which they are part and parcel of, to make an independent objective claim on reality.

To insist humans can make an absolute independent objective claim of reality in which they are part and parcel of would be a CONTRADICTION, i.e. an oxymoron.
Can you dispute this?

I think this shows why there can never be a totally objective scientific observation. The observer will always be a part of the experiment. And the desires and beliefs of the one doing the experiment will determine the outcome. It is also why there can be no proof, one way or the other, of paranormal activity. The one doing the experiment will get the results he or she wants and believes in. It is why the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva found the Higgs boson. That's what it was designed to find and that's what the physicists wanted and believed they would find.

I agree and that is a fact.

The fact is all scientific theories cannot be independent of human interactions.
Regardless of the above, what is critical with scientific theories is whether they are useful for the progress of humanity.

The other critical point is, as you stated,
"It is also why there can be no proof, one way or the other, of paranormal activity" i.e. all claims of paranormal activities are entangled with the human mind.

It is the same with the false claim of an independent God that exists as real which issued commands to believers to kill and do evil to non-believers thus a bane and terror to humanity. This is so evident!
Point is, the idea of God as real is merely a psychological trigger in the mind of humans, not an entity that exists independent of human beings.

Granted, the belief is God is a critical necessity for the majority of humans at present, such a false belief that has caused terrible sufferings to humanity must be eventually weaned off and replaceed by foolproof alternatives in the future.

[tapaticmadness]

As I had stated
-humans [7b+] and other living things are part and parcel of reality-as-it-is to humans,
-there is no way humans can extricate themselves from reality which they are part and parcel of, to make an independent objective claim on reality.

To insist humans can make an absolute independent objective claim of reality in which they are part and parcel of would be a CONTRADICTION, i.e. an oxymoron.
Can you dispute this?

I think this shows why there can never be a totally objective scientific observation. The observer will always be a part of the experiment. And the desires and beliefs of the one doing the experiment will determine the outcome. It is also why there can be no proof, one way or the other, of paranormal activity. The one doing the experiment will get the results he or she wants and believes in. It is why the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva found the Higgs boson. That's what it was designed to find and that's what the physicists wanted and believed they would find.

I agree and that is a fact.

The fact is all scientific theories cannot be independent of human interactions.
Regardless of the above, what is critical with scientific theories is whether they are useful for the progress of humanity.

The other critical point is, as you stated,
"It is also why there can be no proof, one way or the other, of paranormal activity" i.e. all claims of paranormal activities are entangled with the human mind.

It is the same with the false claim of an independent God that exists as real which issued commands to believers to kill and do evil to non-believers thus a bane and terror to humanity. This is so evident!
Point is, the idea of God as real is merely a psychological trigger in the mind of humans, not an entity that exists independent of human beings.

Granted, the belief is God is a critical necessity for the majority of humans at present, such a false belief that has caused terrible sufferings to humanity must be eventually weaned off and replaceed by foolproof alternatives in the future.

I'm trying to understand you. Are you saying that everything a human being thinks is a real, existing thing is, in fact, not a real, existing thing, but merely ... What?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm trying to understand you.
Are you saying that everything a human being thinks is a real,
existing thing is, in fact, not a real, existing thing, but merely ... What?

Nope, everything a human being thinks is not real but merely a thought only.

Existing things are in fact real but only relatively - re Nagarjuna.

There are no things that exist absolutely independent of the human conditions.
The apple you see on the table and can touch is real but only relatively-real in entanglement with the human conditions.

Point is we can say something is real [as verified] but we cannot say that with 100% absolute certainty.

Note Russell's dilemma;

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it [the table] is that it is not what it seems.
Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.

• Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls:
  Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God;
  sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

[tapaticmadness]

I'm trying to understand you.
Are you saying that everything a human being thinks is a real,
existing thing is, in fact, not a real, existing thing, but merely ... What?

Nope, everything a human being thinks is not real but merely a thought only.

Nope, the human mind is able to have direct contact with what is other than, separate from, independent of mind.

Existing things are in fact real but only relatively - re Nagarjuna.

You have misunderstood Nagarjuna. For him nothing at all is a real existent, relative or otherwise.

