PH Believes in an Independent Soul

[Veritas Aequitas]

As far as I understand PH [& Philosophical Realists] do not believe in an independent soul that survives physical death, BUT his belief that things exist independent of mind [human conditions] lead him to believe in such a soul.
Here is my argument and justification PH [& Philosophical Realists] believes in an independent Soul.

When I start with experiences and the empirical which is to be verified and justified by a human-based FSK, .e.g. the credible and reliable human-based scientific FSK, where can I go blatantly wrong?

Experiences of what? Empirical evidence of what? You deny that any of the things we experience are real - that the laptop I'm typing on is real - that experiences are real - that you and I exist at all. Where can you go wrong?! Please.

Strawman!!

(note:
mind = modern mind not Descartes's dualism,
there is duality to what is human, i.e. the I-THINK & the I-AM)


I stated objects of experience [TOP-DOWN] which can be verified and justified empirically via human-based FSK are real, where the scientific FSK realizes the most realistic reality.
This object of experience [e.g. the moon] is the object is entangled, emerged and realized within a human-based FSK [physics, cosmology], which is then perceived [biology, psychology], known [epistemology] and described [linguistic].

On the other hand, you are claiming 'the moon' pre-existed before there were humans and the moon exists whether there are humans 'looking' at it or not.
This is your Philosophical Realism ideology which insist mind-independent existence of things which is delusional in the ultimate sense.

that experiences are real - that you and I exist at all.

this pose a dilemma for you!

Yes, for me, you and I exists on the basis of anti-philosophical realism which is conditioned to the human conditions. So, if no human conditions, there is no you or I.

On the other hand, your ideology is things [including you & I] exist independent of the human conditions, i.e. things [including you & I] exist regards whether humans exist or not.
Logically, by the above principle, 'you' still exists if there are no humans [which include you as human].

This is your dilemma if you believe in things [reality] exist on the basis of independence from human conditions, i.e. that independent fact, as feature of reality, that is just-is, being-so and that is the case.

How do you resolve the above quandary and dilemma?

Note:
This is what theists as philosophical realists believe, i.e. their physical soul still exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is why Jihadists would not press the button to exterminate the human species with WMDs because they are so sure, they [you, I and them] will exist in paradise with 72 virgins.

Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

KIV Notes:

Philosophical Realism as adopted by PH and realists is defined below;

1. Philosophical Realism is .. about a certain kind of thing .. is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

2. This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.

3. [Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.

4. Philosophers who profess [Philosophical] realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.

5. [Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.

6. In some contexts, [Philosophical] realism is contrasted with [Philosophical] idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Note 2: 'the description is not the-described'
H had always insisted [which you agreed as a realist],
'the description is not the-described'
'what is perceived, known and described is not the independent fact, i.e. feature of reality.'

From the above, it follows that,
the empirical "I" that you are aware, see, touch, etc. perceived, known and described is NOT that "the-described I".

As such, as a realist, you would have been aware of an empirical-I or self that is independent of the supposedly factual-I or self.
Note a realist claims a fact is independent of mind [human conditions].

Therefore, your factual-I or self must be independent of the mind [human conditions].

The above sounds silly to you as you declared;
FH: I don't commit to "humans exist independent of the human conditions"

It is only silly because you insist your Philosophical Realism [independent of mind] is absolute and realistic all the way.
As I had argued Philosophical Realism is a BOTTOM-UP approach which is not ultimately realistic and tenable.
In addition, Philosophical Realism is fundamentally compatible with believing in a mind-independent soul and God which are both illusory.

It will only work if you accept the TOP-DOWN approach to reality, i.e.
whilst there is mind-independence at the common sense and conventional levels of reality, ultimately, that "mind-independence" itself is not absolutely independent of mind, but rather entangled with the mind [human conditions] i.e. anti-realism [TOP-DOWN] prevails ultimately.
viewtopic.php?p=638352#p638352

[Agent Smith]

The blank piece of paper lay on the table. There was a storm raging outside ... lightning flashes ... thunder (boom) ... the rain drops streaked the windows ... the wind found a way in ... old wooden planks ... old, old wooden planks ... the door creaked ... footfalls ... frantic. How many people are in the room?

[Harbal]

Views?

Just a queastion: WTF is going on with you and Peter Holmes?

[Flannel Jesus]

Views?

Silly word game at best. You haven't made any point here more substantial than that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Views?

Silly word game at best. You haven't made any point here more substantial than that.

This is quite a complex issue [paradigm] for me to communicate and for others to grasp.
What is that you find silly?
I will explain to reconcile to my thesis and need feedback to make it understandable.

[Flannel Jesus]

You extrapolate the belief that, in general, things exist whether a human being is looking at them or not, whether a human being knows they exist or not, to "things exist independent of the human condition". The silly word game is going from that to "humans exist independent of the human condition" - you've just wiggled around some words to produce an incoherent belief, and assigned that belief to PH and other realists.