There are no things that exist absolutely independent of the human conditions.
The apple you see on the table and can touch is real but only relatively-real in entanglement with the human conditions.

Point is we can say something is real [as verified] but we cannot say that with 100% absolute certainty.

It is the very essence of mind to be able to contact and see what is not mind.

Note Russell's dilemma;

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it [the table] is that it is not what it seems.
Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.

An appeal to an authority figure won't cut it.

• Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls:
  Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God;
  sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Science doesn't tell us anything. Scientists often try but they are usually wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope, everything a human being thinks is not real but merely a thought only.

Nope, the human mind is able to have direct contact with what is other than, separate from, independent of mind.

The human mind in general do not have direct contact but merely is triggered by waves from the supposedly external physical object.
When you see an apple on the table, your mind is triggered by the various waves travelling from the external apple.
Even if you touch and press the apple in your hand, there is still a separation between the apple and your mind.
There is no way the human mind [in general] can have direct contact with the external physical object.

Existing things are in fact real but only relatively - re Nagarjuna.

You have misunderstood Nagarjuna. For him nothing at all is a real existent, relative or otherwise.

Re the core of Buddhist Principles, everything is relatively real but not absolutely and conditionally real.
Surely Nagarjuna is not that stupid to insist the tiger charging at him from a distance is not real?
It will definitely be real [relatively] enough for his to run to safety.

There are no things that exist absolutely independent of the human conditions.
The apple you see on the table and can touch is real but only relatively-real in entanglement with the human conditions.

Point is we can say something is real [as verified] but we cannot say that with 100% absolute certainty.

It is the very essence of mind to be able to contact and see what is not mind.

Agree, if your point meant, it is the nature of 'mind' to understand the 'mind' is not an absolute independent entity.

Note Russell's dilemma;

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it [the table] is that it is not what it seems.
Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.

An appeal to an authority figure won't cut it.

This is not an appeal to authority to support any specific argument.
Russell is famous and reasonably credible but I would not lean on him as an authority.

What I had introduced from Russell [reasonably credible] is merely food for thought and one has to understand, verify and use discretion either to agree or reject the point.

You could have responded, "Russell is talking nonsense and here is the argument why".
What counts is the argument not what Russell said.

• Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls:
  Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God;
  sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Science doesn't tell us anything. Scientists often try but they are usually wrong.

You are too hasty on this.

Scientific knowledge is the most objective knowledge [within a range of degrees] at present.
Show me what other knowledge is more objective than Scientific knowledge?
Point is whatever science concluded, it promise its conclusion should be repeatable for anyone who want to test it to confirm the conclusion.
Due to its testability, repetition and consistency, scientific knowledge are potentially very useful.

Despite its highest degree of objectivity, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures, i.e. not independent absolute truth of reality.

Scientific knowledge is NEVER wrong but by it nature is deemed 'right'. Scientific knowledge must be proven right within its Scientific Methods and peer review, thus can never be wrong. If it is wrong, then it would not qualify as scientific knowledge. This is the case with many past scientific theories which has been disqualified as scientific when discovered they are wrong upon new evidences.

So what counts is not whether scientific theories are absolute right or wrong.
What counts is whether scientific knowledge [its pros] can help humanity to progress or not, after, taking into account [weighing] its limitation and cons.

[tapaticmadness]

The human mind in general do not have direct contact but merely is triggered by waves from the supposedly external physical object.

Your materialism is overwhelming. Since I believe that materialism is a silly non-philosophy, I will leave you to your benighted existence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The human mind in general do not have direct contact but merely is triggered by waves from the supposedly external physical object.

Your materialism is overwhelming. Since I believe that materialism is a silly non-philosophy, I will leave you to your benighted existence.

As stated in the other post, the understanding of how the mind works is not materialism but rather it is neuroscience and neuro-psychology.

It is just like understanding how computer works down to the finest bits of the computer is not materialism.

Btw, I don't agree with materialism i.e. philosophical materialism which is the same as Philosophical Realism which I had highlighted I am anti- it.
If you are not a philosophical anti-realist, you are most likely a philosophical materialist if you reflect on this point more deeply.