[Flannel Jesus]

In other words, a realist wouldn't necessarily agree with the statement "I exist independent of my own human conditions", because a realist might understand it as, the thing that "I" refers to certainly only exists precisely because of those conditions.

But they would still expect the matter that composes their body and their brain to continue to exist after their mind goes silent, and that that matter existed prior to their conception.

This is all a word game based on silly constructed equivocations, it doesn't actually touch on the mental model of the world that realists actually have.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You extrapolate the belief that, in general, things exist whether a human being is looking at them or not, whether a human being knows they exist or not, to "things exist independent of the human condition". The silly word game is going from that to "humans exist independent of the human condition" - you've just wiggled around some words to produce an incoherent belief, and assigned that belief to PH and other realists.

The problem is PH do not believe a 'mind' exist, that is why I have to use "human conditions" as a substitute to avoid PH's being stuck with his anti-Descartes' dualist view.
The point is at present the term 'mind' is used in the modern mode, i.e.

The mind is the set of faculties responsible for all mental phenomena. Often the term is also identified with the phenomena themselves.[2][3][4] These faculties include thought, imagination, memory, will, and sensation. They are responsible for various mental phenomena, like perception, pain experience, belief, desire, intention, and emotion. Various overlapping classifications of mental phenomena have been proposed. Important distinctions group them according to whether they are sensory, propositional, intentional, conscious, or occurrent.
-WIKI

I have presented the definition of what is Philosophical Realism here,
viewtopic.php?p=637880#p637880
do you agree with it?

The central criteria of Philosophical Realism is mind-independence of reality.

[Flannel Jesus]

Since minds exist in reality, to a realist, it might be a bit weird to suggest that all of reality is "mind independent" - a realist might see that as similar to saying that the set of all numbers is 2-independent, it exists independently of the number 2. Someone could disagree that reality is entirely mind independent, in the same way the set of all numbers is not 2-independent, and still be a realist.

[Flannel Jesus]

I also think it's worth you specifying which type of realist you're talking about, because you have two competing definitions at play across your threads.

Type alpha: an alpha realist is someone who thinks there are objective facts about reality regardless of whether any conscious being is aware of those facts or not. This includes but is distinct from:

Type A: a type a realist is an alpha-realist who furthermore believes that THIS PLACE that we seem to exist in (earth, the milky way, the universe that houses these things) is objectively real, existed before conscious creatures were aware of it, and will continue to exist after consciousness goes extinct. A type a realist generally believes that our sensory experiences are in contact with objective reality in some way.

At times you argue against type alpha realism (which includes brain in a vat view, like I said in another thread), and at other times you argue against type A realism.

I've just made up these type labels and completely spitballed the definitions, so I accept that the labels and definitions may be off in some way, worth tweaking or maybe even throwing out.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In other words, a realist wouldn't necessarily agree with the statement "I exist independent of my own human conditions", because a realist might understand it as, the thing that "I" refers to certainly only exists precisely because of those conditions.

But they would still expect the matter that composes their body and their brain to continue to exist after their mind goes silent, and that that matter existed prior to their conception.

This is all a word game based on silly constructed equivocations, it doesn't actually touch on the mental model of the world that realists actually have.

If you are interest in this discussion, then we can start with the definition of what is philosophical realism, i.e. the main being;

• 1. Philosophical Realism is .. about a certain kind of thing .. is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

If you agree with mind-independent existence reality, then I don't have to mention 'human conditions' at all.

To be specific, philosophical realism is the thesis that reality [all things including humans. the self] has mind-independent existence.
This meant that there is an objective reality that exists even if there are no living humans to perceive them.

Here is the difficult part.
1. A Philosophical Realist believes that reality has mind-independent existence.
2. Reality is all there is, i.e. comprised of things, humans and the person himself or his self.
3. As such, things, humans, oneself has mind-independent existence.

From the above, it meant that,
since oneself has mind-independent existence as per Philosophical Realism,
oneself must be different and independent from one's mind.

Here is where there is the I-Think mind [the thinking mind] and the I-AM mind [the persistent self].

My point is,
if you maintain the reality has mind-independence existence,
then you have to ensure all of reality [things, humans, oneself] also has mind-independence existence.
for the oneself to have mind-independence existence, it must be independent of the mind.
Since it cannot be the MIND, it has to be one's independent mind, i.e. the I-AM persistent mind.

Does the above make sense to you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Noted your various types of realist you stated above.
Will get to that later.

[Iwannaplato]

In other words, a realist wouldn't necessarily agree with the statement "I exist independent of my own human conditions", because a realist might understand it as, the thing that "I" refers to certainly only exists precisely because of those conditions.

VA seems to know this. He considers radical embodied cognition theory to be a realism and they sure as heck wouldn't assert that. And realist biologists, nutritionists, sociologists and more would be shocked to find that really, they believe this.

[Flannel Jesus]

Does the above make sense to you?

No, that doesn't make sense to me. Still seems like a word game.